The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2014-03-18_COUNCIL MEETING,rte AGENDA CITY COUNCIL MEETING CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS TUESDAY, MARCH 18, 2014 7:00 M. 1. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA IV. ADOPTION OF CONSENT AGENDA All agenda items listed on the consent agenda are considered routine and will be enacted by one motion. There .will be no separate discussion of such items unless requested to be removed from the Consent Agenda by a Member of the City Council. In such cases the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered immediately following the adoption of the Consent Agenda. (Favorable rollcall vote of majority of Council Members present to approve.) A. Approval of Minutes — Regular Meeting of March 4, 2014 and Work Session of March 4, 2014 B. Receive Payment of Claims as per: Pre -List Dated, 3/06/2014 TOTAL $921,605.17 and per Pre -List Dated, 3/13/2014 TOTAL $1,163,468.11 and Credit Card,Purchases: 12/26/2013 — 1 /25/2014 TOTAL $39,980.58 C. Edina Community Health Commission Bylaws Amendment D. Request For Purchase — Award of Bid — Contract ENG 13 -18 Bridge Repairs (West 78th Street and Gus Young Lane Bridges) E. Approve Supplement Assessment Agreement & Waving Of Public Hearing, 4316 Eton Place F. Approve Release of Public Improvement & Special Assessment Agreement, 5017 W. 56th Street G. Resolution No. 2014 -24 Lot Division & Front Yard Setback -Variance, 5617 and 5613 Wooddale Avenue, Chris & Anne Hill H. Authorization To Utilize Metro ECSU Cooperative Purchasing Agency — Purchase Of Artificial Turf For The Sports Dome & Pamela Park Projects I. Receive Report From Community Advisory Team — Redevelopment Strategy For Grandview Public Works Site , J. Resolution No. 2014 -28 Declaring Hazardous Building, 4100 Parklawn Avenue K. Resolution Of Appreciation To Metropolitan Airport Commission For Recent Work Regarding Airport Noise V. SPECIAL RECOGNITIONS AND PRESENTATIONS A. Speak Up Edina Monthly Report Agenda/Edina City Council March 18, 2014 Page 2 VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS During "Public Hearings,' the Mayor will ask for public testimony after City staff members make their presentations. If you wish to testify on the. topic, you are welcome to do so as long as your testimony is relevant to the discussion. To ensure fairness to all speakers and to allow the efficient conduct of a public hearing, speakers must observe the following guidelines: • Individuals must limit their testimony to three minutes. The Mayor may modify times, as deemed necessary. • Try not to repeat remarks or points of view made by prior speakers and limit testimony to the matter under consideration. • In order to maintain a respectful environment for all those in attendance, the use of signs, clapping, cheering or booing or any other form of verbal or nonverbal communication is not allowed. A. PUBLIC HEARING — Preliminary Rezoning From MDD -6 to PUD and Overall Development Plan, Pentagon Revival, Resolution No. 2014 -29 (Favorable vote of majority of Council Members present to approve) . VII. COMMUNITY COMMENT During "Community Comment" the City Council will invite residents to share new issues or concerns that haven't been considered in the past 30 days by the Council or which aren't slated for future consideration. Individuals must limit their comments to three minutes. The Mayor may limit the number of speakers on the same issue in the interest of time and topic Generally speaking items that are elsewhere on tonight's agenda may not be addressed during Community Comment Individuals should not expect the Mayor or Council to respond to their comments tonight Instead the Council might refer the matter to staff j` for consideration at a future meeting. VIII. REPORTS /RECOMMENDATIONS: (Favorable vote of majority of Council Members present to approve except where noted) A. Consideration Of Citizens' Petition For Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) For Conversion Of the Fred Richards Golf Course In Edina, Resolution No. 2014 -30 B. Golf Course Operations Study C. Resolution No. 2014 -31 Accepting Various Donations D. Pentagon Park Redevelopment - Authorizing Preparation Of Redevelopment Agreement IX.. CORRESPONDENCE AND.PETITIONS A. Correspondence B. Minutes 1. Park Board, February 11, 2014 2. Arts & Culture Commission, January 23, 2014 3. Heritage Preservation Board, February 11, 2014 J X. AVIATION NOISE UPDATE IV Tues Tues Tues Tues Tues Tues Tues Tues Tues Aes Mon Tues Tues Tues Tues Agenda/Edina City Council March 18, 2014 Page 3 A. Noise Oversight Committee (NOC) Resolution Regarding Recent FAA Action On RNAV At Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport XI. MAYOR AND COUNCIL COMMENTS XII. MANAGER'S COMMENTS XIII. ADJOURNMENT EDINA HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 1. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF HRA - Meeting of March 4, 2014 V. CHANGE ORDER — Building Demolition At 3930 West 49 -1/2 Street VI. CHANGE ORDER — Environmental Services At 3930 West 49 -1/2 Street VII. PENTAGON PARK REDEVELOPMENT — Authorizing Preparation Of Redevelopment Agreement VIII. ADJOURNMENT The City of Edina wants all residents to be comfortable being part of the public process. If you need assistance in the way of hearing amplification, an interpreter, large -print documents or something else, please call 952- 927 -8861 72 hours in advance of the meeting. SCHEDULE OF UPCOMING MEETINGSIDATESIEVENTS Mar 18 Work Session — Bike Edina Task Force /Joint Meeting With ETC 5:00 P.M. COMMUNITY ROOM Pentagon Park Term Sheet Mar 18 Regular Meeting 7:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS Apr 1 Work Session- Arden Park Watershed District Partnership 5:30 P.M. COMMUNITY ROOM Future Water Utility Needs Apr 1 Regular Meeting 7:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS Apr 22 Business Meeting/Joint Meeting With Arts & Culture Comm. 5:30 P.M. COMMUNITY ROOM Apr 22 Regular Meeting 7:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS May 6 Work Session — 50`h & France Special Assessment Policy 5:30 P.M. COMMUNITY ROOM May 6 Regular Meeting 7:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS May 20 Work Session —Joint Session With HRRC /Former PW 5:00 P.M. COMMUNITY ROOM Site Redevelopment Process May 20 Regular Meeting 7:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS May 26 MEMORIAL DAY HOLIDAY OBSERVED — City Hall Closed Jun 3 Work Session —Joint Meeting With Health Commission 5:30 P.M. COMMUNITY ROOM Jun 3 Regular Meeting 7:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS Jun 17 Work Session — Community Vision Consultant Interviews 5:00 P.M. COMMUNITY ROOM Jun 17 Regular Meeting 7:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS MINUTES . OF THE WORK SESSION OF THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL HELD AT CITY_ HALL MARCH 4, 2014 5:30 P.M. Mayor Hovland called the work session of the Edina City Council to order at 5:33 p.m. ROLLCALL Answering rollcall were: Members, Brindle, Sprague, Swenson and Mayor Hovland. Member Bennett entered the meeting at 5:36 p.m. Edina City Staff attending the meeting: Jennifer Bennerotte, Communications & Technology Services Director; Annie Coyle, City Manager Fellow; Jordan Gilgenbach, Communications Coordinator; Ann Kattreh, Director of Parks and Recreation; Karen Kurt, Assistant City Manager; Debra Mangen, City Clerk; Kaylin Martin, Communications Coordinator; Chad Millner, Engineering Director; Scott Neal, City Manager; Bill Neuendorf, Economic Development Manager and Mark Nolan, Transportation Planner. Also attending was Toby Muse, Short Elliot Hendrickson, consultant. NINE MILE CREEK REGIONAL TRAIL UPDATE John Gunyou, Three Rivers Park District Board Chair, Jonathan Vlaming, Associate Superintendent Three Rivers Park District and Eric Nelson, Engineer Three Rivers Park District attended to present an update of the construction timetable for the Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail scheduled to be built in Edina. It was noted this was the missing link connecting Edina in all four directions and would allow someone to use a bicycle to go from Lake Minnetonka to the airport. Federal funding has been secured for the east leg through Edina (from Tracy Avenue near the High School easterly along the Creek to France Avenue/Promenade), and .federal funds were anticipated for the western leg (from T.H. 169 east to Tracy). Final design and alignment will come before the City Council during the summer, followed by preliminary engineering in the fall and construction bidding in January 2015. Construction would take two seasons with the trail's expected opening in the spring of 2014. Three Rivers staff informed the Council that Jason McGrew -King would be,their contact for the Edina segment of the trail. DESTINATION MARKETING ORGANIZATION Lori Syverson, President, Edina Chamber of Commerce and Chamber Members, Jay Abdeo, Joe Arends, and Don Hutchison presented a proposal to create a Destination Marketing Organization (Explore Edina) otherwise known as a visitor's bureau in Edina to help promote Edina as a desirable destination for visitors and convention business. The Explore Edina organization would be funded by a 3% hotel occupancy tax. The Westin anaR hotels hares indicated support for creation of such an organization bum Marriott hotel has not weighed in yJ Explore Edina would be a separate entity but would initially share space with the Edina Chamber. The Council indicated its support of such a concept. Mayor Hovland adjourned the meeting at 6:53 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Debra A. Mangen, City Clerk. Minutes approved by Edina City Council, March 18, 2014. James, B. Hovland, Mayor A r MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL HELD AT CITY HALL MARCH 4, 2014 7:00 P.M. 1. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Hovland called the meeting to order at 7:07 p.m. 11. ROLLCALL Answering rollcall were Members Bennett, Brindle, Sprague, Swenson and Mayor Hovland. 111. MEETING AGENDA APPROVED Member Bennett made a motion, seconded by Member Sprague, approving the meeting agenda. Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Sprague, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. IV. CONSENT AGENDA ADOPTED Member Swenson made a motion, seconded by Member Sprague, approving the consent agenda as follows: IV.A. Approve regular and work session meeting minutes of February 18, 2014 IV.B. Receive payment of the following claims as shown in detail on the Check Register dated February 20, 2014, and consisting of 29 pages; General Fund $184,336.03; Police Special Revenue $585.50; Working Capital Fund $53,757.84; Art Center Fund $2,692.41; Golf Dome Fund $111,021.78; Golf Course Fund $12,415.05; Ice Arena Fund $14,439.46; Edinborough Park Fund $5,548.37; Centennial Lakes Park Fund $3,997.67; Liquor Fund $212,069.16; Utility Fund $45,697.71; Storm Sewer Fund $37.24; PSTF Agency Fund $3,690.49; Payroll Fund $2,962.60; TOTAL $653,251.31 and for receipt of payment of claims dated February 27, 2014, and consisting of 23 pages; General Fund $135,812.90; Working Capital Fund $53,483.17; Art Center Fund $1,592.33; Golf Dome Fund $10,237.44; Aquatic Center Fund $24.69; Golf Course Fund $1,199.76; Ice Arena Fund $9,911.54; Edinborough Park Fund $1,355.55; Centennial Lakes Park Fund $4,475.01; Liquor Fund $145,662.47; Utility Fund $43,780.11; PSTF Agency Fund $50.00; Centennial TIF District $20,442.06; Grandview TIF District $3,500.00; Payroll Fund $6,169.87; TOTAL $437,696.90 IV.C. Request for Purchase, Premium Efficiency Boiler Lochinvar KBX400, Edinborough Park, awarding the bid to the recommended low bidder, Horwitz NSI at $34,322 IV.D. Request for Purchase, Toro 4500 -D Mower, Braemar Golf Course, awarding the bid to the recommended low bidder, MTI Distributing at $47,447.82 IV.E. Request for Purchase, Toro 3500 -D Mower, Braemar Golf Course, awarding the bid to the recommended low bidder, MTI Distributing at $25,073.18 IV.F. Request for Purchase, Asphalt and Concrete Crushing, Public Works, awarding the bid to the recommended low bidder, Jay Johnson Construction at $3.25 per ton IV.G. Request for Purchase, Aquatic Vegetation Management, Contract No. ENG 14 -2NB, awarding the bid to the recommended low bidder, Lake Management, Inc. at $31,675.00 IV.H. Approve Waiver of Trespass /Right of Entry Agreement for 7101 France Avenue, Rue de France IV.I. Approve On -Sale Intoxicating, Club On -Sale, and Sunday Sale, Wine and Beer Liquor License Renewals as follows: On -Sale Intoxicatinp, & Sunday Sale: Big Bowl, Cocina Del Barrio, Crave Restaurant, Eden Avenue Grill, Edina Grill Restaurant, Lake Shore Grill, McCormick & Page 1 Minutes /Edina City Council /March 4, 2014 J Schmick Seafood Restaurant, Mozza Mia, Nakomori Japanese Bistro, P.F. Chang's Bistro, Pinstripes, Inc., Pittsburgh Blue, Raku, Inc., Rojo Mexican Grill, Romano's Macaroni Grill, Ruby Tuesday, Salut Bar Americain, Tavern on France, The Cheesecake Factory, and Westin Edina Galleria; Club & Sunday Sale: Edina Country Club and Interlachen Country Club; On- Sale Wine and On -Sale 3.2 Beer: Beaujo's, Biryani, Chipoktle Mexican Grill, Crooks of Crocus Hill, D'Amico & Sons, Good Earth Restaurant, Makers Cafe 1, Hello Pizza, Marriott Residence Inn, Noodles & Company, People's Organic Coffee /Wine Galleria Cafe, Red's Savoy Pizza, Rice Paper Asian Fusion Restaurant, Smashburger, and TJ's of Edina Restaurant; On -Sale 3.2 Licenses: Chuck E. Cheese's and Davanni's Pizza /Hoagies; and, Off -Sale 3.2 Licenses: Cub Foods, DB Convenience LLC (Edina Market & Deli), Holiday Stationstore #217, Jerry's Foods, and Speedway SuperAmerica LLC IV.J. Authorize City Council Members to Attend the 2014 Congressional Cities Conference of the National League of Cities Rollcall: Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Sprague, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. V. SPECIAL RECOGNITIONS AND PRESENTATIONS None. VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS HELD — Affidavits of Notice presented and ordered placed on file. VI.A. SUBDIVISION, 6304 AND 6312 WARREN AVENUE, HOMESTEAD PARTNERS — RESOLUTION NO. 2014 -25 —ADOPTED Community Development Director Presentation Community Development Director Teague presented the request of Homestead Partners LLC to subdivide properties at 6304 and 6312 Warren Avenue into three lots. The existing two homes would be torn down and three new homes built on the new lots. He advised that the proposal meets all minimum lot size requirements. Lots 1 and 2 would gain access off 63rd Street and Lot 3 would gain access off Warren Avenue. Mr. Teague reviewed the revised landscape plan to accommodate the neighborhood's input. He advised of the Planning Commission's unanimous recommendation for approval subject to findings and conditions as detailed in the February 12, 2014 staff memorandum. Mr. Teague and City Engineer Millner answered questions of the Council relating to the species of trees that would be saved as a result of relocating the utility lines, alignment of underground utilities, one -day Wyman Bridge closure, curb cuts, placement of driveways, and buildable area. Proponent Presentation Matthew Hanish, 635 Danube Avenue, Shakopee, representing Homestead Partners, assured the Council that boulevard trees would be saved to the extent possible. He stated Mr. Bona had contacted the resident who voiced concerns at the public hearing. Mayor Hovland opened the public hearing at 7:21 p.m. Public Testimony Jerry Erickson, 6325 Mildred Avenue, addressed the Council. Member Swenson made a motion, seconded by Member Sprague, to close the public hearing. Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Sprague, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. Page 2 !a Minutes /Edina City Council /March 4,4014 The Council addressed issues raised during public testimony and discussed the conditions of approval. Member Swenson introduced and moved adoption of Resolution No. 2014 -25, Approving a Preliminary Plat at 6304 and 6312 Warren Avenue, subject to the following-conditions- 1. the City'must approve the final plat within one year of preliminary approval or receive a written application for a time extension or the preliminary plat will be void. - 2. Park dedication fee of $5;000 must be paid prior to release of the final plat. 3. Prior to issuance of a building'permit, the.following must be submitted: a. ''Submit evidence of' Nine Mile Creek Watershed District approval. The City may require revisions to the preliminary plat to meet the District's requirements. b. Curb -cut permits must be obtained from thefdina Engineering Department. c. A grading 'plan subject to review and approval of the City Engineer is required for each building permit. There shall be no increase in flow volume or peak rate to adjacent property. d. A construction management plan will be required for the construction of the new homes. e. Utility hook -ups are subject to review of the City Engineer. 4. Final site development shall be consistent with preliminary plat, landscape plan, drainage plan, and utility plan date stamped 2- 24 -14. 5. Should boulevard trees' die during construction of the new homes, they must be replaced one for one. 6. No boulevard tree shall be removed for the location of new driveways. Member Bennett seconded the motion. Ayes: Bennett,'Brindle, Sprague, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. VI. B. GOLF COURSE OPERATIONS —FRED RICHARDS GOLF COURSE— TABLED TO MARCH 18, 2014 Parks & Recreation Director Presentation Manager Neal and Parks & 'Recreation Director Kattreh provided a review of past considerations related to the City's Golf Enterprise and presented the Golf Course Operations Study, findings, and six - step strategy to narrow the scope of golf operations; invest in improvements at Braemar Golf Course; modify prices and discounts; outsource ancillary services; expand marketing; and, improve customer services. A slide was displayed depicting future significant non - budgeted expenses at Fred Richards Golf Course. The recommendation of the Park Board was presented to support the golf operations proposal and close Fred Richards Golf Course. In response to the Council's question, Mr. Neal commented on the importance of protecting the City's AAA bond rating, which was enjoyed by less than 6% municipalities nationwide, and negative impact relating to the City's golf operation and accumulated deficit. Mr. Neal described ',the state statute "Edina Law," which allowed the City to borrow, money without public referendum ,for recreation enterprises as long as the pooled finances of the enterprises covered operating expenses. Again, the golf operating deficit impacted the City's ability to borrow money for improvements to recreational facilities. Ms. Kattreh stated for the last twenty years there had been a significant bond payment for Fred Richards Golf Course and if that debt payment was not factored in, operations reached a break -even point. However, there was $50,000 in unallocated expenses (supplies, staffing) not currently being charged to Fred Richards Golf Course. Staff recommended focusing the City's resources to one golf campus. With regard to maintenance at Fred Richards Golf Course, one of the challenges was soft Page 3 Minutes /Edina City Council /March_.4, 2014 soils comprised of peat, causing undulation in the turf and non - buildable soils. Ms. Kattreh explained how overall capacity was analyzed for Braemar and Fred Richards Golf Courses and the estimated number of.golf holes that were available in surrounding communities. Assistant Finance Director Roggeman displayed a graphic depicting the Golf Fund Baseline Scenario and explained how cost recovery percentages (revenues, over, expenses)- were determined. He indicated there was currently a negative $1 million cash balance in the Golf Fund acid the analysis assumed the Golf Fund would continue to receive a, subsidy totaling $500,000 per year., Mr. Roggeman then presented.a baseline.scenario with the Fred Richards Golf Course closed tliat.showed an.87% cost recovery in 2020;.and;'a baseline scenario with the six strategies:in place.that. showed a 101% cost recovery in 2020 with the cash balance going positive in 2018 -2019. He displayed a ten - year history of the Golf Course Cash and Investment Account showing a negative balance of $1 million. . It was. noted the liquor operation had a liquidity of 4 -5% (current; assets over current liabilities). The Council acknowledged that for many years, the City :had subsidized four separate recreation enterprises. The Council asked about the impact to the Construction' Fund balance and deficit that would be faced in 2015. Mr. Roggeman stated there were .more, projects for the Construction Fund than dollars available so the more subsidies provided to the enterprises, the fewer dollars available for long -term capital improvements. Ms. Kattreh described golfing programs that would be developed at Braemar for families, juniors, and women. She indicated Braemar had capacity to accommodate those groups and proposed changes to the Braemar Club House-would create a more welcoming environment for all. Ms. Kattreh stated with the proposed investment, Braemar would become the best.training facility in the,State in terms of the driving range and golf dome by accommodating golfers year round in i variety... of programs. She explained the "Tee It Forward" program, sponsored by the US Golf Association, and described use of the Clunie Nine. The Council assured the public that the consideration to close the Fred Richards Golf Course had nothing to do with Hillcrest Development or the commercial property to the south. There was no intent to sell this property, should Fred Richards Golf Course be closed, or install a north /south roadway. This land would remain greenspace /park. In addition, the Pentagon Park project had no impact on this consideration and would proceed on its own merits and Council action. The Council noted that in 2011, the National Golf Foundation raised concern that the executive courses at Braemar and Fred Richards competed with each other so a, redesign was proposed to have a Par 3 at Braemar. Ms. Kattreh stated staff had prepared financial projections for the redesigned Par 3 and that data was part of the overall number of rounds when determining capacity. The Council asked questions of staff relating to revenues that would be generated under different scenarios including having a Par 3 at Braemar and an executive course at Fred Richards. Ms. Kattreh stated staff had not prepared a projection on that scenario but did run scenarios with increasing marketing, increasing rates, different driving range scenarios, outsourcing the. pro shop and /or restaurant, and reducing staff. She explained that staff's analysis started with how to cover 100% of operating and capital costs and combinations of variables to determine the scenario that resulted in the highest cost recovery percentage in the long run. Mayor Hovland opened the public hearing at 8:45 p.m. Public Testimony Page 4 Minutes /Edina City Council /March 4, 2014 Wayde Heirigs,4529 Gilford Drive, addressed the Council. Derek Johnson, 7421 West Shore Drive, addressed the Council. Barton Halling, 4424 Gilford Drive, addressed the Council. Andrea Keller, 4010 Monterey Avenue;'addressed the Council. John Velgersdyk, 4516 Sedum Lane, addressed,the Council. Richard Wipperfurth, 6717 Wooddale Avenue, addressed the Council and read a letter from David Mooty. Robert Peterson, 5620 Doron Drive, addressed the Council and read a letter from R.J. Smiley, 6205 St. Johns Avenue. Laura Schleck, 7408,Kellogg Avenue, addressed the Council. Anna Heirigs, 4529 Gilford Drive, addressed the Council. James Scattergood, 4948 Poppy Lane, addressed the Council. Dan Olson, 210 West 401h Street, Minneapolis, addressed the Council. Felicity Hanson, 7457 West Shore Drive, addressed the Council. Paul Rosenthal, 4721 Hibiscus Avenue, addressed the Council. Wayne Vandervort, 4525 Gilford Drive, addressed the Council. Paul Meierant, 6317 Mildred Avenue, addressed the Council. Jerry Erickson, 6325 Mildred Avenue, addressed the Council. Ron Ousky, 4412 Gilford Drive, addressed the Council. Tim Nasby 7408 West Shore Drive, addressed the Council. Member Swenson made a motion, seconded by Member Sprague, to close the public hearing. Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Sprague, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. The Council and staff addressed issues raised during public testimony including timing of a formal EAW response, ability to build an executive course at Braemar, options to use Tax Increment Financing, marketing of Braemar and Fred Richards Golf Courses, consultant prepared proforma, and benefit of master planning. Mr. Neal stated the goal of the study was not to figure out a way to close Fred Richards Golf Course, as that would be a loss to the entire community, but to address the Golf Enterprise deficit and financial sustainability. He explained if the parameter was to not borrow more Page 5 Minutes /Edina City Council /March 4, 2014 money and to make golf improvements with golf revenue, there were no funds available to even do master planning given the current state of the Golf Enterprise., Mr. Neal explained that because of this, the only funding source to do master planning was not doing something else scheduled in the Capital Improvement Plan. The strategy was to identify operating expenses the City could net out and leverage to fund a driving range expansion that all agree would ,drive cash flow. That cash flow could then be used for a master plan and new debt financing. Ms..Kattreh explained that NGF was directed to not look.at closing any golf courses.or staff-cuts when preparing its study and to determine the best course of operations under existing conditions. She. stated the issues of pacing /walkability and .,playability, under the plan presented for the repurposed Par 3 course, would be significantly increased. The Council agreed the issue was how to best leverage the City's golf resources. Member Sprague made a motion, seconded by Member Bennett, to table consideration of the golf operations proposal and recommendation to close Fred Richards Golf Course to March 18, 20141 to allow time for staff to prepare a response to public testimony and Council comments. Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Sprague, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. The meeting recessed at 10:07 p.m. and reconvened at.10:11 p.m. VII. COMMUNITY COMMENT No one appeared to comment. Vlll. REPORTS/ RECOMMENDATIONS VIII.A. ORDINANCE NO. 2014 -03 AMENDING CHAPTER 2 OF EDINA CODE CONCERNING BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS —ADOPTED Clerk Mangen presented the draft ordinance that would create another position on the Energy and Environment Commission and staffs recommendation to waive Second Reading to facilitate the appointment. The Council discussed the recommendation, optimal group size, and desire to encompass highly qualified members. Member Swenson made a motion to grant First and waive Second Reading adopting Ordinance No. 2014 -03 Amending the Edina City Code Concerning the Energy & Environment Commission. Member Bennett seconded the motion. Rollcall: Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Sprague, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. VIII.B. EDINA COMMUNITY HEALTH BOARD SEAT — STATE COMMUNITY HEALTH SERVICES ADVISORY COUNCIL — REFERRED TO THE COMMUNITY HEALTH BOARD FOR RECOMMENDATION Community Health Administrator Brown requested the Council's consideration of an appointment to the Edina Community Health Board -seat on. the State Community Health Services Advisory Committee. It was noted the City's previous representative .was a staff member. The Council discussed the appointment. The consensus of the Council was to . solicit a recommendation from the Community Health Board on nomination to the State Community Health Services Advisory Committee. VIII.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2014-26 ADOPTED — ACCEPTING VARIOUS DONATIONS Mayor Hovland explained that in order to comply with State Statutes; all donations to the City must be adopted by Resolution and approved by four favorable votes of. the Council accepting the Page 6 r Minutes /Edina City Council /March 4, 2014 donations. Member Bennett introduced and moved adoption of Resolution No. 2014 -26 accepting various donations. Member Brindle seconded the motion. Rollcall: Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Sprague, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. VIII.D. SOT" & FRANCE AVENUE PARKING RAMPS AND RELATED STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENT NO. P =23, RESOLUTION NO. 2014-18 —ADOPTED Economic Development Manager Neuendorf explained thatlhe content of the feasibility study, draft resolution, and staff report had not materially changed since the February' 18, 2014, public hearing. However, Ordinance 2014 -02 had been updated to address concerns expressed by the Council. The Council thanked staff for the level of detail and specificity provided in the updated parking plan. Mr. Neuendorf noted enforcement language that had been added so. if employees chose to park in the ramp, a permit was required and failure to purchase a permit was'a violation. He reviewed adjustments made that included time restrictions and simplified fee structure. Member Swenson introduced and moved adoption of Resolution No. 2014 -18 Ordering Improvement No. P -23, 50th and France Parking and Wayfinding Improvements. Member Bennett seconded the motion. Rollcall: Ayes; Bennett, Brindle, Sprague, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. VIII.E. SECOND READING GRANTED: PARKING PERMIT POLICY AND FEES IN 50' & FRANCE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, ORDINANCE NO. 2014 -02 — ADOPTED; AND, PARKING TIME LIMITS FOR MUNICIPAL PARKING FACILITIES, RESOLUTION NO. 2014-27 —ADOPTED Mr. Neuendorf described methods of enforcement. Member Swenson made a motion to grant Second Reading "adopting Ordinance No. 2014 -02; Amending Chapters 2 and 24 of the Edina City Code concerning Permits for Municipal Parking `Facilities and adoption of Resolution No. 2014 -27 Establishing Parking Time Limits for Municipal Parking Facilities. Member Bennett seconded the motion.. Rollcall: Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Sprague, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. VIII.F. APPOINTMENTS TO ADVISORY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS —RATIFIED Mayor.Hovland presented a slate of appointments to Advisory Boards and Commissions. Member Bennett made a motion, seconded by Member Sprague, to appoint the persons selected by the council to the boards and commissions listed below. -Art Center Board: Anne Miller to a three -year term ending February 1, 2017; Board of Appeals & Equalization: Scott Smith and Alex Schlichter both to one -year terms ending February 1f 1, 2015;. Community Health Commission: Ginny Ogle and Michael Sackett to three -year terms ending February 1, 2017; Construction Board of Appeals: Doug Hall to a three -year term ending February 1, 2017; Energy & Environment Commission: Louis Waddick to a one -year term ending February 1, 2015 and William Glahn to a three - year.term ending February 1, 2017; Heritage Preservation Board: Bruce McLellan to a two year term ending February 1, 2016; Human Rights & Relations Commission: Ellen Kennedy, Tiffany Sanders, and Derek Carter to.three -year terms ending February 1, 2017; Park Board: Thomas Downing to a one year term ending February 1, 2015, Gerard Greene and Brenda Page 7 Minutes /Edina City Council /March 4, 2014 �- McCormick to three -year terms ending February 1, 2017; Plannine Commission: Susan Lee to a one year term ending February 1, 2015 and JoAnn Olsen to a three -year term ending February 1, 2017; and, Transportation Commission: Larry Olson to a two -year term ending February 1, 2016; and, • reappointing to the Transportation Commission: Dawn Spanhake to a two year term ending February 1, 2016. Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Sprague, Swenson,. Hovland Motion carried. IX. CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS IX.A. CORRESPONDENCE Mayor Hovland acknowledged. the Council's receipt of various correspondence. 1X.8. MINUTES: 1. ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT COMMISSION, JANUARY 9, 2014 Informational; no action required.. X. AVIATION NOISE UPDATE- Received X1. MAYOR AND COUNCIL COMMENTS — Received X11. MANAGER'S COMMENTS — Received XIII. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business on the Council Agenda, Mayor Hovland declared the meeting adjourned at 11:04 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Debra A. Mangen, .City Clerk Minutes approved by Edina City Council, March 18, 2014. James B. Hovland, Mayor. . Video Copy of the March 4, 2014, meeting available. Page 8 R55CKR2 LOGIS100 CITY OF EDINA 314/2014 11:32:40 Council Check Register by GL Page- 1 Council Check Register and Summary 316/2014 — 3/6/2014 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 380610 3/6/2014 133644 A DYNAMIC. DOOR CO INC. 1,751.77 RAMP TRASH DOORS REPAIR 336656 21402191 1375.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PARKING RAMP 1,751.77 380611 3/6/2014 127126 AAKER, KRIS 56.00 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT 336489 022714 1140.6107 MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE PLANNING 56.00 380612 3/612014 133522 AARP DRIVERS SAFETY 230.00 EDINA SR CENTER CLASS 336718 FEB 27 CLASS 1628.4392.09 SENIOR SPECIAL EVENTS SENIOR CITIZENS 230.00 380513 3/6/2014 126198 AARSVOLD, KRISTIN 106.15 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT 336719 022814 1600.6107 MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE PARK ADMIN. GENERAL 106.15 380614 3/6/2014 102971 ACE ICE COMPANY 40.40 336411 1765678 5862.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING 24.00- 336412 1763178 5822.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX 50TH ST SELLING 40.40 336567 1767030 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING 56.80 380516 31612014 100676 ALL SAFE INC. 194.48 KITCHEN HOOD INSPSECTION 00006291 336490 127420 5421.6102 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES GRILL 194.48 380616 316/2014 106991 AL'S COFFEE COMPANY 202.78 COFFEE 336720 32546 5730.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD EDINBOROUGH CONCESSIONS 202.78 380617 3/6/2014 102470 AON RISK SERVICES INC. OF MN 6,317.00 COMMERCIAL PACKAGE POLICY 336721 6100000151448 1550.6200 INSURANCE CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL 6,317.00 380618 3/6/2014 102172 APPERT'S FOODSERVICE j 424.99 CONCESSION PRODUCT 336722 2067655 5730.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD EDINBOROUGH CONCESSIONS 312.49 CONCESSION PRODUCT 336723 2071258 5730.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD EDINBOROUGH CONCESSIONS 348.86 CONCESSION PRODUCT 336724 2069923 5730.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD EDINBOROUGH CONCESSIONS 24.00- CREDIT 336725 2068889 5730.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD EDINBOROUGH CONCESSIONS 1,062.34 R55CKR2 LOGIS100 CITY OF EDINA 3/4/2014 11:32:40 - Council Check Register by GL Page - 2 Council Check Register and Summary 3/6/2014 - 3/6/2014 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 380519 316/2014 131381 APPLIANCE CONNECTIONS INC. Continued... 29.36 PERMIT REFUND 336726 ED128402 1495.4112 PLUMBING PERMITS INSPECTIONS 29.36 380520 3/6/2014 103680 ARAMARK REFRESHMENT SRVCS 488.76 COFFEE 336338 1112103 1550.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL 486.76 380521 31612014 114475 ARMOR SECURITY INC. 189.40 REPLACE SMOKE ALARM 336339 176860 1646:6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES BUILDING MAINTENANCE 189.40 380522 3/6/2014 132031 ARTISAN BEER COMPANY 2,286.00 336413 42906 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING 1,699.00 336414 42908 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING 1,320.00 336415 42907 5822.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 50TH ST SELLING 5,305.00 380523 3/6/2014 100634 ASPEN EQUIPMENT CO. 483.00 - CUTTING EDGE KIT 00005965 _ 336491 10129219 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 2,578.00 ECONO -TON II, CABLE ASSEMBLY 00005973 336633 10129190 1553.6585 ACCESSORIES EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 3,061.00 380624 31612014 101365 BELLBOY CORPORATION 80.82 336416 89795800 5862.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING 1,108.30 336568 419949DO 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 601.75 336569 41995300 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 41.00 336570 41995100 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING 36.55 336571 41995000 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING 209.62 336572 89824000 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING 569.65 336573 41995400 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 57.76 336574 69824200 5862.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING 492.30 336575 6407900 5862.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING 394.10 336703 41995200 5822.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR 50TH ST SELLING 3,591.65 380625 316/2014 131191 BERNATELLO'S PIZZA INC. 504.00 PIZZA 336727 D281N1730 5730.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD EDINBOROUGH CONCESSIONS 132.00 PIZZA 336728 D28IN1780 5730.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD EDINBOROUGH CONCESSIONS 636.00 R55CKR2 LOGIS100 CITY OF EDINA Council Check Register by GL Council Check Register and Summary 3/6/2014 - 3/6/2014 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 380526 3/612014 125139 BERNICK'S Continued... 208.05 336417 114301 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 1552.6406 1261.6406 1190.6406 1190.6406 1120.6406 1550.6406 1400.6513 4095.6103 1556.6040 1556.6043 1552.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERALSUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES HOSPITALIZATION COBRA INSURANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES 3/4/2014 11:32:40 Page - 3 Business Unit VERNON SELLING CENT SVC PW BUILDING CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT ASSESSING ASSESSING ADMINISTRATION CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 50TH STREET RUBBISH EMPLOYEE SHARED SERVICES EMPLOYEE SHARED SERVICES CENT SVC PW BUILDING 03485.1705.20 208.05 TRUNK SS LINING 1470.6510 FIRSTAID SUPPLIES 380627 3/6/2014 1470.6510 126847 BERRY COFFEE COMPANY FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 150.95 COFFEE 336634 1155009 150.95 380628 3/6/2014 100648 BERTELSON OFFICE PRODUCTS 127.11 OFFICE SUPPLIES 336340 OE- 346819 -1 247.44 OFFICE SUPPLIES 336492 WO- 907567 -1 74.10 BINDERS 336493 WO- 914954 -1 12.66 REPORT COVERS 336635 OE- 348082 -1 238.62 INK CARTRIDGES 336636 WO- 916083 -1 229.60 OFFICE SUPPLIES 000D3037 336637 WO- 916229 -1 929.53 380629 3/6/2014 126268 BLUE COMPACTOR SERVICES 386.00 COMPACTOR RENTAL 336494 FEB14 -1 386.00 380530 3/6/2014 102646 BLUE CROSS & BLUE SHIELD OF MN 189,298.00 MAR 2014 PREMIUMS 336495 MAR2014 22,527.00 MAR 2014 PREMIUMS 336495 MAR2014 211,825.00 380531 3/612014 122688 BMK SOLUTIONS 42.67 WHITE BOARD 00001457 336341 94725 42.67 380532 3/612014 132444 BOLTON & MENK INC. 18,362.40 TRUNK SEWER LINING 336496 0164019 18, 362.40 380533 3/6/2014 105367 BOUND TREE MEDICAL LLC 95.76 AMBULANCE SUPPLIES 00003739 336497 81344729 886.57 AMBULANCE SUPPLIES 00003752 336498 81344730 982.33 380634 3/612014 119361 BOURGET IMPORTS 219.00 336418 118233 1552.6406 1261.6406 1190.6406 1190.6406 1120.6406 1550.6406 1400.6513 4095.6103 1556.6040 1556.6043 1552.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERALSUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES HOSPITALIZATION COBRA INSURANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES 3/4/2014 11:32:40 Page - 3 Business Unit VERNON SELLING CENT SVC PW BUILDING CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT ASSESSING ASSESSING ADMINISTRATION CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 50TH STREET RUBBISH EMPLOYEE SHARED SERVICES EMPLOYEE SHARED SERVICES CENT SVC PW BUILDING 03485.1705.20 CONSULTING DESIGN TRUNK SS LINING 1470.6510 FIRSTAID SUPPLIES FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 1470.6510 FIRSTAID SUPPLIES FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING R55CKR2 LOGIS100 CITY OF EDINA Council Check Register by GL Council Check Register and Summary 3/6/2014 - 3/6/2014 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 380634 3/6/2014 119361 BOURGET IMPORTS Continued... 473.50 336419 118236 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 380536 31612014 100669 BOYER TRUCK PARTS 71.43 CLAMPS 00005049 336499 828594 1553.6530 71.43 380536 3/6/2014 133187 BRANDL HOMES 2,500.00 REFUND ESCROW- 5805 ASHCROFT 336710 ED128172 1495.4109 REPAIR PARTS CONSTRUCTION DEPOSIT 3/4/2014 11:32:40 Page - 4 Business Unit DU I N b I JtLLINU EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN INSPECTIONS 1130.6408 PHOTOGRAPHIC SUPPLIES COMMUNICATIONS 1130.6124 WEB DEVELOPMENT COMMUNICATIONS 1130.6123 MAGAZINE/NEWSLETTER EXPENSE COMMUNICATIONS 5720.6406 2,500.00 EDINBOROUGH OPERATIONS 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP 380537 316/2014 5440.5511 126166 BRAUN, MICHAEL PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP 473.37 PHOTOS 336787 2013 5440.5511 141.30 HOMETOWN HERO PIECE 336787 2013 PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 66.41 ABOUT TOWN PHOTOS 336787 2013 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP 681.08 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 380638 316/2014 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP 101333 BSN SPORTS 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 762.56 GYM EQUIPMENT 336729 95889451 762.56 380639 3/6/2014 - 102149 CALLAWAY GOLF 458.64 MERCHANDISE 336342 924966720 356.23 MERCHANDISE 336343 924947683 356.23 MERCHANDISE 336344 924947733 668.36 MERCHANDISE 336345 924947736 949.13 MERCHANDISE 336638 924956319 83.30 336639 924956223 740.88 336640 924970247 70.56 336641 924970216 2,907.66 336642 924970160 5,474.77 336643 924970307 1,117.20 336644 924983224 13,182.96 380640 316/2014 120641 CANNON RIVER WINERY 390.00 336576 6393 390.00 380641 3/6/2P' " 116114 CANON SOLUTIONS AMERICA INC. REPAIR PARTS CONSTRUCTION DEPOSIT 3/4/2014 11:32:40 Page - 4 Business Unit DU I N b I JtLLINU EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN INSPECTIONS 1130.6408 PHOTOGRAPHIC SUPPLIES COMMUNICATIONS 1130.6124 WEB DEVELOPMENT COMMUNICATIONS 1130.6123 MAGAZINE/NEWSLETTER EXPENSE COMMUNICATIONS 5720.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES EDINBOROUGH OPERATIONS 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING R55CKR2 LOGIS100 CITY OF EDINA 3/4/2014 11:32:40 Council Check Register by GL Page - 5 Council Check Register and Summary 3/6/2014 - 3/6/2014 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 380541 3/6/2014 116114 CANON SOLUTIONS AMERICA INC. Continued... 649.90 OCE MAINT KIT 336500 902155414 1554.6230 SERVICE CONTRACTS EQUIPMENT CENT SERV GEN - MIS 127.54 OCE USAGE - JAN 2014 336501 988172574 1554.6230 SERVICE CONTRACTS EQUIPMENT CENT SERV GEN - MIS 103.88 OCE MAINT - FEB 2013 336502 988172573 1552.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CENT SVC PW BUILDING 881.32 380542 3/6/2014 119465 CAPITOL BEVERAGE SALES 2,022.50 336420 440566 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING 1,149.90 336704 440567 5822.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 50TH ST SELLING 35.70 336705 440568 5822.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX 50TH ST SELLING 3,208.10 380543 3/612014 103300 CENTER FOR ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT 3,000.00 HOME ENERGY SQUAD VISITS 336346 11999 1122.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT COMM 3,000.00 380544 3/6/2014 112661 CENTERPOINT ENERGY 16.55 5590919 -6 336347 5590919 -2/14 7413.6582 FUEL OIL PSTF FIRE TOWER 2,614.74 5584304 -9 336348 5584304 -2/14 7411.6186 HEAT PSTF OCCUPANCY 67.26 5584310 -6 336349 5584310 -2/14 7413.6186 HEAT PSTF FIRE TOWER 122.83 9546705-6 336503 9546705 -2/14 5913.6186 HEAT DISTRIBUTION 9,094.37 5591458-4 336504 5591458 -2/14 1551.6186 HEAT CITY HALL GENERAL 5,295.27 8034001 -1 336505 8034001 -2/14 1552.6186 HEAT CENT SVC PW BUILDING 4,081.90 5546504 -1 336506 5546504 -2/14 1470.6186 HEAT FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 10,533.41 5563827 -4 336507 5563827 -2/14 5210.6186 HEAT GOLF DOME PROGRAM 279.89 5596524 -8 336508 5596524 -2/14 5430.6186 HEAT RICHARDS GOLF COURSE 253.80 10089900 -4 336509 10089900 -2/14 1646.6186 HEAT BUILDING MAINTENANCE 2,406.61 :9724639 -1 336645 9724639 -2/14 5511.6186 HEAT ARENA BLDG /GROUNDS 34,766.63 380545 3/6/2014 103711 CENTERPOINT ENERGY SERVICES INC. 90.95 336510 2782562 5311.6186 HEAT POOL OPERATION 11,224.82 336646 2782232 5720.6186 HEAT EDINBOROUGH OPERATIONS 11, 315.77 380546 3/6/2014 123898 CENTURYLINK 8.91 952 920 -1586 336511 1586 -2/14 1554.6188 TELEPHONE CENT SERV GEN - MIS 68.99 952 922 -2444 336512 2444 -2/14 1554.6188 TELEPHONE CENT SERV GEN - MIS 24.55 952920 -8632 336647 8632 -2114 5913.6188 TELEPHONE DISTRIBUTION 14.18 952 922 -9246 336648 9246 -2114 1400.6188 TELEPHONE POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 116.63 R55CKR2 LOGIS100 CITY OF EDINA COCOA 336649 0742044 -IN 5761.5510 Council Check Register by GL CENTENNIAL LAKES OPERATING 390.00 Council Check Register and Summary 3/6/2014 - 3/6/2014 380561 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv-No- Account No Subledger Account Description 380546 31612014 123898 CENTURYLINK Continued... 380647 3/6/2014 122084 CITY OF EDINA - UTILITIES 396908 -2/14 5760.6105 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS CENTENNIAL LAKES ADMIN EXPENSE 48.94 00086676 - 0330288022 336730 330288022 -2114 5310.6189 SEWER & WATER 8772 10 614 0220686 336731 48.94 5710.6105 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 380648 3/6/2014 120167 CILIA LABORATORY PROGRAM 6.77 8772 10 614 0373022 3/4/2014 11:32:40 Page- 6 Business Unit POOL ADMINISTRATION 150.00 CERTIFICATION FEE 336513 022614 1470.6260 LICENSES & PERMITS FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 150.00 380549 3/612014 100692 COCA -COLA REFRESHMENTS 118.24 336421 0158155022 5862.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING 118.24 380560 3/612014 101227 COFFEE MILL INC. 390.00 COCOA 336649 0742044 -IN 5761.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD CENTENNIAL LAKES OPERATING 390.00 380561 3/6/2014 120433 COMCAST 110.61 8772 10 614 0396908 336650 396908 -2/14 5760.6105 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS CENTENNIAL LAKES ADMIN EXPENSE 29.01 8772 10 614 0220686 336731 220668 -2/14 5710.6105 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS EDINBOROUGH ADMINISTRATION 6.77 8772 10 614 0373022 336732 373022 -2/14 1400.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 146.39 380662 3/6/2014 128726 COTE, DARREL 87.94 UNIFORM PURCHASE 336651 022614 1301.6201 LAUNDRY GENERAL MAINTENANCE 87.94 380553 316/2014 133672 CROIX OIL COMPANY 448.00 2b.13 CAR WASHES 336788 402754 1553.6238 CAR WASH EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 448.00 380564 3/6/2014 102514 CUTTER & BUCK 103.35 MERCHANDISE 336652 92628124 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 155.88 336653 92629575 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 259.23 380555 316/2014 128180 CYCLE WORKS GOLF SUPPLY 8,448.74 TURF FOR PUTTING GREEN 00006292 336733 1829 5210.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES GOLF DOME PROGRAM 1,592.81 MATS 00006590 336734 1826 5210.6590 RANGE BALLS GOLF DOME PROGRAM 10,041.55 R55CKR2 LOGIS100 3/6/2014 CITY OF EDINA Council Check Register by GL 1,606.03 336422 739940 Council Check Register and Summary 1,775.10 3/6/2014 — 3/6/2014 740931 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 380666 316/2014 740930 128180 CYCLE WORKS GOLF SUPPLY Continued... 380566 3/612014 104020 DALCO 740935 5842.5514 209.66 TOWELS, CAN LINERS 00001454 336514 2714062 1552.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 740934 1,104.60 SNOW PLOW COATING 00005852 336515 2707914 1301.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 1,314.26 740932 5822.5515 380557 3/6/2014 803.10 133670 DALE, JEFF 336428 740933 5822.5514 120.00 UTILITY OVERPAYMENT REFUND 336654 6212 ST JOHNS 5900.2015 CUSTOMER REFUND AVE 3/6/2014 380668 3/6/2014 102478 DAY DISTRIBUTING CO. 1,606.03 336422 739940 5862.5514 1,775.10 336423 740931 5862.5514 43.90 336424 740930 5862.5515 1,251.85 336425 740935 5842.5514 74.80 336426 740934 5842.5515 19.20 336427 740932 5822.5515 803.10 336428 740933 5822.5514 5,573.98 380669 3/6/2014 102831 DEX MEDIA EAST INC. 89.00 650243624 336655 650243624 -2114 5760.6122 89.00 380660 3/6/2014 119716 EASTERN PACIFIC APPAREL INC. 1,347.48 MERCHANDISE 336657 511395 5440.5511 1,347.48 380661 3/612014 133662 ECCO MIDWEST INC. 555.00 ASBESTOS REMOVAL 336350 14006 -001 5917.6180 555.00 380562 316/2014 133673 ECKERLY, JEAN 60.27 UTILITY OVERPAYMENT REFUND 336735 5808 ZENITH AVE 5900.2D15 60.27 380563 3/6/2014 132810 ECM PUBLISHERS INC. 270.00 E- UTILITY BILLING AD 336658 77145 5902.6103 270.00 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 3/4/2014 11:32:40 Page - 7 Business Unit CENT SVC PW BUILDING GENERAL MAINTENANCE UTILITY BALANCE SHEET VERNON SELLING VERNON SELLING VERNON SELLING YORK SELLING YORK SELLING 50TH ST SELLING 50TH ST SELLING ADVERTISING OTHER CENTENNIAL LAKES ADMIN EXPENSE COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES CONTRACTED REPAIRS CUSTOMER REFUND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES METER REPAIR UTILITY BALANCE SHEET UTILITY BILLING - FINANCE R55CKR2 LOGIS100 CITY OF EDINA 3/4/2014 11:32:40 Council Check Register by GL Page- 8 Council Check Register and Summary 3/6/2014 - 3/6/2014 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 380563 3/6/2014 132810 ECM PUBLISHERS INC. Continued... 380664 3/6/2014 114277. EDEN PRAIRIE APPLIANCE 195.76 REFRIGERATOR REPAIRS 336516 W85519 1470.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 195.76 380666 3/612014 133665 ERICKSON, ELIZABETH 372.76 UTILITY OVERPAYEMENT REFUND 336659 4001 GRIMES AVE 5900.2015 CUSTOMER REFUND UTILITY BALANCE SHEET 372.76 380666 316/2014 100168. EXPLORE MINNESOTA GOLF ALLIANCE 450.00 GOLF COURSEAD 336351 GOLFTIME MAG 5410.6122 ADVERTISING OTHER GOLF ADMINISTRATION 450.00 380567 3/6/2014 104195 EXTREME BEVERAGE LLC. 378.00 336429 259 -565 5862.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING 378.00 380668 3/6/2014 100146 FACTORY MOTOR PARTS COMPANY 66.44 SENSOR 336517 14388573 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 66.44 SENSOR 336518 69- 129782 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 231.03 MGN 23405 336519 69- 129609 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 6.98 SPLASH SAFEVIEW BLADES 336520 69- 129706 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 370.69 380669 3/6/2014 126004 FERGUSON WATERWORKS 1,939.07 WATER METER FITTINGS 00001641 336352 0069633 5913.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES DISTRIBUTION 1,939.67 380570 3/612014 116189 FILTRATION SYSTEMS INC. 15,895.94 RANGE FILTERS 336353 58135 7412.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES PSTF RANGE 15,895.94 380671 3/6/2014 129500 FLAT EARTH BREWING CO. 160.00 336706 6381 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING 160.00 380672 3/612014 130166 FLETCHER SPORT BRANDS USA INC. 42.05 MENS JACKET 336337 1147659 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 42.05 R55CKR2 LOGIS100 CITY OF EDINA 3/4/2014 11:32:40 Council Check Register by GL Page - 9 Council Check Register and Summary 3/6/2014 - 3/6/2014 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 380673 3/612014 101476 FOOTJOY Contlnued... 71.66 SHOES 336660 5386819 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 71.66 380674 3/6/2014 133366 FROST SERVICES 2,801.00 DE ICE EQUIPMENT 336789 543 1553.6585 ACCESSORIES EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 2,801.00 380676 3/612014 100764 G & K SERVICES 15.00 SHOP RAGS 336354 1006144163 5422.6201 LAUNDRY MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS 15.00 SHOP RAGS 336355 1006166946 5422.6201 LAUNDRY MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS 30.00 380676 3/6/2014 101931 GEAR FOR SPORTS 1,046.22 MERCHANDISE 336356 11639314 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 1,046.22 380677 3/612014 133667 GOOD, JASON 136.46 UTILITY OVERPAYMENT REFUND 336661 6125 OAKLAWN 5900.2015 CUSTOMER REFUND UTILITY BALANCE SHEET AVE 136.46 380678 316/2014 101103 GRAINGER 51.36 FUEL TREATMENT 00006247 336357 9356362823 5422.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS 465.98 NITRILE GLOVES 00001608 336358 9365071407 1646.6610 SAFETY EQUIPMENT BUILDING MAINTENANCE 26.56 WELDING GLOVES 336359 9353384655 7411.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES PSTF OCCUPANCY 59.70 GRINDING WHEEL, WIRE WHEEL 00005984 336521 9367439024 1553.6556 TOOLS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 266.32 EAR PLUGS, LAMPS 336736 9357890533 5720.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES EDINBOROUGH OPERATIONS 182.64 SPEAKER FOR WALKIE- TALKIE 00002107 336737 9366310168 5720.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES EDINBOROUGH OPERATIONS 121.14 LIGHT BULBS, BALLASTS 00002105 336738 9364542614 5720.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES EDINBOROUGH OPERATIONS 1,173.70 380679 3/6/2014 102613 GRANDVIEW TIRE & AUTO 30.00 MOUNT /BALANCE TIRES 00005021 336662 558055 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 30.00 380680 3/6/2014 102217 GRAPE BEGINNINGS INC 642.25 336430 163724 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 170.25 336431 163422 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 607.75 336577 163726 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 1,420.25 R55CKR2 LOGIS100 TONKAZORB 00001250 336362 3565439 CITY OF EDINA WATER TREATMENT SUPPLIES WATER TREATMENT 3,511.54 Council Check Register by GL 380587 31612014 102070 HENNEPIN COUNTY CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSN Council Check Register and Summary 535.00 2014 DUES 336664 2014 1400.6105 3/6/2014 — 3/612014 POLICE DEPT. GENERAL Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 380680 3/6/2014 102217 GRAPE BEGINNINGS INC 1,796.70 Continued... 380581 3/6/2014 1400.6230 100783 GRAYBAR ELECTRIC CO. INC. POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 763.20 RADIO ADMIN FEE 336666 140138077 1301.6151 774.26 LIGHT BULBS 336663 971110795 5761.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 774.26 380689 3/6/2014 116680 HEWLETT - PACKARD COMPANY 380682 3/6/2014 5,604.12 132968 GREAT NEIGHBORHOOD HOMES INC. 336524 53931080 1554.6710 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT CENT SERV GEN'- MIS 2,500.00 REFUND ESCROW -5300 GLENGARRY 336711 ED128243 1495.4109 CONSTRUCTION DEPOSIT `f 2,500.00 REFUND ESCROW- 5513 OAKLAWN 336712 ED128245 1495.4109 CONSTRUCTION DEPOSIT 5,000.00 380583 3/6/2014 122947 GREEN TOUCH SYSTEMS LLC 1,800.00 ROAD GUARD 8 336522 GTS4298 1318.6516 CALCIUM CHLORIDE 1,800.00 ROAD GUARD B 336523 GTS4299 1318.6516 CALCIUM CHLORIDE 3,600.00 380584 3/6/2014 104469 GS DIRECT INC. 289.15 OCE PAPER, MAINT KIT 336360 304659 1260.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 289.15 380686 3/6/2014 100788 H &L MESABI 3,256.00 CURB RUNNERS 336361 90150 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS 3,256.00 380686 316/2014 100797 HAWKINS INC. 3/4/2014 11:32:40 Page- 10 Business Unit CENTENNIAL LAKES OPERATING INSPECTIONS INSPECTIONS SNOW & ICE REMOVAL SNOW & ICE REMOVAL ENGINEERING GENERAL EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 3,511.54 TONKAZORB 00001250 336362 3565439 5915.6586 WATER TREATMENT SUPPLIES WATER TREATMENT 3,511.54 380587 31612014 102070 HENNEPIN COUNTY CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSN 535.00 2014 DUES 336664 2014 1400.6105 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 535.00 380688 3/6/2014 106436 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER 1,796.70 RADIO ADMIN FEE 336665 140138015 1400.6230 SERVICE CONTRACTS EQUIPMENT POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 763.20 RADIO ADMIN FEE 336666 140138077 1301.6151 EQUIPMENT RENTAL GENERAL MAINTENANCE 2,559.90 380689 3/6/2014 116680 HEWLETT - PACKARD COMPANY 5,604.12 DISPATCH PCS 00004305 336524 53931080 1554.6710 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT CENT SERV GEN'- MIS 5,604.12 `f R55CKR2 LOGIS100 CITY OF EDINA 3/4/2014 11:32:40 Council Check Register by GL Page- 11 Council Check Register and Summary 3/6/2014 - 3/6/2014 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 380590 3/6/2014 102079 HIGHVIEW PLUMBING INC Continued... 227.50 THAW WATER LINE OOOD1660 336525 13804 5913.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES DISTRIBUTION 227.50 380591 3/612014 103753 HILLYARD INC - MINNEAPOLIS 386.82 WHEELS FOR SCRUBBER 336739 700119362 5720.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES EDINBOROUGH OPERATIONS 303.21- RETURN 336740 800123749 5720.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES EDINBOROUGH OPERATIONS 83.61 380592 3/6/2014 104376 HOHENSTEINS INC. 56.00 336432 688726 5862.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING 1,288.00 336433 688725 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING 951.50 336434 689825 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING 1,152.13 336435 689971 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING 679.75 336436 689820 5822.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 50TH ST SELLING 4,327.38 380593 3/6/2014 102205 HOMBERGER, JEFF 47.04 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT 336526 022714 5410.6107 MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE GOLF ADMINISTRATION 59.32 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT 336790 030114 5410.6107 MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE GOLF ADMINISTRATION 106.36 380594 3/6/2014 126816 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 79.97 CLOSET RODS, END CAPS 336363 021314 1400.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 65.45 MAILBOX, NUMBERS 336363 021314 1318.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES SNOW & ICE REMOVAL 145.42 380596 3/6/2014 100417 HORIZON COMMERCIAL POOL SUPPLY 69.27 TEST KIT SUPPLIES 00002291 336741 14012712 5720.6545 CHEMICALS EDINBOROUGH OPERATIONS 656.90 CHLORINE, HYPOCHLORITE 00002100 336742 14021015 5720.6545 CHEMICALS EDINBOROUGH OPERATIONS 726.17 380596 316/2014 101697 HORIZON GRAPHICS INC 675.70 BIRTHDAY PARTY INVITES 336743 32832 5710.6575 PRINTING EDINBOROUGH ADMINISTRATION 675.70 380597 316/2014 133661 HOWARD, JOHN 363.85 CHASING ICE FILM EVENT 336364 REIMBURSE 1122.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT COMM 363.85 380698 3/6/2014 101468 IIMC R55CKR2 LOGIS100 CITY OF EDINA 3/4/2014 11:32:40 Council Check Register by GL Page- 12 Council Check Register and Summary -3/6/2014 - 3/6/2014 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 380696 3/6/2014 101468 IIMC 892.69 HYDRANT USAGE REFUND 336668 Continued... 5901.4626 892.69 110.00 MEMBERSHIP - JANE TIMM 336527 20252 -2014 1180.6104 CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS ELECTION 110.00 266.00 REGION III SEMINAR 336528 'INV0396677 1495.6104 360699 3/6/2014 336529 129608. IMPACT PROVEN SOLUTIONS 1495.6104 266.00 REGION III SEMINAR 336530 INV0396682 1495.6104 3,534.21 MAIL WATER BILLS 336365 86897 5902.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES UTILITY BILLING - FINANCE 399.00 REGION III SEMINAR 920.85 MAIL LATE NOTICES 336667 87056 5902.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES UTILITY BILLING - FINANCE 4,455.06 100830 JERRY'S PRINTING 380600 3/612014 336744 101146 IMPACT TELECOM 5710.6575 64.37 321.54 336366 608217652 1554.6188 TELEPHONE CENT SERV GEN - MIS 68.00 ANNUAL MEETING INVITES 321.54 41092 1100.6106 68.00 360601 316/2014 131644 INDEED BREWING COMPANY 220.00 336437 17397 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING 287.00 336578 17483 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING 507.00 380602 316/2014 119808 INTEGRA 27.74 INTERNET 336367 11748810 7411.6188 TELEPHONE PSTF OCCUPANCY SALE OF WATER UTILITY REVENUES CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS 27.74 CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS INSPECTIONS CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS INSPECTIONS 360603 316/2014 INSPECTIONS 116162 INTERLACHEN COUNTRY CLUB INSPECTIONS 892.69 HYDRANT USAGE REFUND 336668 WATER 5901.4626 892.69 360604 3/6/2014 104167 INTERNATIONAL CODE COUNCIL INC. 266.00 REGION III SEMINAR 336528 'INV0396677 1495.6104 266.00 REGION III SEMINAR 336529 INV0396680 1495.6104 266.00 REGION III SEMINAR 336530 INV0396682 1495.6104 399.00 REGION III SEMINAR 336531 INV0396685 1495.6104 399.00 REGION III SEMINAR 336532 INV0396676 1495.6104 1,596.00 380606 316/2014 100830 JERRY'S PRINTING 64.37 HOTEL PASSES 336744 63834 5710.6575 64.37 380606 3/612014 102146 JESSEN PRESS 68.00 ANNUAL MEETING INVITES 336368 41092 1100.6106 68.00 SALE OF WATER UTILITY REVENUES CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS INSPECTIONS CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS INSPECTIONS CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS INSPECTIONS CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS INSPECTIONS CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS INSPECTIONS PRINTING EDINBOROUGH ADMINISTRATION MEETING EXPENSE CITY COUNCIL R55CKR2 LOGIS100 CITY OF EDINA 3/4/2014 11:32:40 Council Check Register by GL Page - 13 Council Check Register and Summary 3/6/2014 - 3/612014 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit. 380606 3/6/2014 102146 JESSEN PRESS Continued... 380607 3/6/2014 100741 JJ TAYLOR DIST. OF MINN 24.55 336438 2180652 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING 4,726.34 336439 2180644 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING 431.10 336579 2180706 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING 18.00 336580 2180703 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 61.50 336581 2180702 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING 4,580.52 336582 2180700 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING 32.00 336583 2180689 5862.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING 7,721.30 336584 2180688 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING 77.20- 336585 2180699 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING 17,518.11 380608 3/6/2014 123561 JMS CUSTOM HOMES LLC 2,500.00 REFUND ESCROW - 5801 ASHCROFT 336713 ED128254 1495.4109 CONSTRUCTION DEPOSIT INSPECTIONS 2,500.00 REFUND ESCROW -5101 HALIFAX 336714 ED128375 1495.4109 CONSTRUCTION DEPOSIT INSPECTIONS 5,000.00 380610 3/6/2014 100835 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO. 108.00 336440 1781585 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 84.23 336441 1777674 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 168.46 336442 1777581 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 1,276.03 336443 1786314 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 3,442.48 336444 1786311 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 20.99 336445 1786312 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 4,791.82 336446 1786307 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 657.71 336447 1786296 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 1,094.40 336448 1786294 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 673.67 336449 1786290 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 206.65 336450 1786811 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 297.40 336451 1786810 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 1.57- 336452 607161 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 8.92- 336453 608431 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 126.00 336586 1771632 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD NNE YORK SELLING 2,405.44 336587 1791373 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 1,702.95 336588 1791371 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 3,034.58 336589 1791367 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 377.35 336590 1791354 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 2,950.31 336591 1791369 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 1,212.32 336592 1791368 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING R55CKR2 LOGIS100 CITY OF EDINA 3/4/2014 11:32:40 Council Check Register by GL Page - 14 Council Check Register and Summary 3/6/2014 - 3/6/2014 Check # Date Amount Supplier/ Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 380610 3/6/2014 100835 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO. Continued... 1,096.91 336593 1791375 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 103.86 336594 1791376 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING 1,170.13 336595 1791382 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 2,656.40 336596 1791380 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 2,744.87 336597 1791377 - 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 754.70 336598 1791355 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 3,158.95 336599 1791379 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 947.20 336600 1791381 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 66.74 336601 1791384 5862.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING 37,322.06 380611 3/612014 102113 JOHNSTONE SUPPLY 61.37 PILOTASSEMBLY 00001456 336369 032343 5921.6530 REPAIR PARTS SANITARY LIFT STATION MAINT 95.90 UTILITY HEATERS 00001609 336533 041151 1552.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES' CENT SVC PW BUILDING 157.27 380612 316/2014 130789 KATZ, DAVID 185.00 HOMETOWN HERO PIECES 336791 166 1130.6124 WEB DEVELOPMENT COMMUNICATIONS 185.00 380613 3/6/2014 111018 KEEPRS INC. 21.00 UNIFORMS 336534 234325 -01 1400.6203 UNIFORM ALLOWANCE POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 81.58 UNIFORMS 336535 237950 1470.6558 DEPT UNIFORMS FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 81.58 UNIFORMS 336536 237973 1470.6556 DEPT UNIFORMS FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 164.16 380614 316/2014 103422 KIEHN, STEVE 110.00 LICENSE RENEWAL FEE 336669 MNl DLI000147029 1495.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES INSPECTIONS 110.00 380616 3/612014 118466 KNOLLMAIER, LAURA 77.41 PETTY CASH 336745 030414 5761.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD CENTENNIAL LAKES OPERATING __ 112.59 PETTY CASH 336745 030414 5761.6530 REPAIR PARTS CENTENNIAL LAKES OPERATING 190.00 380616 ' 316/2014 119947 KRAEMER MINING & MATERIALS INC. 174.42 WATER BREAK SAND 336670 235276 5913.6517 SAND GRAVEL & ROCK DISTRIBUTION 174.42 380617 31619' 133189 LANDMARK BUILDING CONTRACTORS R55CKR2 LOGIS100 CITY OF EDINA Council Check Register by GL Council Check Register and Summary 3/6/2014 - 3/612014 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 380617 3/612014 133189 LANDMARK BUILDING CONTRACTORS Continued... 2,500.00 REFUND ESCROW -6104 OAKLAWN 336715 ED128638 1495.4109 CONSTRUCTION DEPOSIT 2,500.00 380616 3/6/2014 101220 LANO EQUIPMENT INC. 9.40 V BELT 336671 03 -93538 5761.6530 REPAIR PARTS 50.16 HANDLE, WASHER 336746 03 -91412 5720.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 59.56 380619 316/2014 100862 LAWSON PRODUCTS INC. 21.04 MARKER LAMPS 00005011 336537 9302255978 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS 126.53 NUTS 00005001 336536 9302256883 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS 128.53 NUTS 00005011 336539 9302256884 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS 1,334.39 .HOSE, DRILL BITS, MINI BULBS 00005011 336672 9302250760 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS 1,612.49 380620 3/6/2014 133668 LEIKER, CHAD 450.00 UTILITY OVERPAYMENT REFUND 336673 4808 63ND ST 5900.2015 CUSTOMER REFUND 450.00 380621 3/6/2014 106726 LINDMAN, DAVID 754.83 HARD DRIVES 336674 022814 1400.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 754.83 380622 3/6/2014 101078 LUBE -TECH ESI 213.00 HOIST REPAIRS 336540 3582 1553.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS 213.00 380623 3/612014 112677 M. AMUNDSON LLP 904.95 336454 166924 5622.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX 1,248.52 336675 169185 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX 2,153.47 380624 3/6/2014 100864 MACQUEEN EQUIPMENT INC. 142.52 WINDOW WASHER 00005983 336541 2141714 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS 142.52 380626 3/6/2014 129830 MAPMO 100.00 MAPMO 2014 DUES 336676 2014 1495.6105 DUES $ SUBSCRIPTIONS 100.00 3/4/2014 11:32:40 Page- 15 Business Unit INSPECTIONS CENTENNIAL LAKES OPERATING EDINBOROUGH OPERATIONS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN UTILITY BALANCE SHEET POLICE DEPT. GENERAL EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 50TH ST SELLING YORK SELLING EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN INSPECTIONS R55CKR2 LOGIS100 CITY OF EDINA 3/4/2014 11:32:40 Council Check Register by GL Page- 16 Council Check Register and Summary 3/6/2014 — 316/2014 Check # Date Amount Supplier/ Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 380626 3/6/2014 102600 MATRIX COMMUNICATIONS INC Continued... 13,038.00 PHONE MAINT CONTRACT 336542 0201395 -IN 1554.6188 TELEPHONE CENT SERV GEN - MIS 8,173.00 VOICEMAIL MAINTENANCE 336543 0201052 -IN 1554.6188 TELEPHONE CENT SERV GEN - MIS 21,211.00 380627 3/612014 113941 MEDICA 94.14 AMBULANCE OVERPAYMENT REFUND 336792 PHILLIP 1470.4329 AMBULANCE FEES FIRE DEPT. GENERAL ANDERSON 94.14 380628 3/6/2014 101483 MENARDS 21.05 OAK BOARDS 00006099 336370 49476 5210.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES GOLF DOME PROGRAM 40.07 HARDWARE 00001622 336371 50000 1646.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES BUILDING MAINTENANCE 61.12 380629 3/612014 100886 METRO SALES INC 133.50 JAN 2014 USAGE -ART CENTER 336544 582796 1554.6230 SERVICE CONTRACTS EQUIPMENT CENT SERV GEN - MIS 133.50 380630 3/6/2014 132441 METROPOLITAN EMERGENCY SERVICES BOARD , 2,514.00 911 RFP FINAL PAYMENT 336793 20009671 -4 2310.6102 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES E911 2,514.00 380631 3/6/2014 101161 MIDWEST CHEMICAL SUPPLY 712.93 BATH /KITCHEN SUPPLIES 336372 35217 1551.6511 CLEANING SUPPLIES CITY HALL GENERAL 1,087.79 BATH /KITCHEN SUPPLIES 336372 35217 1551.6512 PAPER SUPPLIES CITY HALL GENERAL 1,800.72 380632 31612014 124826 MINN CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION 268.00 PROPERTY TAX SEMINAR 336545 INV623520 1190.6104 CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS ASSESSING 268.00 380633 3/6/2014 100913 MINNEAPOLIS & SUBURBAN SEWER & WATER 1,391.25 SERVICE LINE REPAIR 336373 34657 5913.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS DISTRIBUTION 1,325.00 STANDPIPE REPLACEMENT 00001664 336677 34658 5913.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS DISTRIBUTION 2,716.25 380634 3/6/2014 101638 MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH 22,137.00 CONNECTION FEE 336374 021914 5915.6136 PROFESSIONALSVC - OTHER WATER TREATMENT 22,137.00 R55CKR2 LOGIS100 CITY OF EDINA Council Check Register by GL Council Check Register and Summary' 3/6/2014 — 3/6/2014 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 380636 3/6/2014 100903 MINNESOTA ELEVATOR INC Continued... 816.00 ELEVATOR REPAIRS 336747 303292 5720.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS 816.00 380636 3/6/2014 101637 MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY 251.00 HAZARDOUS WASTE FEE 336375 2200095746 7412.6136 PROFESSIONAL SVC - OTHER 251.00 380637 3/6/2014 100908 MINNESOTA WANNER CO. 102.82 PIPE WORK 00001630 336678 0102759 -IN 5913.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 102.82 380638 316/2014 132697 MIXMI BRANDS INC. 140.00 CONCESSION PRODUCT 336748 3402 5730.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD 140.00 380639 3/6/2014 128264 MN HELICOPTERS INC. 610.00 DEER CONTROL 336376 3169 1509.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 610.00 380640 3/612014 131677 MRA -THE MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION 1,295.00 DUES 336377 09021293 1170.6105 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 1,295.00 380641 316/2014 101696 MSP COMMUNICATIONS 2,403.00 GOLF MAGAZINE AD 336378 2014 - 28828 5410.6122 ADVERTISING OTHER 2,403.00 380642 3/6/2014 100906 MTI DISTRIBUTING INC. 17.73 BOLTS 00006099 336379 943450 -01 5422.6530 REPAIR PARTS 172.66 BEDBAR 00006099 336380 943450 -00 5422.6530 REPAIR PARTS 190.39 380643 3/6/2014 104078 NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES 3,813.00 MEMBERSHIP DUES 336679 96588 1120.6105 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 3,813.00 380644 3/6/2014 100076 NEW FRANCE WINE CO. 742.50 336455 88500 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 324.50 336602 88499 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 1,067.00 3/4/2014 11:32:40 Page - 17 Business Unit EDINBOROUGH OPERATIONS PSTF RANGE DISTRIBUTION EDINBOROUGH CONCESSIONS DEER CONTROL HUMAN RESOURCES GOLF ADMINISTRATION MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS ADMINISTRATION YORK SELLING VERNON SELLING R55CKR2 LOGIS100 CITY OF EDINA 3/4/2014 11:32:40 Council Check Register by GL Page - ` 18. Council Check Register and Summary 3/6/2014 — 3/6/2014 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 380644 3/6/2014 100076 NEW FRANCE WINE CO. Continued... 380646 316/2014 104360 NIKE USA INC. 88.61 MERCHANDISE 336381 957202284 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 1,797.06 APPAREL 00006084 336680 957393427 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 1,885.67 380646 316/2014 104232 NORTHERN SAFETY TECHNOLOGY INC 319.72 LIGHTS, LENS 00005043 336382 35507 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 522.43 RANGE LIGHTING 336383 35529 7412.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES PSTF RANGE 842.15 380647 3/6/2014 -- 103678 OFFICE DEPOT 58.19 CHAIR MAT 336546 1658489838 5440.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 58.19 380648 31612014 129485 PAPCO INC. 275.54 MOP BUCKET, TOWELS, TISSUE 336681 84086 7411.6511 CLEANING SUPPLIES PSTF OCCUPANCY 275.54 380649 3/6/2014 119486 PARAGON BLACK DIRT 1,250.00 OFFSITE HAULING 336547 5179 1301.6182 RUBBISH REMOVAL GENERAL MAINTENANCE 1,250.00 380660 316/2014 100347 PAUSTIS & SONS 1,377.68 336456 8438274 -IN 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 1,015.88 336457 8438279 -IN 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 1,330.19 336603 8438283 -IN 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 222.25 336604 8438324 -IN 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 3,946.00 - 380661 3/6/2014 126492 PAYPAL INC. 39.95 JAN 2014 SERVICE 336749 293019.43 5902:6155 BANK SERVICES CHARGES UTILITY BILLING - FINANCE 39.95 380662 3/6/2014 110832 PC2 SOLUTIONS INC. 552.50 IT CONSULTING 336548 22214008 1554.6103 - PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CENT SERV GEN - MIS 552.50 380663 316/2014 132969 PENNANT CONSTRUCTION LLC 2,500.00 REFUND ESCROW -5508 KELLOGG 336716 ED127535 1495.4109 CONSTRUCTION DEPOSIT INSPECTIONS. R55CKR2 LOGIS100 CITY OF EDINA 3/4/2014 11:32:40 Council Check Register by GL Page- 19 Council Check Register and Summary 3/6/2014 - 3/6/2014 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 380653 31612014 132969 PENNANT CONSTRUCTION LLC Continued... 2,500.00 380654 31612014 100945 PEPSI -COLA COMPANY 467.05 336384 18609898 5210.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD GOLF DOME PROGRAM 197.62 336384 18609898 5421.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD GRILL 347.90 336458 19286677 5862.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING 330.00 336682 19290698 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING 1,342.57 380665 3/6/2014 103612 PETTY CASH 187.51 PETTY CASH 336750 030314 1400.6104 CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 49.38 PETTY CASH 336750 030314 1400.6106 MEETING EXPENSE POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 91.00 PETTY CASH 336750 030314 1400.6107 MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 81.50 PETTY CASH 336750 030314 1400.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 80.11 PETTY CASH 336750 030314 1400.6201 LAUNDRY POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 13.00 PETTY CASH 336750 030314 1490.6107 MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE PUBLIC HEALTH 50.56 PETTY CASH 336750 030314 1490.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES PUBLIC HEALTH 553.06 380656 3/6/2014 100743 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRITS 2,323.07 336459 2562677 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 934.39 336460 2562668 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 423.14 336461 2562672 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 837.81 336462 2562669 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 25.07- 336463 3521527 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 752.83 336605 2566070 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON-SELLING 1,855.46 336606 2566071 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 1.31 336607 2566059 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 2,073.77 336608 2566073 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 139.68 336609 2566060 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 3,069.37 336610 2566066 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 2,931.71 336611 2566069 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 920.97 336612 2566065 5642.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 16,23B.44 380667 31612014 100119 PING 2,400.77 MERCHANDISE 336683 12115332 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 406.67 336684 12124832 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 120.00 336685 12135460 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 744.80 336686 12137048 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES R55CKR2 LOGIS100 CITY OF EDINA 3/4/2014 11:32:40 Council Check Register by GL Page - 20 Council Check Register and Summary 3/6/2014 - 3/6/2014 Check # Date Amount Supplier/ Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 380667 3/6/2014 100119 PING Continued... 923.90 336687 12137049 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 780.65 336688 12138632 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 5913.6406 5720.6620 1553.6583 1553.6583 5310.6406 5710.6406 2310.6230 5761.6511 5720.6406 5720.6511 5730.5510 5720.6511 5720.5510 5720.6511 GENERAL SUPPLIES DISTRIBUTION TREES, FLOWERS, SHRUBS EDINBOROUGH OPERATIONS TIRES & TUBES EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN TIRES & TUBES EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN GENERAL SUPPLIES POOL ADMINISTRATION GENERAL SUPPLIES EDINBOROUGH ADMINISTRATION SERVICE CONTRACTS EQUIPMENT E911 CLEANING SUPPLIES GENERALSUPPLIES CLEANING SUPPLIES COST OF GOODS SOLD CLEANING SUPPLIES COST OF GOODS SOLD CLEANING SUPPLIES CENTENNIAL LAKES OPERATING EDINBOROUGH OPERATIONS EDINBOROUGH OPERATIONS EDINBOROUGH CONCESSIONS EDINBOROUGH OPERATIONS EDINBOROUGH OPERATIONS EDINBOROUGH OPERATIONS 984.26 AMBULANCE OVERPAYMENT REFUND 336692 EILEEN KASELL 1470.4329 AMBULANCE FEES FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 984.26 5,376.79 380658 3/612014 116619 PIPELINE SUPPLY INC. 134.14 TOOLS 00001548 336385 S3176933.001 134.14 380669 3/6/2014 130926 PLANTSCAPE INC. 2,376.75 PLANT MAINTENANCE 336751 321836 2,376.75 380660 3/612014 119620 POMP'S TIRE SERVICE INC. 1,648.75 TIRES 00005548 336689 210104845 1,083.88 TIRES 00005848 336690 210104837 2,732.63 380661 3/6/2014 129706 PREMIUM WATERS INC. - 3.21 609425 336752 609425 -01 -14 49.19 622833 336753 622833 -01 -14 52.40 380662 3/612014 106341 PRIORITY DISPATCH . 78.00 ESP MAINTENANCE RENEWAL 336549 96907 78.00 380663 3/6/2014 - 106322 PROSOURCE SUPPLY 598.37 MOPS, LINERS, TOWELS 00002001 336691 6763 836.96 TISSUE, TOWELS, LINERS 00002283 336754 6732 289.15 DISINFECTANT, TOWELS 00002281 336755 6713 298.39 CUPS, NAPKINS 00002286 336756 6737 607.71 NITRILE GLOVES, DISINFECTANT 00002290 336757 6746 3,690.72 PLATES, CUTLERY SETS 00002108 336758 6767 696.38 LINERS, GLASS CLEANER 00002296 336759 6755 7,017.68 380664 3/612014 133669 PRS 5913.6406 5720.6620 1553.6583 1553.6583 5310.6406 5710.6406 2310.6230 5761.6511 5720.6406 5720.6511 5730.5510 5720.6511 5720.5510 5720.6511 GENERAL SUPPLIES DISTRIBUTION TREES, FLOWERS, SHRUBS EDINBOROUGH OPERATIONS TIRES & TUBES EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN TIRES & TUBES EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN GENERAL SUPPLIES POOL ADMINISTRATION GENERAL SUPPLIES EDINBOROUGH ADMINISTRATION SERVICE CONTRACTS EQUIPMENT E911 CLEANING SUPPLIES GENERALSUPPLIES CLEANING SUPPLIES COST OF GOODS SOLD CLEANING SUPPLIES COST OF GOODS SOLD CLEANING SUPPLIES CENTENNIAL LAKES OPERATING EDINBOROUGH OPERATIONS EDINBOROUGH OPERATIONS EDINBOROUGH CONCESSIONS EDINBOROUGH OPERATIONS EDINBOROUGH OPERATIONS EDINBOROUGH OPERATIONS 984.26 AMBULANCE OVERPAYMENT REFUND 336692 EILEEN KASELL 1470.4329 AMBULANCE FEES FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 984.26 R55CKR2 LOGIS100 CITY OF EDINA 3/4/2014 11:32:40 Council Check Register by GL Page- 21 Council Check Register and Summary 3/6/2014 — 3/6/2014 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 380665 3/612014 132063 RAPP, CRAIG Continued... 1,200.00 LEADERSHIP PROGRAM FEE 336386 01.01.14 1120.6105 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS ADMINISTRATION 1,200.00 380666 316/2014 129562 RISCHMILLER, KEITH 41.98 UNIFORM PURCHASE 336693 022614 1301.6201 LAUNDRY GENERAL MAINTENANCE 41.98 380667 3/6/2014 100980 ROBERT B. HILL CO. 333.81 SOFTENER SALT 00002299 336760 00295255 5720.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES EDINBOROUGH OPERATIONS 333.81 380668 3/6/2014 100988 SAFETY KLEEN 267.31 RECYCLE PARTS WASHER 336387 62837020 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 267.31 380669 3/6/2014 132076 SCHERBER CO. 2,500.00 REFUND ESCROW - MIRROR LAKES 336717 ED129034 1495.4109 CONSTRUCTION DEPOSIT INSPECTIONS 2,500.00 380670 3/6/2014 100995 SEH 1,221.84 ENGINEERING SERVICES 336388 277968 01406.1705.20 CONSULTING DESIGN MORNINGSIDE NHOOD RECON 1,402.28 ENGINEERING SERVICES 336388 277968 01407.1705.20 CONSULTING DESIGN HAWKES NHOOD RECON 1,402.28 ENGINEERING SERVICES 336388 277968 01408.1705.20 CONSULTING DESIGN WARDEN AVE 4,439.12 ENGINEERING SERVICES 336388 277968 01409.1705.20 CONSULTING DESIGN WALNUT RIDGE NHOOD RECON 2,504.56 ENGINEERING SERVICES 336388 277968 01410.1705.20 CONSULTING DESIGN CLOVER LAKE NHOOD RECON 4,040.96 ENGINEERING SERVICES 336388 277968 01411.1705.20 CONSULTING DESIGN EDINATERRACE NHOOD RECON 378.00 ENGINEERING SERVICES 336388 277968 10098.1705.20 CONSULTING DESIGN BR8 78TH STREET BRIDGE REHAB 162.00 ENGINEERING SERVICES 336388 277968 10099.1705.20 CONSULTING DESIGN BR9 GUS YOUNG BRIDGE REHAB 2,462.76 NORMANDALE STREET RECONS 336389 278302 01394.1705.21 CONSULTING INSPECTION NORMANDALE 1,053.32 ANTENNA PROJECTS 336390 278351 1001.4721 SALE OF PROPERTY GENERAL FUND REVENUES 84,812.88 54TH ST BID DOCS AND CPS 336550 278303 01416.1705.20 CONSULTING DESIGN 54TH ST BRIDGE &STREET REPAIR 103,880.00 380671 3/6/2014 104098 SHI INTERNATIONAL CORP 1,701.00 BACKUP LICENSES 336551 801717387 1554.6160 DATA PROCESSING CENT SERV GEN - MIS 1,525.00 LOCALITY CLOUD SUBSCRIPTIONS 00003028 336552 B01705444 1400.6160 DATA PROCESSING POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 761.12 AIRWATCH IPAD LICENSES 336761 B01611577 1400.6160 DATA PROCESSING POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 95.14 AIRWATCH IPAD LICENSES 336761 B01611577 1261.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 95.14 AIRWATCH IPAD LICENSES 336761 B01611577 1130.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES COMMUNICATIONS 47.57 AIRWATCH IPAD LICENSES 336761 B01611577 1495.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES INSPECTIONS R55CKR2 LOGIS100 CITY OF EDINA 3/4/2014 11:32:40 Council Check Register by GL Page- 22 Council Check Register and Summary 3/6/2014 - 3/6/2014 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 380671 3/6/2014 104098 SHI INTERNATIONAL CORP Continued... 47.57 AIRWATCH IPAD LICENSES 336761 601611577 1550.6104 CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL 47.57 AIRWATCH IPAD LICENSES 336761 B01611577 1120.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES ADMINISTRATION 47.57 AIRWATCH [PAD LICENSES 336761 B01611577 1140.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES PLANNING 285.42 AIRWATCH [PAD LICENSES 336761 B01611577 1554.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES CENT SERV GEN - MIS 4,653.10 380672 3/612014 103237 SHIRLEY, TOM 67.42 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT 336762 022514 5760.6107 MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE CENTENNIAL LAKES ADMIN EXPENSE 65.26 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT 336794 030113 5760.6107 MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE CENTENNIAL LAKES ADMIN EXPENSE 132.68 - 380673 3/6/2014 120784 SIGN PRO 201.00 IQ POSTERS 336391 7518 1552.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES CENT SVC PW BUILDING 201.00 380674 3/612014 100999 SIGNAL SYSTEMS INC. 155.65 r TIME CLOCK RENTAL 336763 13063559 5310.6105 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS POOL ADMINISTRATION 155.65 380676 316/2014 120292 SIGNATURE CONCEPTS 359.05 APPAREL 336392 570873 7410.6406 GENERALSUPPLIES PSTF'ADMINISTRATION 359.05 380676 3/6/2014 133014 SOCCER SHOTS . 3,626.00 WINTER SOCCER PROGRAM 336795 2013 1624.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PLAYGROUND & THEATER 3,626.00 380677 3/612014 127878 SOUTHERN WINE AND SPIRITS 2,505.47 336464 1134792 5862.5512 COST -OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 1,385.00 336465 1134781 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 4,133.23 336466 1134786 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 3,467.00 336467 1134785 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 163.00- 336468 9028791 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 40.62 336613 1134783 5822.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX 50TH ST SELLING 738.89 336614 1134782 5822.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR 50TH ST SELLING .37 336615 1134790 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 5,352.96 336616 1134791 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 1,964.64 336617 1134788 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 19,425.18 R55CKR2 LOGIS100 CITY OF EDINA 3/4/2014 11:32:40 Council Check Register by GL Page- 23 Council Check Register and Summary 3/6/2014 - 3/6/2014 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 380678 3/6/2014 122456 SPRING LAKE ENGINEERING Continued... 200.00 SCADA PROGRAMMING 00001652 336393 1353 5913.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES DISTRIBUTION 600.00 PLC PROGRAMMING 00001652 336394 1357 5913.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES DISTRIBUTION 800.00 380679 31612014 104672 SPRINT 16.49 336694 873184124 -135 1190.6188 TELEPHONE ASSESSING 319.92 336694 873184124 -135 1470.6151 EQUIPMENT RENTAL FIRE DEPT, GENERAL 5.94 336694 873184124 -135 1495.6188 TELEPHONE INSPECTIONS 156.53 336694 873184124 -135 1400.6188 TELEPHONE POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 882.43 336694 873184124 -135 1400.6160 DATA PROCESSING POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 176.53 336694 873184124 -135 1301.6168 TELEPHONE GENERAL MAINTENANCE 242.03 336694 873184124 -135 1640.6188 TELEPHONE PARK MAINTENANCE GENERAL 45.15 336694 873184124 -135 1260.6188 TELEPHONE ENGINEERING GENERAL 22.05 336694 873184124 -135 1553.6188 TELEPHONE EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 80.67 336694 873184124 -135 1322.6188 TELEPHONE STREET LIGHTING ORNAMENTAL 58.50 336694 873184124 -135 1240.6188 TELEPHONE PUBLIC WORKS ADMIN GENERAL 72.90 336694 873184124 -135 1552.6188 TELEPHONE CENT SVC PW BUILDING 48.99 336694 673184124 -135 1240.6188 TELEPHONE PUBLIC WORKS ADMIN GENERAL 34.29 336694 873184124 -135 4090.6188 TELEPHONE 50TH &FRANCE MAINTENANCE 31.14 336694 873184124 -135 5422.6188 TELEPHONE MAINT OF COURSE-& GROUNDS - 16.49 336694 873184124 -135 5511.6168 TELEPHONE ARENA BLDG /GROUNDS 7.47 336694 873184124 -135 5720.6188 TELEPHONE EDINBOROUGH OPERATIONS 408.97 336694 873184124 -135 5910.6168 TELEPHONE GENERAL (BILLING) 21.15 336694 873184124 -135 7411.6188 TELEPHONE PSTF OCCUPANCY 2,647.64 380680 3/6/2014 101004 SPS COMPANIES 135.58 FLOW CONTROL SPINDLES 00002297 336764 S2858162.001 5720.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES EDINBOROUGH OPERATIONS 72.08 ACTUATOR, CARTRIDGE 00002292 336765 S2856346.001 5720.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES EDINBOROUGH OPERATIONS 125.31 DRAIN CLEANER, PUTTY 336766 S2862850.001 5720.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES EDINBOROUGH OPERATIONS 332.97 380681 316/2014 133068 STEEL TOE BREWING LLC 168.00 336618 2675 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING 247.75 336619 2674 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING 415.75 380682 3/6/2014 124799 STERLING WELDING COMPANY INC. 2,025.00 THAW WATER LINES 00001661 336553 15192 5913.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS DISTRIBUTION 675.00 THAW WATER LINE 336554 15193 5913.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS DISTRIBUTION R55CKR2 LOGIS100 MERCHANDISE 336397 21503906 CITY OF EDINA COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 495.93 GOLF CLUBS 336696 Council Check Register by GL 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 66.00 - Council Check Register and Summary 21744773 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 359.10- 3/6/2014 — 3/6/2014 336796 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 380682 3/6/2014 124799 STERLING WELDING COMPANY INC. Continued... 380689 3/6/2014 300.00 THAW WATER LINE 336555 15194 5913.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS 487.50 THAW WATER LINE 336556 15197 5913.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 3,487.50 4,638.00 380683 316/2014 112668 STONEBROOKE EQUIPMENT INC. 380690 3/612014 122794 TENNANT SALES AND SERVICE COMPANY 610.43 CUTTING EDGE KIT, HEADLIGHT 00005993 336695 30319 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS 912173577 610.43 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 297.40 380684 316/2014 101017 SUBURBAN CHEVROLET 380691 3/6/2014 101326 TERMINAL SUPPLY CO 15.45 GASKET 336558 1535472 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS 15.45 380686 3/612014 101019 SUBURBAN RATE AUTHORITY 2,000.00 FIRST HALF DUES 336557 022714 1506.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 2,000.00 380686 3/6/2014 121492 SUPERIOR TURF SERVICES INC. 3,988.90 FERTILIZER 336395 9694 5422.6540 FERTILIZER 3,988.90' - 380687 3/6/2014 130367 TASC 779.00 RENEWAL FEE, JAN 2014 PREMIUM 336396 IN259537 1556.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 779.00 380688 3/612014 104932 TAYLOR MADE 3/4/2014 11:32:40 Page - 24 Business Unit DISTRIBUTION DISTRIBUTION EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN SUBURBAN RATE AUTHORITY MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS EMPLOYEE SHARED SERVICES 69.35 MERCHANDISE 336397 21503906 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 495.93 GOLF CLUBS 336696 21561454 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 66.00 - PROMO CREDIT 336697 21744773 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 359.10- RETURN 336796 21734359 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 140.18 380689 3/6/2014 118133 TCIC INC. 4,638.00 SCADA SUPPORT 00001536 336559 00085492 5913.6103 - PROFESSIONAL SERVICES DISTRIBUTION 4,638.00 380690 3/612014 122794 TENNANT SALES AND SERVICE COMPANY 297.40 BRUSHES 00005981 336560 912173577 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 297.40 380691 3/6/2014 101326 TERMINAL SUPPLY CO R55CKR2 LOGIS100 CITY OF EDINA 3/4/2014 11:32:40 Council Check Register by GL Page- 25 Council Check Register and Summary 3/6/2014 — 3/6/2014 Check # Date Amount Supplier/ Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 380691 3/6/2014 101326 TERMINAL SUPPLY CO Continued... 145.23 MINI COILS 00005014 336561 92547 -00 1553.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 145.23 380692 3/612014 101036 THORPE DISTRIBUTING COMPANY 2,590.05 336620 807278 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING 2,590.05 380693 3/6/2014 101474 TITLEIST 552.00 GOLF BALLS 336398 2329471 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 552.00 _ 380694 .3/6/2014 128347 TKO WINES INC. 678.00 336621 908732 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 678.00 380695 3/6/2014 123969 TWIN CITIES OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH PC 275.00 PRE- EMPLOYMENT TESTING 336399 102179527 1550.6121 ADVERTISING PERSONNEL CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL 275.00 380696 316/2014 101360 TWIN CITY HARDWARE CO. 787.09 FRAME, DOOR, HARDWARE 336562 629278 1375.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES PARKING RAMP 705.51 FRAME, DOOR, HARDWARE 336563 630622 1375.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES PARKING RAMP 1,492.60 380697 3/6/2014 101065 UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA 150.00 CONFERENCE - JEFF FRAHM 336797 1304008 1261.6104 CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 150.00 380698 3/612014 100668 URS CORPORATION 35,378.75 PROMENADE PHASE 4 336564 5779519 01251.1705.20 CONSULTING DESIGN A -251 PROMENADE IV H2O FEATURE' 35,378.75 380699 3/6/2014 119476 USPCA REGION 12 60.00 K9 NARCOTICS CONFERENCE 336767 MAR 23 1400.6104 CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 60.00 380700 3/6/2014 101058 VAN PAPER CO. 74.05 CAN LINERS 00001625 336698 302717 -00 1552.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES CENT SVC PW BUILDING 74.05 R55CKR2 LOGIS100 CITY OF EDINA Council Check Register by GL Council Check Register and Summary 3/6/2014 — 3/6/2014 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledgei Account Description 380701 3/6/2014 102970 VERIZON WIRELESS Continued... 92.42 DISPATCH JAN 2014 336565 9719795697 2310.6188 TELEPHONE 92.42 380702 31612014 101063 VERSATILE VEHICLES INC. 899.52 BATTERIES, WIRE ASSEMBLIES 00002094 336699 220140004 5761.6530 REPAIR PARTS 899.52 380703 3/6/2014 101066 VIKING ELECTRIC SUPPLY 3,687.48 LIGHT FIXTURES 00001505 336400 8046386 1552.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 3,687.48 380704 316/2014 119454 VINOCOPIA 89.50 336469 0093217 -IN 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 277.00 336470 0093220 -IN 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 366.50 380706 3/6/2014 133667 VIOLANTE, KATHRYN 59.00 MUSEUM TRIP REFUND 336768 022814 1628.4392.07 SENIOR TRIPS 59.00 380706 3/6/2014 123616 WATER CONSERVATION SERVICE INC. 1,300.80 WATERMAIN BREAK LOCATING 00001656 336401 4731 5913.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS 1,306.80 380707 3/6/2014 133666 WIKMAN, GUY 114.25 UTILITY OVERPAYMENT REFUND 336700 5800 HANSEN RD 5900.2015 CUSTOMER REFUND 114.25 380708, 316/2014 101973 WILMOT, SOLVEI 64.41 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT 336798 11/2013 1490.6107 MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE 1.70 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT 336798 11/2013 5952,6107 MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE 44.07 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT 336799 12/2013 1490.6107 MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE 110.18 380709 3/6/2014 101033 WINE COMPANY, THE 3/4/2014 11:32:40 Page - 26 Business Unit Call CENTENNIAL LAKES OPERATING CENT SVC PW BUILDING 50TH ST SELLING VERNON SELLING SENIOR CITIZENS DISTRIBUTION UTILITY BALANCE SHEET PUBLIC HEALTH RECYCLING PUBLIC HEALTH 464.25 336471 354460 -00 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 944.50 336622 354456 -00 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 633.90 336707 354457 -00 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 2,042.65 R55CKR2 LOGIS100 CITY OF EDINA 3/4/2014 11:32:40 Council Check Register by GL Page- 27 Council Check Register and Summary 1 3/6/2014 - 3/6/2014 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanatlon PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 380710 3/6/2014 101312 WINE MERCHANTS Continued... 942.08 336472 492285 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 2,693.14 336473 492288 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 73.12 336474 492284 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 175.58- 336475 64245 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE BOTH ST SELLING 2,073.92 336623 493132 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 1,350.18 336624 493131 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 204.80 336708 493201 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 7,161.66 380711 31612014 124291 WIRTZ BEVERAGE MINNESOTA 1,631.11 336476 1080148113 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 7,975.08 336477 1080148112 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK.SELLING 88.09 336478 1080148135 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING 1,251.75 336479 1080148110 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 48.00- 336480 2080030218 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 2,128.22 336625 1060148109 5822.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR 50TH ST SELLING 146.30 336626 1080148108 5862.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING 6,095.14 336627 1080148106 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 3,345.93 336628 1080148105 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 13.50- 336629 2080031495 5822.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR 50TH ST SELLING 22,600.12 380712 31612014 124629 WIRTZ BEVERAGE MINNESOTA BEER INC 123.00 336481 1090184924 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING 779.10 336482 1090184923 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING 43.00 336483 1090184922 5822.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX 50TH ST SELLING 238.50 336484 1090184921 5822.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 50TH ST SELLING 1,765.60 336485 1090184819 5662.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING 1,190.00 336486 1090185224 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING 2,065.20 336487 1090185922 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING 1,929.85 336488 1090184820 5822.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 50TH ST SELLING 1,246.70 336630 1090188102 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING 270.60 336631 1090188103 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING 129.00 336632 1090188104 5862.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING 1,112.60 336709 1090186108 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING 10,893.15 380713 316/2014 101726 XCEL ENERGY 1,014.09 51- 9011854 -4 336769 402564473 5913.6185 LIGHT & POWER DISTRIBUTION 68.76 51- 8997917 -7 336770 402580851 1321.6185 LIGHT & POWER STREET LIGHTING REGULAR R55CKR2 LOGIS100 CITY OF EDINA Council Check Register by GL Council Check Register and Summary 3/6/2014 - 3/6/2014 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 380713 316/2014 101726 XCEL ENERGY Continued... 14.50 51- 6541084 -2 336771 402552660 1646.6185 LIGHT & POWER 42.33 51- 0223133 -2 336772 402454009 1322.6185 LIGHT & POWER 39.28 51- 0194596 -8 336773 402453868 1321.6185 LIGHT & POWER 37.52 51- 0160483 -1 336774 402453458 1330.6185 LIGHT & POWER 936.35 51- 0010166207 -2 336775 402606405 1646.6185 LIGHT & POWER 35.58 51 -0010118404 -0 336776 402597282 1322.6185 LIGHT & POWER 40.62 51 -0010103585 -7 336777 402596054 5210.6185 LIGHT.& POWER 109.86 51- 9770164 -7 336778 402590766 1321.6185 LIGHT & POWER 1,154.68 51- 9251919-0 336779 402603682 5765.6185 LIGHT &.POWER 97.04 51 -0692497-0 336780 402571472 1460.6185 LIGHT & POWER 32,414.95 51 -4621797 -2 336781 402706062 1321.6185 LIGHT & POWER 56.77 51- 4420190 -3 336782 402373707 1321.6185 LIGHT & POWER 1,270.58 51- 5107681 -4 336783 402529568 5111.6185 LIGHT & POWER 2,588.06 51- 0010060454 -7 336784 402604202 5210.6185 LIGHT & POWER 9,335.31 51 -6644819 -9 336785 402552694 5720.6185 LIGHT & POWER . 9,003.48 51- 6955679 -8 336786 403075128 1551.6185 LIGHT & POWER 58,259.76 380714 3/6/2014 119647 YOCUM OIL COMPANY INC. 13,536.80 DIESEL FUEL 00005986 336402 612164 1553.6581 13,536.80 380716 3/612014 101672 ZARNOTH BRUSH WORKS INC- 121.35 SWEEPER PARTS .336566 0148006 -IN 1310.6523 121.35 380716 3/6/2014 7,600.00 588.32 8,188.32 380717 3/612014 60.00 60.00 921,605.17 101091 ZIEGLER INC GRADER RENTAL 00001663 336701 K7126302 CUTTING EDGES, BOLTS 00005988 336702 PC001541538 102600 ZIMMERMAN, TIM SAFETY BOOTS 336403 022414 Grand Total GASOLINE BROOMS 5913.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS 1646.6610 SAFETY EQUIPMENT Payment Instrument Totals Check Total 921,605.17 Total Payments 921,605.17 3/4/2014 11:32:40 Page - 28 Business Unit BUILDING MAINTENANCE STREET LIGHTING ORNAMENTAL STREET LIGHTING REGULAR TRAFFIC SIGNALS BUILDING MAINTENANCE STREET LIGHTING ORNAMENTAL GOLF DOME PROGRAM STREET LIGHTING REGULAR PROMENADE EXPENSES CIVILIAN DEFENSE STREET LIGHTING REGULAR STREET LIGHTING REGULAR ART CENTER BLDG /MAINT GOLF DOME PROGRAM EDINBOROUGH OPERATIONS CITY HALL GENERAL EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN STREET CLEANING DISTRIBUTION EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN BUILDING MAINTENANCE R55CKS2 LOGIS100 CITY OF EDINA 3/412014 11:32:48 Council Check Summary Page- 1 3/6/2014 - 3/6/2014 Company Amount 01000 GENERAL FUND 413,135.80 02300 POLICE SPECIAL REVENUE 2,684.42 04000 WORKING CAPITAL FUND 138,625.72 05100 ART CENTER FUND 1,270.58 05200 GOLF DOME FUND 23,691.74 05300 AQUATIC CENTER FUND 298.75 05400 GOLF COURSE FUND 31,885.57 05500 ICE ARENA FUND 2,423.10 05700 EDINBOROUGH PARK FUND 35,898.43 05750 CENTENNIAL LAKES PARK FUND 4,348.52 05800 LIQUOR FUND 171,033.19 05900 UTILITY FUND 76,229.69 05950 RECYCLING FUND 1,70 07400 PSTF AGENCY FUND 20,077.96 Report Totals 921,605.17 We confirm to the best of our knowledge and belief, that these claims comply in all material respects with the requirements of the City of Edina purchasing po ic G i s and procedures e r R55CKR2 LOGIS101 CITY OF EDINA 3/11/2014 11:57:01 Council Check Register by GL Page - 1 Council Check Register by Invoice & Summary 3/13/2014 - 3/13/2014 Check # Date Amount Supplier/ Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 380718 3/1312014 124613 ABM JANITORIAL - NORTH CENTRAL INC. 2,753.75 MAR 2014 SERVICE 337198 6376461 1551.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CITY HALL GENERAL 2,753.75 380719 3/13/2014 102971 ACE ICE COMPANY 34.00 336896 1767031 5862.5515 COST OF GOODS, SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING 37.20 336895 1769064 5822.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX 50TH ST SELLING 102.00 336897 1769065 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING 173.20 380720 3/1312014 100617 ADAM'S PEST CONTROL 28.00 DRAIN SERVICE 337112 858874 5421.6102 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES GRILL 28.00 DRAIN SERVICE 337113 864409 5421.6102 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES GRILL 56.00 380721 3/13/2014 131688 ADLER, LAURA 13.44 337114 REIMBURSEMENT 1263.6107 MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE ENVIRONMENT 36.94 337114 REIMBURSEMENT 1263.6106 MEETING EXPENSE ENVIRONMENT 50.38 380722 3/13/2014 105991 AL'S COFFEE COMPANY 74.44 COFFEE 337115 155792 5730.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD EDINBOROUGH CONCESSIONS 74.44 380723 3113/2014 101479 AMERICAN SERVICES CORP. 74.76 BALER TWINE 336800 3360 5861.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES VERNON OCCUPANCY 74.76 380724 3/13/2014 101116 AMERIPRIDE SERVICES 197.20 336801 022814 1470.6201 LAUNDRY FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 283.04 336801 022814 1551.6201 LAUNDRY CITY HALL GENERAL 482.62 336801 022814 1470.6201 LAUNDRY FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 89.96 336801 022814 5421.6201 LAUNDRY GRILL 73.63 336801 022814 5821.6201 LAUNDRY 50TH ST OCCUPANCY 154.50 336801 022814 5841.6201 LAUNDRY YORK OCCUPANCY 156.68 336801 022814 5861.6201 LAUNDRY VERNON OCCUPANCY 1,437.63 380726 3/13/2014 101601 AMUNDSON, ERIK 80.00 IAFCI MEMBERSHIP 336851 030414 1400.6105 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 80.00 R55CKR2 LOGIS101 IPAD WARRANTIES 337050 CITY OF EDINA. 1470.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 99.00 IPAD WARRANTIES Council Check Register by GL 4273004882 1554.6710 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT CENT SERV GEN - MIS 99.00 Council Check Register by Invoice & Summary 337050 4273004882 1554.6710 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT CENT SERV GEN - MIS 729.00 3/13/2014 - 3/13/2014 00004301 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 380726 3/13/2014 4273134092 101601 AMUNDSON, ERIK EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT CENT SERV GEN - MIS Continued... 380726 3113/2014 337049 100630 ANCHOR PAPER COMPANY 1470.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 2,784.00 148.72 CARD STOCK PAPER 336802 10389437 -00 5822.6512 PAPER SUPPLIES 380730 3/1312014 148.72 CARD STOCK PAPER 336802 10389437 -00 5842.6512 PAPER SUPPLIES 148.72 CARD STOCK PAPER 336802 10389437 -00 5862.6512 PAPER SUPPLIES 5210.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD 446.16 380727 3113/2014 101874 ANCOM COMMUNICATIONS INC. 153.25 RADIO CHARGER 00003755 337199 43426 1470.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 153.25 380728 3/13/2014 102172 APPERTS FOODSERVICE 495.48 CONCESSION PRODUCT 337118 2073617 5730.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD 324.90 CONCESSION PRODUCT 337117 2074986 5730.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD 419.46 CONCESSION PRODUCT 337116 2077415 5730.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD 336.31 CONCESSION PRODUCT 337119 2078729 5730.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD 1,576.15 380729 3/13/2014 118491 APPLE INC. 3/1112014 11:57:01 Page - 2 Business Unit 50TH ST SELLING YORK SELLING VERNON SELLING FIRE DEPT. GENERAL - EDINBOROUGH CONCESSIONS EDINBOROUGH CONCESSIONS EDINBOROUGH CONCESSIONS EDINBOROUGH CONCESSIONS 99.00 IPAD WARRANTIES 337050 4273004882 1470.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 99.00 IPAD WARRANTIES 337050 4273004882 1554.6710 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT CENT SERV GEN - MIS 99.00 IPAD WARRANTIES 337050 4273004882 1554.6710 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT CENT SERV GEN - MIS 729.00 IPADS 00004301 337049 4273134092 1554.6710 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT CENT SERV GEN - MIS 829.00 IPADS 00004301 337049 4273134092 1554.6710 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT CENT SERV GEN - MIS 929.00 IPADS 00004301 337049 4273134092 1470.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 2,784.00 380730 3/1312014 103680 ARAMARK REFRESHMENT SRVCS 98.21 COFFEE 336803 1112107 5210.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD GOLF DOME PROGRAM 98.21 380731 3/13/2014 132031 ARTISAN BEER COMPANY 1,730.80 336898 43642 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING 516.00 336899 43644 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING 2,246.80 380732 3/13/2014 102774 ASPEN WASTE SYSTEMS 264.31 1-146354 336852 030114 7411.6182 RUBBISH REMOVAL 264.31 PSTF OCCUPANCY R55CKR2 LOGIS101 CITY OF EDINA 3/11/2014 11:57:01 Council Check Register by GL Page - 3 Council Check Register by Invoice & Summary 3/13/2014 - 3/13/2014 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 380733 3113/2014 126019 B & B PRODUCTS I RIGS AND SQUADS Continued... 100.00 INSTALL NEW GPS UNIT 337051 4060 .1400.6215 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 100.00 380734 3/1312014 100643 BARR ENGINEERING CO. 4,115.50 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 337053 23270354.00 -204 5960.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ENGINEER SERVICES - STORM 4,188.00 GRANDVIEW SANI SEWER ANALYSIS 337052 23271332.00 -3 5925.6103 PRO_ FESSIONAL SERVICES ENGINEER SERVICES - SEWER 8,303.50 380736 3113/2014 100646 BECKER ARENA PRODUCTS INC. 358.25 POLYCARBONATE, RINK SHIELD 337120 00097702 5511.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES ARENA BLDG /GROUNDS 358.25 380736 3/13/2014 101366 BELLBOY CORPORATION 811.10 336900 42089300 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 198.07 336901 89824100 5822.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX 50TH ST SELLING 1,009.17 380737 3/1312014 131191 BERNATELLO'S PIZZA INC. 368.00 PIZZA 336853 D281N1775 5520.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD ARENA CONCESSIONS 522.00 PIZZA 337122 D28IN1803 5730.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD EDINBOROUGH CONCESSIONS 504.00 PIZZA 337121 D28IN1831 5730.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD EDINBOROUGH CONCESSIONS 1,394.00 380738 3/13/2014 126139 BERNICK'S 453.60 336902 117474 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING 453.60 380739 3/13/2014 126847 BERRY COFFEE COMPANY 254.50 COFFEE 337123 1157379 5520.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD ARENA CONCESSIONS 254.50 380740 3113/2014 100648 BERTELSON OFFICE PRODUCTS 54.50- CREDIT 337226 CP- WO- 896755 -1 1600.6406 GENERALSUPPLIES PARKADMIN. GENERAL 161.25 OFFICE SUPLIES 337124 OE- 345625 -1 5720.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES EDINBOROUGH OPERATIONS 187.80 OFFICE SUPPLIES 00003030 336804. WO- 910732 -1 1400.6513 OFFICE SUPPLIES POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 99.13 OFFICE SUPPLIES 336854 WO- 916216 -1 7410.6513 OFFICE SUPPLIES PSTF ADMINISTRATION 15.02 PAPER 337054 WO- 916216 -2 7410.6513 OFFICE SUPPLIES PSTF ADMINISTRATION 84.29 OFFICE SUPPLIES 336805 WO- 916550 -1 1600.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES PARKADMIN. GENERAL 28.55 OFFICE SUPPLIES 336806 WO- 916907 -1 1120.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES ADMINISTRATION 521.54 R55CKR2 LOGIS101 CITY OF EDINA 3/1112014 11:57:01 Council Check Register by GL Page- 4 Council Check Register by Invoice & Summary 3/13/2014 - 3/1312014 Check # Date Amount Supplier/ Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 380740 3113/2014 100648 BERTELSON OFFICE PRODUCTS Continued... 380741 3/13/2014 125209 BISEK, KATIE 98.56 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT 337055 030614 1554.6107 MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE CENT SERV GEN - MIS 259.90 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT 337227 123113 1554.6107 MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE CENT SERV GEN - MIS 358.46 380742 3/13/2014 131494 BONNER & LEACH LLP 2,805.00 LEGAL SERVICES 337126 022814 1195.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES LEGAL SERVICES 18,749.20 FEB 2014 SERVICES 337125 030514 1195.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES LEGAL SERVICES 21,554.20 380743 3/13/2014 105367 BOUND TREE MEDICAL LLC 119.40 AMBULANCE SUPPLIES 00003752 337056 81344731 1470.6510 FIRST AID SUPPLIES FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 752.39 AMBULANCE SUPPLIES 00003753 337057 81349977 1470.6510 FIRST AID SUPPLIES FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 1,468.72 AMBULANCE SUPPLIES 00003762 337058 81351194 1470.6510. FIRST AID SUPPLIES FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 147.18 AMBULANCE SUPPLIES 00003762 337059 81352634 1470.6510 FIRST AID SUPPLIES FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 254.97 AMBULANCE SUPPLIES 00003762 337060 81354084 1470.6510 FIRSTAID SUPPLIES FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 2,742.66 380744 3/13/2014 100659 BOYER TRUCK PARTS 140.84 PIPE 00005044 337200 826991 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 65.50 DIMMER SWITCH 00005987 337201 827006 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 206.34 380745 3/13/2014 104596 BUCKENTINE, JOHN 150.00 SAFETY BOOTS 336855 030314 1646.6610 SAFETY EQUIPMENT BUILDING MAINTENANCE 150.00 380746 3113/2014 115346 CALHOUN BEACH FRAMING 444.76 FRAMED MAP OF NEIGHBORHOODS 337061 020004999 1470.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 444.76 380747 3/1312014 102149 CALLAWAY GOLF 216.09 GOLF BALLS 336807 924986765 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 2,037.90 GOLF CLUBS 336809 924986820 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 33.42 SHIPPING CHARGE 336808 924986894 5440:5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 228.10 GOLF CLUB 336810 924993250 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 282.63 GOLF CLUB 337127 924993252 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 2,798.14 R55CKR2 LOGIS101 CITY OF EDINA 3/11/2014 11:57:01 Council Check Register by GL Page- 5 Council Check Register by Invoice & Summary 3/13/2014 - 3/13/2014 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No - Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 380748 3/13/2014 119466 CAPITOL BEVERAGE SALES Continued... 34.30 336904 444635 5822.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX 50TH ST SELLING 3,671.20 336905 444636 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING 65.00 336906 444637 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING 1,095.62 336903 444638 5822.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 50TH ST SELLING 4,866.12 380749 3/13/2014 100677 CARGILL INC. 5,356.16 ROAD SALT 337062 2901546821 1318.6525 SALT SNOW & ICE REMOVAL 16,320.64 337063 2901549599 1318.6525 SALT SNOW & ICE REMOVAL 11,923.16. 337064 2901585031 1318.6525 SALT SNOW & ICE REMOVAL 1,456.85 337065 2901591406 1318.6525 SALT SNOW & ICE REMOVAL 3,398.50 337066 2901596570 1318.6525 SALT SNOW & ICE REMOVAL 1,740.36 337067 2901602262 1316.6525 SALT SNOW & ICE REMOVAL 3,510.93 337068 2901611379 1318.6525 SALT SNOW &ICE REMOVAL 8,252.65 337069 2901613674 1318.6525 SALT SNOW & ICE REMOVAL 51, 961.25 380760 3/13/2014 129923 CAWLEY 12.83 NAME BADGES' 337070 V208565 1500.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTINGENCIES 12.83 380761 3113/2014 102372 CDW GOVERNMENT INC. 5,654.62 PCR TOUGHPADS 00004303 337071 JZ27553 1470.6510 FIRST AID SUPPLIES FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 143.51 COMMUNITY ROOM KEYBOARD 337072 KC30658 1554.6406 GENERALS UPPLIES CENT SERV G_ EN_- MIS 5,798.13 380762 3/13/2014 100897 CENTERPOINT ENERGY 16,087.49 336811 8000014561 -7 5511.6186 HEAT ARENA BLDG /GROUNDS 16,087.49 380763 3/13/2014 123898 - CENTURYLINK 88.01 952 831 -0024: 336812 0024 -2/14 1552.6188 TELEPHONE CENT SVC PW BUILDING 55.56 952 929 - 0297 336813 0297 -2114 4090.6188 TELEPHONE 50TH &FRANCE MAINTENANCE 344.25 952 927 -8661 336814 8861 -2114 1554.6188 TELEPHONE CENT SERV GEN - MIS 487.82 380764 3/1312014 100687 CITY OF RICHFIELD 215.70 DEC 2013 EXCELADAMS PARK 337228 5803 5934.6165 LIGHT & POWER STORM LIFT STATION MAINT 7.88 JAN 2014 XCEL ADAMS PARK 336856 5804 5934.6185 LIGHT &;POWER STORM LIFT STATION MAINT 20.96 FEB 2014 EXCELADAMS PARK 336857 5805 5934.6185 LIGHT &POWER STORM LIFT STATION MAINT R55CKR2 LOGIS101 CITY OF EDINA Council Check Register by GL Council Check Register by Invoice 8 Summary 3/13/2014 - 3/13/2014 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 380764 3/13/2014 100687 CITY OF RICHFIELD Continued... 244.54 360765 3/13/2014 130477 CLEAR RIVER BEVERAGE CO 380766 3/13/2014 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP 102166 CLEVELAND GOLF 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL -SALES 143.30 MERCHANIDSE 337229 4023693 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP 135.00- CREDIT 337231 4057560 5430.6188 8.30- CREDIT 337230 4059620 CLUB HOUSE 454.95 GOLF BALLS 337128 4197871 GENERAL SUPPLIES 454.95 1553.6238 i CAR WASH EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 380767 3/1312014 POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 120433 COMCAST CONSTR. IN PROGRESS SPORTS DOME BALANCE SHEET 5550.1705 CONSTR. IN PROGRESS 9.03 8772 10 614 0161120 337131 161120 -2114 90.85 8772 10 614 0164959 337129 164959 -2114 68.72 8772 10 614 0177449 337130 177449 -2/14 168.60 380768 3113/2014 101916 COUNTRY FLAGS 530.00 FLAGS 336815 6602 530.00 380769 3/1312014 100613 COVERALL OF THE TWIN CITIES INC. 237.94 RAMP STAIRWELL CLEANING 337202 7070199927 237.94 380760 3/13/2014 133672 CROIX OIL COMPANY 172.00 JAN 2014 WASHES 337132 403254 172.00 380761 3/13/2014 100699 CULLIGAN BOTTLED WATER 230.65 114- 10014090 -3 337133 FEB2014 230.65 380762 3/1312014 _ 129660- CUNINGHAM GROUP ARCHITECTURE 112,860.00 DESIGN DEVELOPMENT 336816 40509 617.26 EXPENSES REIMBURSEMENT 336817 40510 113,477.26 3/1112014 11:57:01 Page - 6 Business Unit 5822.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 50TH ST SELLING 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES. 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL -SALES 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 5510.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ARENAADMINISTRATION 5430.6188 TELEPHONE RICHARDS GOLF COURSE 5420.6188 TELEPHONE CLUB HOUSE 5761.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES CENTENNIAL LAKES OPERATING 4090.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 50TH&FRANCE MAINTENANCE 1553.6238 i CAR WASH EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 1400.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 5550.1705 CONSTR. IN PROGRESS SPORTS DOME BALANCE SHEET 5550.1705 CONSTR. IN PROGRESS SPORTS DOME BALANCE SHEET R55CKR2 LOGIS101 CITY OF EDINA 3/11/2014 11:57:01 Council Check Register by GL Page - 7 Council Check Register by Invoice 6 Summary 3/13/2014 — 3/13/2014 Check # Date. Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger. Account Description Business Unit 380763 3/1312014 133169 DAIKIN APPLIED Continued... 984.58 EQUIPMENT REPAIRS 336858 2614802 5511.6136 PROFESSIONAL SVC - OTHER ARENA BLDG /GROUNDS 984.58 380764 3113/2014 102478 DAY DISTRIBUTING CO. 66.30 336909 741919 5862.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING 2,106.25 336910 741920 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING 717.95 336911 741921 5822.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 50TH ST SELLING 36.80 336912 741922 5822.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX 50TH ST SELLING 2,547.45 336908 741923 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING 5,474.75 380766 3/13/2014 101667 DEHN, BRUCE 1,313.70 POLICY TERMINATION REFUND 336818 030414 9900.2033.12 CANCER INSURANCE - 99 PAYROLL CLEARING 1,313.70 380766 3/13/2014 131661 DELANEY CONSULTING LLC 2,400.00 CUSTOMER SERVICE DEVELOPMENT 336819 1293 5410.6122 ADVERTISING OTHER GOLF ADMINISTRATION 2,400.00 380767 3/13/2014 100720 DENNYS 6TH AVE. BAKERY 57.86 BAKERY 337134 495604 5421.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD GRILL 57.86 380768 311312014 123996 DICK'SILAKEVILLE SANITATION INC. 3,497.72 REFUSE 337135 DT0000722612 4095.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 50TH STREET RUBBISH 3,256.19 REFUSE 337136 DT0000722613 4095.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 50TH STREET RUBBISH 6,753.91 380769 3113/2014 129718 DREW S CONCESSIONS LLC 288.00 CARAMEL CORN 336859 1712 5520.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD ARENA CONCESSIONS 288.00 380770 3/1312014 103621 ECOLAB EQUIPMENT CARE 129.79 DRAIN LINE HEATER 337138 93246989 5720.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES EDINBOROUGH OPERATIONS 165.74 HOT DOG ROLLER TUBES 337137 93248878 5730.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES EDINBOROUGH CONCESSIONS 295.53 380771 3/13/2014 124503 EDEN PRAIRIE WINLECTRIC CO. 101.11 ELECTRICAL PARTS 00001579 337139 10658600 5511.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES ARENA BLDG /GROUNDS 8.75 HEX BIT 00001288 337203 10692000 1322.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES STREET LIGHTING ORNAMENTAL R55CKR2 LOGIS101 CITY OF EDINA 3/11/2014 11:57:01 Council Check Register by GL Page - 8 Council Check Register by Invoice & Summary 3/13/2014 — 3/13/2014 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 380771 3/1312014 124603 EDEN PRAIRIE WINLECTRIC CO. Continued... 109.86 380772 3/1312014 103694 EDINALARM INC. 117.56 ALARM REPAIR 336820 86637 5841.6250 ALARM SERVICE YORK OCCUPANCY 117.56 380773 3113/2014 129947 EHLERS INVESTMENT PARTNERS 94.66 MANAGEMENT FEE 337140 020314 1550.6155 BANK SERVICES CHARGES CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL 94.66 380774 3113/2014 133684 ERICKSON, KARL 104.00 CONTRACTED INVENTORY SERVICE 337141 030514 1624.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PLAYGROUND & THEATER 104.00 360775 3/13/2014 100018 EXPERT T BILLING 6,307.00 FEB AMBULANCE BILLINGS 337142 1253 1470.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 6,307.00 380776 3/13/2014 100146 FACTORY MOTOR PARTS COMPANY 30.71 HALOGEN BULB 337204 1 -4386097 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 30.71 380777 311312014 130136 FADS; SUSAN 100.24 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT 337143 030514 1600.6107 MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE PARKADMIN. GENERAL 100.24 380778 3/13/2014 133296 FEED THE DOG 906.25 LIVING STREETS ACTIVITIES 337144 022814 LS 2501.6710 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT PACS IS 906.25 380779 3/13/2014 126004 FERGUSON WATERWORKS 11.80 O RINGS 00001654 336860 0068986 5917.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES METER REPAIR 3,201.43 WM FITTINGS 00001654 336861 0069964 5913.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES DISTRIBUTION 3,213.23 380780 311312014 120831 FIRST SCRIBE INC. 425.00 ROWAY 337073 2462156 1263.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ENVIRONMENT 425.00 380781 3112'" 133686 FISCHER MINING LLC R55CKR2 . LOGIS101 CITY OF EDINA 3/11/2014 11:57:01 Council Check Register by GL Page - 9 Council Check Register by Invoice & Summary 3/13/2014 - 3/13/2014 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 380781 3113/2014 133686 FISCHER MINING LLC Continued... 2,242.05 ICE CONTROL SAND 00001246 337074 10049 1318.6517 SAND GRAVEL & ROCK SNOW & ICE REMOVAL 2,242.05 380782 3/1312014 120776 GAGE, NATHALIE 34.61 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT 337145 030514 1130.6107 MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE COMMUNICATIONS 34.61 380783 3/13/2014 100768 GARTNER REFRIGERATION & MFG INC 1,002.00 EQUIPMENT REPAIRS 337146 43909 5511.6160 CONTRACTED REPAIRS ARENA BLDG /GROUNDS 1,002.00 380784 3/1312014 101931 GEAR FOR SPORTS 1,299.23 337148 11641690 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 891.63 MERCHANDISE 337147 11641709 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 1,477.02 337149 40784616 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 1,320:23 337150 40784649 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 4,968.11 380785 3/13/2014 118941 GLOBALSTAR USA 57.75 R 791 PHONE 337075 5397933 1470.6186 TELEPHONE FIRE DEPT..GENERAL 57.75 380786 3/1312014 100780 GOPHER STATE ONE -CALL INC. 171.90 FEB SERVICE . 336862 94349 5913.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES DISTRIBUTION 171.90 380787 3113/2014 129585 GOSSARD, TRAVIS 194.85 UNIFORM PURCHASE 337205 030614 1301.6201 LAUNDRY GENERAL MAINTENANCE 194.85 380788 3113/2014 101103 GRAINGER 19.39 PLUG 00006364 337154 9365641100 5210.6530 REPAIR PARTS GOLF DOME PROGRAM 145.10 BUCKETS 00006288 337151 9372638917 5210.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES GOLF DOME PROGRAM 19.39 PLUG 00006288 337152 9373184687 5210.6530 REPAIR PARTS GOLF DOME PROGRAM 123.80 EAR PLUGS 00005856 336863 9373184903 1301.6610 SAFETY EQUIPMENT GENERAL MAINTENANCE 32.89 COUPLER, FUSES, CAULK 00006289 337153 9374309681 5420.6530 REPAIR PARTS CLUB HOUSE 340.57 380789 3/1312014 121636 GRAY MATTER CREATIVE LLC . 2,000.00 ACTIVITIES DIRECTORY DESIGN 337076 13290 1130.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES COMMUNICATIONS R55CKR2 LOGIS101 CITY OF EDINA 3/11/2014 11:57:01 Council Check Register by GL Page, 10 Council Check Register by Invoice & Summary 3/13/2014 — 3/13/2014 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 380789 3113/2014 121636 GRAY MATTER CREATIVE LLC Continued... 2,000.00 380790 3113/2014 100786 GREUPNER, JOE 1,979.00 GOLF LESSONS 337155 030714 5410.6132 PROFESSIONAL SVCS - GOLF GOLF ADMINISTRATION 1,979.00 380791 3/13/2014 106539 GREYSTONE CONSTRUCTION CO. 27,314.50 GRANDVIEW REMODEL 336821 24355_ 5861.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES VERNON OCCUPANCY 27,314.50 380792 3/13/2014 100787 GRUBER'S POWER EQUIPMENT 13.45 WASHER, SCREW 00005905 337206 127640 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 13.45 360793 311312014 102320 HAMCO DATA PRODUCTS 213.22 THERMAL ROLLS 336822 123996 5862.6512 PAPER SUPPLIES VERNON SELLING 213:22 THERMAL PAPER ROLLS 00007515 337077 124003 5642.6512 PAPER SUPPLIES YORK SELLING 426.44 380794 3113/2014 100012 HD SUPPLY WATERWORKS LTD 125.00 HYDRANTADAPTORS 00001658 336864 C088637 5913.6406 GENERALSUPPLIES DISTRIBUTION 125.00 380795 3/1312014 101871 HENNEPIN COUNTY FIRE CHIEFS ASSN. 250.00 BLUE CARD TRAINING 337078 14-003 1470.6104 CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 250.00 380796 3113/2014 106371 HENNEPIN COUNTY MEDICAL CENTER 2,475.08 MEDICAL DIRECTOR SERVICES 337079 33910 1470.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 2,475.06 380797 3113/2014 100801 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER 1,290.00 JAN 2014 ROOM & BOARD 336865 1000039397 1195.6225 BOARD &ROOM PRISONER LEGAL SERVICES 1,290.00 380798 3/13/2014 100801 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER 492.37 FEB 2014 BOOKING FEES 336866 1000039526 1195.6170 COURT CHARGES LEGAL SERVICES 492.37 380799 31131"" "' 102460 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER R55CKR2 LOGIS101 CITY OF EDINA 3/11/2014 11:57:01 Council Check Register by GL Page- 11 Council Check Register by Invoice & Summary 3/13/2014 - 3/13/2014 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description . Business Unit 380799 3/1312014 102460 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER Continued... 210.00 BASE FEE 336868 1000040890 7410.6105 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS PSTF ADMINISTRATION 210.00 380800 3113/2014 106436 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER 150.00 BUNDLED SERVICE 336867 1000039489 1400.6160 DATA PROCESSING POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 150.00 BUNDLED SERVICE 337082 1000039490 1190.6105 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS ASSESSING 1,272.00 RADIO ADMIN FEE 337081 140138014 1470.6151 EQUIPMENT RENTAL FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 1,572.00 380801 311312014 103838 HENNEPIN TECHNICAL COLLEGE 195.00 EMT REFRESHER COURSE 337080 00310146 1470.6104 CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 195.00 380802 311312014 103763 HILLYARD INC -MINNEAPOLIS 208.44 MOP HEADS, SANITIZER 00002109 337156 601040100 5720.6511 CLEANING SUPPLIES EDINBOROUGH OPERATIONS 164.42 SOAP DISPENSERS, SANITIZER 00002110 337157 601041964 5720.6511 CLEANING SUPPLIES EDINBOROUGH OPERATIONS 50.28 SQUEEGEE 00002110 337160 601045252 5720.6406 GENERALSUPPLIES EDINBOROUGH OPERATIONS 742.57 SCRUBBER REPAIR PARTS 337158 601048851 5720.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES EDINBOROUGH OPERATIONS 328.13 MOP HEADS, NUTRA -RINSE 00002115 337159 601048852 5720.6511 CLEANING SUPPLIES EDINBOROUGH OPERATIONS 1,493.84 380803 3/13/2014 104375 HOHENSTEINS INC. 430.00 336914 690761 5822.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 50TH ST SELLING 1,540.25 336913 691075 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING 1,970.25 380804 3/1312014 102686 [AFC 660.00 DUES -TOM SCHMITZ 337083 3-YR RENEWAL 1470.6105 DUES &SUBSCRIPTIONS FIRE DEPT. GENERAL - 660.00 380806 3/13/2014 130160 IDC AUTOMATIC 311.25 OVERHEAD DOOR REPAIR 337084 D272513 -IN 1470.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 311.25 380806 3/1312014 131644 INDEED BREWING COMPANY 320.00 336915 ,17487 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING 320.00 380807 3113/2014 129636 JESSE JAMES CREATIVE INC. 2,300.00 ONLINE SPACE RENTAL MODULE 337085 JJ5049A 1130.6124 WEB DEVELOPMENT COMMUNICATIONS R55CKR2 LOGIS101 CITY OF EDINA 3/11/2014 11:57:01 Council Check Register by GL Page- 12 Council Check Register by Invoice & Summary 3/13/2014 - 3/13/2014 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 380807 3/13/2014 129636 JESSE JAMES CREATIVE INC. Continued... 570.00 WEBSITE MAINTENANCE 337235 JJ5209 1130.6124 WEB DEVELOPMENT COMMUNICATIONS 400.00 OFF -LEASH FORM CHANGES 337234 JJ5323 1400.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 2,650.00 WEBSITE MAINTENANCE 337234 JJ5323 1130.6124 WEB DEVELOPMENT COMMUNICATIONS 500.00 DOG LICENSE FORM CHANGES 337233 JJ5338 1400.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 1,200.00 WEBSITE MAINTENANCE 337233 JJ5338 1130.6124 WEB DEVELOPMENT COMMUNICATIONS 800.00 ONLINE SPACE RENTAL MODULE 337232 JJ5340 1130.6124 WEB DEVELOPMENT COMMUNICATIONS 6,420.00 380808 3113/2014 102146 JESSEN PRESS 1,443.00 AR &LE BROCHURE 336823 41274 1629.6575 PRINTING ADAPTIVE RECREATION 1,443.00 360808 3/13/2014 100741 JJ TAYLOR DIST. OF MINN 3,879.14 336920 2180690 5822.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 50TH ST SELLING 584.00 336921 2180691 5822.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 50TH ST SELLING 2,912.00 336919 2180701 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING 2,291.00 336918 2180733 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING 2,680.55 336923 2180735 5822.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 50TH ST SELLING 21.50 336922 2180736 5822.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX 50TH ST SELLING 11,417.47 336917 2180745 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER" YORK SELLING 96.60 336916 2180746 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING 88.15- 336924 2180747 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING 23,794.11 380812 3/13/2014 100836 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO. 3,235.12 336929 1791353 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 527.18 336930 1791356 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 1,128.89 336934 1791357 5822.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR 50TH ST SELLING 27103 336935 1791358 5822.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR 50TH ST SELLING 597.01 336937 1791359 5822.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR 50TH ST SELLING •28 336964 1791360 5642.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 890.31 336931 1791361 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 205.62 336936 1791362 5822.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR 50TH ST SELLING 966.66 336965 1791370 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 1,673.44 336966 1791372 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 5,430.30 336932 1791374 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 1,212.32 336949 1791378 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 2,257.78 336933 1791383 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 648.50 336951 1792117 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 448.00 336963 1793492 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLII. R55CKR2 LOGIS101 Check # Date 380812 3/1312014 380813 3/13/2014 CITY OF EDINA Council Check Register by GL Council Check Register by Invoice & Summary 3/13/2014 - 3/13/2014 Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No 100836 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO. 448.00 1,263.44 1.12 1.12 1.372.40 107.62 1.68 1.21 256.24 1.12 59.12 3,983.84 1,390.56 2,450.38 2,219.38 10,568.90 5,001.57 810.98 25.12 5,243.94 2,670.77 1,452.95 62.74 8,183.81 5,948.62 388.89 1,016.85 1.57 - 51.72- 8.33- 6.33- 21.32- 74, 339.54 129767 KAPSEN, CAROL 40.00 PRIVATE LESSON REFUND 40.00 336948 1793493 336928 1796625 336955 1796626 336942 1796627 336927 1796628 336926 1796630 336944 1796631 336952 1796632 336960 1796633 336940 1796634 336925 1796636 336954 1796639 336956 1796640 336958 1796641 336957 1796642 336953 1796643 336962 1796644 336959 1796645 336961 1796646 336941 1796647 336938 1796648 336946 1796649 336945 1796650 336943 1796651 336939 1796652 336947 1796653 336950 1797005 336971 607160 336970 607459 336969 610064 336968 610065 336967 610066 337161 021614 380814 3/1312014 130789 KATZ, DAVID 96.00 HOMETOWN HERO STORY 337086 182 5862.5512 5822.5512 5842.5513 5862.5513 5822.5512 5822.5512 5862.5512 5842.5512 5842.5513 5862.5513 5822.5512 5842.5513 5842.5512 5842.5513 5842.5512 5842.5512 5842.5513 5842.5512 5842.5515 5862.5513 5862.5513 5862.5512 5862.5512 5862.5512 5862.5513 5862.5512 5842.5513 5822.5512 5822.5513 5842.5513 5842.5513 5842.5513 5501.4607 1130.6124 Subledger Account Description Continued... COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE CLASS REGISTRATION WEB DEVELOPMENT 3/11/2014 11:57:01 Page- 13 Business Unit VERNON SELLING 50TH ST SELLING YORK SELLING VERNON SELLING 50TH ST SELLING 50TH ST SELLING VERNON SELLING YORK SELLING YORK SELLING VERNON SELLING 50TH ST SELLING YORK SELLING YORK SELLING YORK SELLING YORK SELLING YORK SELLING YORK SELLING YORK SELLING YORK SELLING VERNON SELLING VERNON SELLING VERNON SELLING VERNON SELLING.' VERNON SELLING VERNON SELLING VERNON SELLING YORK SELLING 50TH ST SELLING 50TH ST SELLING YORK SELLING YORK SELLING YORK SELLING ICE ARENA REVENUES COMMUNICATIONS R55CKR2 LOGIS101 CITY OF EDINA 3/11/2014 11:57:01 Council Check Register by GL Page- 14 Council Check Register by Invoice & Summary 3/13/2014 — 3/13/2014 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 380814 3/13/2014 130789 KATZ, DAVID Continued... ' 96.00 380816 3/13/2014 111018 KEEPRS INC. - 63.00 GLOCK MAGAZINES 337088 212137 1400.6551 AMMUNITION POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 72.45 UNIFORMS 00003737 337087 236082 -02 1470.6558 DEPT UNIFORMS FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 135.45 380816 3/13/2014 113212 KENDELL DOORS & HARDWARE INC. 17.36 KEYS 337089 S1007637 1646.6406 GENERALSUPPLIES BUILDING MAINTENANCE 161.00 LOCKSET- HORNETS NEST 336869 51008011 5511.6136 PROFESSIONAL SVC - OTHER_ ARENA BLDG /GROUNDS 178.36 380817 3/13/2014 101220 LANO EQUIPMENT INC. 79.81 TIRE, BULB 337207 01 -93511 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 79.81 380818 3/1312014 123096 LASER TECHNOLOGIES INC. 375.25 TICKET ENVELOPES 337090 156459 1400.6575 PRINTING POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 375.25 360819 3113/2014 100862 LAWSON PRODUCTS INC. 753.41 NUTS, PLOW BOLTS, WASHERS 00005017 337208 9302259948 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 753.41 380820 3113/2014 100868 LOGIS 1,068.75 336824 37886,38124,379 1160.6160 DATA PROCESSING FINANCE 57,37984 1,342.00 336824 37886,38124,379 1554.6160 DATA PROCESSING CENT SERV-GEN - MIS 57,37984 3,094.00 336824 37886,38124,379 1554.6160 DATA PROCESSING CENT SERV GEN - MIS 57,37984 3,984.00 336824 37886,38124,379 1120.6160 DATA PROCESSING ADMINISTRATION 57,37984 5,139.00 336824 37886,38124,379 1495.6160 DATA PROCESSING INSPECTIONS 57,37984 5,657.00 336824 37886,38124,379 1554.6230 SERVICE CONTRACTS EQUIPMENT CENT SERV GEN - MIS 57,37984 8,665.00 336824 37886,38124,379 1190.6160 DATA PROCESSING ASSESSING 57,37984 13,926.00 336824 37886,38124,37 1160.6160 DATA PROCESSING FINANCE R55CKR2 LOGIS101 CITY OF EDINA 3/11/2014 11:57:01 Council Check Register by GL Page- 15 Council Check Register by Invoice & Summary 3/13/2014 — 3/13/2014 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 380820 3/13/2014 100868 LOGIS Continued... 57,37984 11,531.00 336824 37886,38124,379 5902.6160 DATA PROCESSING UTILITY BILLING - FINANCE 57,37984 50.00 ADMIN CHARGE 337091 38104 1554.6160 DATA PROCESSING CENT SERV GEN - MIS 8,518.09 WEBSENSE RENEWAL 337091 38104 1554.6160 DATA PROCESSING CENT SERV GEN - MIS 62, 974.84 380821 3/13/2014 104616 LYNDE COMPANY, THE 25.46 REAGENT 00001634 336870 L115479 -IN 5915.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES WATER TREATMENT 25.46 380822 3/13/2014 133680 MEDIA PARTNERS CORPORATION 300.00 TRAINING VIDIO 336871 B0187017 1556.6104 CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS EMPLOYEE SHARED SERVICES 300.00 380823 3/13/2014 101483 MENARDS 34.98 HEATER 00006082 337162 46205 5422.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS 21.77 CARB CLEANER 00006098 337163 48854 5422.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS 12.40 ELECTRICAL BOX 00006105 337164 50023 5422.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS 69.15 380824 3/13/2014 100887 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL SERV 365,522.72 SEWER SERVICE 336872 0001031402 5922.6302 SEWER SERVICE METRO SEWER TREATMENT 365,522.72 380826 3/13/2014 130636 MILLNER, CHAD 2,142.32 TUITION REIMBURSEMENT 337092 030414 1261.6105 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 2,142.32 380826 3/13/2014 102682 MINN DEPT OF LABOR & INDUSTRY 100.00 ANNUAL ELEVATOR LICENSE 337209 2014 1470.6260 LICENSES & PERMITS FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 100.00 380827 3/1312014 103216 MINNEAPOLIS FINANCE DEPARTMENT 13,146.28 WATER PURCHASE 336873 431 - 0005.300 -3/ 5913.6601 WATER PURCHASED DISTRIBUTION 14 13,146.28 380828 3/13/2014 100622 MINNESOTA AIR INC. 23.80 BELTS 00001680 336874 1371815 -00 5915.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES WATER TREATMENT R55CKR2 LOGIS101 CITY OF EDINA 3/1112014 11:57:01 Council Check Register by GL Page - 16 Council Check Register by Invoice & Summary 3/13/2014 - 3/13/2014 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 380828 3113/2014 100622 MINNESOTA AIR INC. Continued... 23.60 380829 3/13/2014 101638 MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH 150.00 PLAN REVIEW FEE 337165 030514 05537.1705.20 CONSULTING DESIGN MORNINGSIDE NHOOD RECON 150.00 380830 3/13/2014 128914 MINUTEMAN PRESS 34.61 TAGS, COUPONS 336825 14949 5822.6575 PRINTING 50TH ST SELLING 34.61 TAGS, COUPONS 336825 14949 5642.6575 PRINTING YORK SELLING 34.61 TAGS, COUPONS 336825 14949 5862.6575 PRINTING VERNON SELLING 103.83 380831 3/13/2014 100916 MUZAK LLC 199.00 SPEAKER INSTALLATION 336826 124324 5861.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES VERNON OCCUPANCY 199.00 380832 3/1312014 103007 NELSON, DAVID 379.00 'FBI TRIP EXPENSE 337166 030514 1400.6104 CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS POLICE DEPT: GENERAL 412.00 CONFERENCE EXPENSE 337167 FBI NAA 1400.6104 CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 791.00 380833 3/13/2014 122449 NEW LIFE ENTERPRISES INC. 79.00 FIREARMS TRAINING BOOK 336875 6037 7410.6575 PRINTING PSTF ADMINISTRATION 79.00 380834 311312014 104360 NIKE USA INC. 699.70 MERCHANDISE 337168 957819369 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 948.66 337169 957873241 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS -.PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 1,648.36 380836 3/13/2014 132609 NOLAN, MARK 66.87 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT 336827 030414 1262.6107 MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE TRANSPORTATION 68.87 380836 3/13/2014 104232 NORTHERN SAFETY TECHNOLOGY INC 513.81 LENS, LIGHTS 00005047 337210 35549 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 513.81 380837 3/13/2014 132364 OASIS GROUP, THE 658.75 MAR 2014 EAP SERVICES 337170 3617 1556.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES EMPLOYEE `' -. :l) SERVICES R55CKR2 LOGIS101 CITY OF EDINA 3/11/2014 11:57:01 Council Check Register by GL Page - 17 Council Check Register. by Invoice 8 Summary . 3/13/2014 - 3/13/2014 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 380837 3/13/2014 132364 OASIS GROUP, THE Continued... 658.75 380838 3/1312014 130141 OENO DISTRIBUTION LLC 157.00 336972 2128 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 157.00 380839 3/1312014 100347 PAUSTIS & SONS 22.25- 336976 8438582 -CM 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 1,990.83 336975 8439211 -IN 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 980.29 336973 8439212 -IN 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD.WINE 50TH ST SELLING 1,923.66 336974 8439213 -IN 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 4,872.53 380840 3/1312014 126492 PAYPAL INC. 39.95 FEB SERVICE 336828 29993487 5902.6155 BANK SERVICES CHARGES UTILITY BILLING - FINANCE 39.95 380841 3/13/2014 100946 PEPSI -COLA COMPANY 53.00 139.10 192.10 380843 3113/2014 100743 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRITS 57.12- INVOICE PAID TWICE 156.54 687.20 681.20 2.24 2.24 1.12 i.493.69 1,362.40 1,362.40 92.24 244.66 109.12 1,645.06 1,633.59 1,803.50 489.31 337171 19321066 337172 19321086 336997 2498036CR 336987 2566654 336993 2566055 336988 2566056 336977 2566057 336992 2566058 336989. 2566061 336994 2566062 336978 2566068 336991 2566072 336990 2566237 336995 2569208 336980 2569211 336982 2569214 336981 2569215 336979 2569216 336983 2569217 5730.5510 5730.5510 5822.5515 5822.5512 5822.5513 5822.5512 5842.5512 5862.5512 5822.5512 5822.5513 5842.5512 5862.5512 5862.5512 5822.5512 5842.5513 5842.5512 5842.5513 5842.5513 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD EDINBOROUGH CONCESSIONS COST OF GOODS SOLD EDINBOROUGH CONCESSIONS COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR 50TH ST SELLING 50TH ST SELLING 50TH ST SELLING 50TH ST SELLING YORK SELLING VERNON SELLING 50TH ST SELLING 50TH ST SELLING YORK SELLING VERNON SELLING VERNON SELLING 50TH ST SELLING YORK SELLING YORK SELLING YORK SELLING YORK SELLING VERNON SELLING R55CKR2 LOGIS101 CITY OF EDINA 3/11/2014 11:57:01 Council Check Register by GL Page- 18 Council Check Register by Invoice & Summary 3/13/2014 - 3/13/2014 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 380843 3/13/2014 100743 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRITS Continued... 868.17 336984 2569218 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 1,928.54 336986 2569219 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 114.24 336985 2569220 5862.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING 84.12- 336996 3521896 5822.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR BOTH ST SELLING 14,536.22 380844 3/13/2014 100119 PING 98.27 DEMO /DISPLAY GOLF BAG 336829 12115330 5440.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 252.00 DISPLAY BAGS 336830 12124833 5440.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 1,044.89 MERCHANDISE 336831 12134113 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 1,395.16 380846 3/13/2014 111779 PIONEER RESEARCH CORPORATION 599.20 DEGREASER 336876 237601 5921.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES SANITARY LIFT STATION MAINT 599.20 380846 3/1312014 100968 PLUNKETTS PEST CONTROL 43.16 PEST CONTROL 336877 4098356 7411.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PSTF OCCUPANCY 43.16 380847 3/13/2014 127773 PREMIER SPECIALTY VEHICLES INC. 38.04 LEVELING RODS 337211 3475 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT O_ PERATION GEN 36.04 380848 3113/2014 100966 PRINTERS SERVICE INC 252.00 BLADE-SHARPENING 337173 269015 5521.6215 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE ARENA ICE MAINT 252.00 380849 311312014 106322 PROSOURCE SUPPLY 565.19 TOWELS, GLOVES, LINERS 00002101 337174 6766 5720.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES EDINBOROUGH OPERATIONS 40.02 DISINFECTANT 00002111 337176 6773 5720.6511 CLEANING SUPPLIES EDINBOROUGH OPERATIONS 66.49 NAPKINS 00002111 337175 6774 5730.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD EDINBOROUGH CONCESSIONS 238.27 TIDYFOAM PRODUCTS, LINERS 00008068 337177 6778 5511.6511 CLEANING SUPPLIES ARENA BLDG /GROUNDS 909.97 380860 3/1312014 100466 R & R PRODUCTS INC. 68.60 BEARINGS 00006100 337178 CD1761938 5422.6530 REPAIR PARTS MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS 68.60 380861 3/19:' 100972 R &R SPECIALTIES OF WISCONSIN INC. R55CKR2 LOGIS101 CITY OF EDINA Council Check Register by GL Council Check Register by Invoice & Summary 3/13/2014 — 3/13/2014 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 380861 3/13/2014 100972 R &R SPECIALTIES OF WISCONSIN INC. Continued... 147.40 SQUEEGEES 00008064 336878 0054325 -IN 5511.6406 GENERALSUPPLIES 147.40 380862 3/1312014 100974 RAYMOND E. HAEG PLUMBING 698.75. PLUMBING REPAIRS 336879 16403 5511.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS 698.75 380863 3113/2014 104643 RECREATION SUPPLY COMPANY 38.45 PATIO CLOCK 337179 266837 5720.6406 GENERALSUPPLIES 38.45 380864 3113/2014 133627 REPUBLIC SERVICES 9894 35,190.09 RECYCLING 337212 3427410 5952.6183 RECYCLING CHARGES 35,190.09 380856 3/13/2014 101000 RJM PRINTING INC. 256.50 BUSINESS CARDS 336832 80338 1550.6406 GENERALSUPPLIES 256.50 380866 3113/2014 101963 S & S TREE SPECIALISTS 264.00 OAK WILT INSPECTION 336880 907595551 1644.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 264.00 380867 3/1312014 100674 SCIENCE MUSEUM OF MINNESOTA 2,500.00 POWER POINT TRAINING 337093 G79235 1554.6104 CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS 2,500.00 380868 3/1312014 104689 SERIGRAPHICS SIGN SYSTEMS INC. 91.22 NAME PLAQUE 337094 44351 1130.6406 GENERALSUPPLIES 91.22 380859 3/13/2014 133688 SHAKOPEE TRUCKING INC. 481.25 TRUCK REPAIRS 337213 3758— 1553.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS 481.25 380860 3113/2014 104098 SHI INTERNATIONAL CORP 314.00 VMWARE MAINTENANCE 336833 B01729796 1554.6160 DATA PROCESSING 314.00 380861 3113/2014 133683 SHJEFTE, DELORES 3/11/2014 11:57:01 Page- 19 Business Unit ARENA BLDG /GROUNDS ARENA BLDG /GROUNDS EDINBOROUGH OPERATIONS RECYCLING CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL TREES & MAINTENANCE CENT SERV GEN - MIS COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN CENT SERV GEN - MIS R55CKR2 LOGIS101 SKYCADDIES 336835 0003096635 -IN CITY OF EDINA . COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 777.66 Council Check Register by GL 380866 3/13/2014 Council Check Register. by Invoice & Summary 3/13/2014 - 3/13/2014 INSTALL NEW DOOR GASKETS Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 380861 3/13/2014 336836 133683 SHJEFTE, DELORES 5421.6102 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES Continued... 981.20 152.15 UTILITY OVERPAYMENT REFUND 337180 5028 OXFORD AVE 5900.2015 CUSTOMER REFUND 152.15 127878' SOUTHERN WINE AND SPIRITS 380862 3/13/2014 100999 SIGNAL SYSTEMS INC. 337003 1134784 5822.5512 71.95 BLANK TIMECARD BADGES 00002118 337181 13063848 5710.6406 GENERALSUPPLIES 1134787 71.95 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING .04 380863 3/13/2014 1134789 106664 SIMPLEX GRINNELL LP COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING ' 2,110.05 1,341.00 ALARM REPAIRS 336834 69827119 5861.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS 2,815.50 1,341.00 337007 1136103 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 380864 3113/2014 4,586.00 131886 SISINNI FOOD SERVICES INC. 337005 1136104 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 54.40 HOT DOG BUNS 337182 234581 5520.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD 5822.5513 50.84 HOT DOG BUNS 336881 236639 5520.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD 1137130 105.24 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR 50TH ST SELLING 4.75 380866 3113/2014 1137131 119746 SKYHAWKE TECHNOLOGIES LLC COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 10,583.50 3/11/2014 11:57:01 Page - 20 Business Unit UTILITY BALANCE SHEET EDINBOROUGH ADMINISTRATION VERNON OCCUPANCY ARENA CONCESSIONS ARENA CONCESSIONS 777.66 SKYCADDIES 336835 0003096635 -IN 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 777.66 380866 3/13/2014 102936 SOUTH TOWN REFRIGERATION INC 260.27 INSTALL NEW DOOR GASKETS 336837 45724 5421.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS GRILL 720.93 REFRIGERATION MAINTENANCE 336836 45759 5421.6102 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES GRILL 981.20 380867 311312014 127878' SOUTHERN WINE AND SPIRITS 2,110.05 337003 1134784 5822.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR 50TH ST SELLING 8,386.90 337012 1134787 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING .04 337011 1134789 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING ' 2,110.05 337004 1134793 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 2,815.50 337007 1136103 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 4,586.00 337005 1136104 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 2,174.00 337006 1137128 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 1,202.71 337008 1137130 5822.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR 50TH ST SELLING 4.75 337009 1137131 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 10,583.50 337010 1137132 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 1,771.84 336998 1137133 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 5,163.00 336999 1137135 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 1,281.24 337000 1137136 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 1,791.90 337001 1137137 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SE' R55CKR2 . LOGIS101 CITY OF EDINA 3/11/2014 11:57:01 Council Check Register by GL Page - 21 Council Check Register by Invoice & Summary 3/13/2014 - 3/13/2014 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 380867 3/1312014 127878 SOUTHERN WINE AND SPIRITS Continued... 378.50 337002 1137138 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 94.95 337013 5004925 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 56.00- 337014 9028911 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 44,398.93 380868 3113/2014 133506 SPYGLASS 905.72 PHONE SERVICE 337095 5685 1554.6188 TELEPHONE CENT SERV GEN - MIS 905.72 380869 3113/2014 129360 STANLEY CONVERGENT SECURITY SOLUTIONS 628.20 MONITORING SERVICES 337214 11126923 1470.6215 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 628.20 380870 3113/2014 101007 STAR TRIBUNE 1,596.66 EDINA LIQUOR ADS 336838 1000020750 5862.6122 ADVERTISING OTHER VERNON SELLING 1,596.67 EDINA LIQUOR ADS 336638 1000020750 5822.6122 ADVERTISING OTHER 50TH ST SELLING 1,596.67 EDINA LIQUOR ADS 336838 1000020750 5842.6122 ADVERTISING OTHER YORK SELLING 4,790.00 380871 3/13/2014 124799 STERLING WELDING COMPANY INC. 900.00 337098 15203 5913.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS DISTRIBUTION 375.00 337097 15204 5913.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS DISTRIBUTION 225.00 THAW WATER SERVICES 00001670 337096 15205 5913.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS DISTRIBUTION 1,500.00 380872 3/1312014 101016 STREICHERS 30.01 BOOTS 00003748 337215 11077180 1470.6558 DEPT UNIFORMS FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 30.01 380873 3/13/2014 101017 SUBURBAN CHEVROLET 23.74 GROMMETS 00005861 337236 1518657X1 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 23.74 380874 3/1312014 122551 TAP PUBLISHING 334.70 PW WEATHER TAP - 1 YR 337099 1493186 - 2014020 1552.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES CENT SVC PW BUILDING 3 66.95 BGC WEATHER TAP - 1 YR 337099 149318672014020 5410.6105 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS GOLF ADMINISTRATION 3 401.65 R55CKR2 LOGIS101 CITY OF EDINA 3/11/2014 11:57:01 Council Check Register by GL Page - 22 Council Check Register by Invoice & Summary 3/13/2014 — 3/13/2014 Check # - Date Amount ' Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 380876 3/13/2014? 120602 TEAGUE, CARY Continued... 138.88 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT 336839 030414 1140.6107 MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE PLANNING 138.88 380876 3/13/2014 102471 THOLEN, BRIAN 80.50 BOOTS 337100 030514 1400.6203 UNIFORM ALLOWANCE POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 80.50 380877 3/13/2014 101036 THORPE DISTRIBUTING COMPANY 1,650.35 337015 808639 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING 1,650.35 380878 3113/2014 127318 TIGER ATHLETICS INC. 1,410.00 FITNESS TRAINING 337101 EFD— FEB2014 1470.6104 CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 1,410.00 380879 3113/2014 120700 TIGER OAK PUBLICATIONS INC. 330.00 MAGAZINE ADVERTISING 336840 2014 - 116150 5822.6122 ADVERTISING OTHER 50TH ST SELLING 330.00 MAGAZINE ADVERTISING 336840 2014 - 116150 5842.6122 ADVERTISING OTHER YORK SELLING 330.00 MAGAZINE ADVERTISING 336840 2014 - 116150 5862.6122 ADVERTISING OTHER VERNON SELLING 990.00 380880 3/1312014 103277 TITAN MACHINERY 390.44 BUCKET EDGE 337183 2874512 5422.6530 REPAIR PARTS MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS 152.10, TUBEASSEMBLIES 00005013 337216 3171218 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 542.54 380881 3113/2014 101474 TITLEIST 230.00 GOLF BALLS 337184 2383896 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 230.00 380882 3/13/2014 101038 TOLL GAS & WELDING SUPPLY 68.15 CLAMP, WELDING WIRE 00001618 337217 10012417 1553.6580 WELDING SUPPLIES EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 68.15 380883 3/13/2014 116636 TRAVELERS 1,820.00 DEDUCTIBLE 337185 000456974 1550.6200 INSURANCE CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL 840.00 337188 000456975 1550.6200 INSURANCE CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL 3,332.34 337187 000457348 1550.6200 INSURANCE CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL 2,745.50 337186 000457349 1550.6200 INSURANCE CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL 8,737.84 R55CKR2 LOGIS101 1,325.00 CITY OF EDINA 380886 3/13/2014 Council Check Register by GL Council Check Register by Invoice & Summary 110.00 PATROL DOG CERTIFICATION 336841 030114 3/13/2014 - 3/13/2014 CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 380883 3/13/2014 116536 TRAVELERS 380886 3/13/2014 Continued... 380884 3/1312014 103048 U.S. BANK 4,000.00 425.00 PAYINGAGENT 336883 3617237 3101.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL 450.00 PAYING AGENT 336882 3618624 3301.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 450.00 PAYING AGENT 336884 3618625 5902.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 3/11/2014 11:57:01 Page - 23 Business Unit GENERAL DEBT SERVICE REVENUES PIR DS REVENUES UTILITY BILLING - FINANCE 1,325.00 380886 3/13/2014 119476 USPCA REGION 12 110.00 PATROL DOG CERTIFICATION 336841 030114 1400.6104 CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 110.00 380886 3/13/2014 100060 USPS 4,000.00 ACCT # 03620836 337102 030714 1550.6235 POSTAGE CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL 4,000.00 380887 311312014 101058 VAN PAPER CO. 547.03 LIQUOR BAGS 00007512 337103 302956 -00 5842.6512 PAPER SUPPLIES YORK SELLING 255.92 LIQUOR BAGS 00007513 336842 303121 -00 5862.6512 PAPER SUPPLIES VERNON SELLING 802.95 380888 3113/2014 133470 VANGUARD CLEANING SYSTEMS OF MINNESOTA 1,980.00 MAR 2014 SERVICE 336885 28637 5510.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ARENAADMINISTRATION 1,980.00 380889 3/13/2014 102970 VERIZON WIRELESS 35.01 337104 9719884535 1140.6188 TELEPHONE PLANNING 35.01 337104 9719884535 1322.6185 LIGHT & POWER STREET LIGHTING ORNAMENTAL 70.02 337104 9719884535 1260.6188 TELEPHONE ENGINEERING GENERAL 70.02 337104 9719884535 1554.6188 TELEPHONE CENT SERV GEN - MIS 105.05 337104 9719684535 1240.6188 TELEPHONE PUBLIC WORKS ADMIN GENERAL ' 116.34 337104 9719884535 1495.6188 TELEPHONE INSPECTIONS 140.04 337104 9719884535 1470.6188 TELEPHONE FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 280.10 337104 9719884535 1400.6188 TELEPHONE POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 33.04 337105 9719889778 1240.6188 TELEPHONE PUBLIC WORKS ADMIN GENERAL 33.02 337105 9719889778 5952.6188 TELEPHONE RECYCLING 917.65 380890 3/13/2014 101066 VIKING ELECTRIC SUPPLY 162.76 LIGHTING 00001598 336886 8043009 7411.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES PSTF OCCUPANCY 115.52 LIGHTING 336887 8050009 7411.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES PSTF OCCUPANCY R55CKR2 LOGIS101 - CITY OF EDINA Council Check Register by GL Council Check Register by Invoice & Summary 3/1312014 - 3/13/2014 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 380890 3/13/2014 101066 VIKING ELECTRIC SUPPLY Continued... 278.28 380891 3113/2014 133629 VON HANSONS MEATS 29.98 BRATS 337189 78663 5520.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD 45.62 337191 78667 5520.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD 63.29 337190 78670 5520.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD 35.52 BRATS 336888 78698 5520.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD 49.44 337192 78721 5520.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD 223.85 380892 3/1312014 124969 W. L. HALL COMPANY 405.00 CASHIER WINDOW 336889 32780 7414.6406 GENERALSUPPLIES 405.00 380893 3113/2014 132751 WARNING LITES OF MN 170.00 TRAFFIC CONTROL 00001650 336890 134952 5913.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS 170.00 380894 311312014 103088 WASTE MANAGEMENT OF WI-MN 53.32 337219 6856350 5821.6182 RUBBISH REMOVAL 36.40 337218 6856351 5511.6182 RUBBISH REMOVAL 89.72 380896 3/1312014 101033 WINE COMPANY, THE 1,602.47 337018 354976 -00 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 854.85 337017 354977 -00 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 669.20 337016 354978 -00 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 3,126.52 380696 3/1312014 101312 WINE MERCHANTS 741.84 337023 493129 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 813.44 337022 493323 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 121.12 337020 493969 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 3,248.81 337019 493971 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 2,133.36 337021 493973 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 7,058.57 380897 3/13/2014 124291 WIRTZ BEVERAGE MINNESOTA 3/11/2014 11:57:01 Page - 24 Business Unit ARENA CONCESSIONS ARENA CONCESSIONS ARENA CONCESSIONS ARENA CONCESSIONS ARENA CONCESSIONS PUBLIC PROGRAMS DISTRIBUTION' 50TH ST OCCUPANCY ARENA BLDG /GROUNDS 50TH ST SELLING VERNON SELLING YORK SELLING 50TH ST SELLING 50TH ST SELLING YORK SELLING YORK SELLING VERNON SELLING 2,966.42 337035 1080148107 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 7,608.18 337030 1080148134 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLIF- R55CKR2 LOGIS101 Check # Date 380897 3/13/2014 380898 3/13/2014 380899 3113/2014 CITY OF EDINA Council Check Register by GL Council Check Register by Invoice & Summary 3/1312014 - 3/13/2014 Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No 124291 WIRTZ BEVERAGE MINNESOTA 9,479.79 3,850.82 122.30 1,924.71 722.95 13,193.32 2,205.61 217.33 810.16 1,252.22 113.15 - 318.21- 64.00- 89.53- 585.75- 10.78- 43,172.39 337034 1080150765 337024 1080150766 337025 1080150767 337032 1080150768 337033 1080150769 337029 1080150770 337031 1080150771 337028 1080150772 337027 1080150884 337026 1080150885 337038 2080030413 337037 2080031497 337036 2080031501 337040 2080032621 337039 2080032748 337041 2080032919 118396 WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP INC. 46.99 HELMET SHIELD 00003751 337106 E1180146 46.99 380900 3113/2014 - 6,948.00 60.75 1,764.00 294.00 468.00 4,721.00 14,255.75 106740 WSB & ASSOCIATES INC. PENTAGON PK TRAFFIC STUDY FRANCE AVE PED XINGS FRANCE AVE TE CONSTRUCTION STATE AID TRAFFIC COUNTS BYERLY'S UTILITY OBSERVATION HAZELTON RD DESIGN 5862.5512 5862.5513 5862.5515 5822.5512 5822.5513 5842.5512 5842.5513 5842.5515 5842.5512 5842.5512 5822.5513 5842.5512 5842.5512 5842.5512 5842.5512 5842.5512 Subledger Account Description Continued... COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX COST -OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR 5822.5514 124629 WIRTZ BEVERAGE MINNESOTA BEER INC GOODS 1,280.00 337044 1090188105 123.00 337045 1090188106 21.50 337046 1090188107 2,094.55 337047 1090188363 3,329.20 337042 1090189030 246.00 337043 1090189061 20:25- 337048 2090058298 118396 WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP INC. 46.99 HELMET SHIELD 00003751 337106 E1180146 46.99 380900 3113/2014 - 6,948.00 60.75 1,764.00 294.00 468.00 4,721.00 14,255.75 106740 WSB & ASSOCIATES INC. PENTAGON PK TRAFFIC STUDY FRANCE AVE PED XINGS FRANCE AVE TE CONSTRUCTION STATE AID TRAFFIC COUNTS BYERLY'S UTILITY OBSERVATION HAZELTON RD DESIGN 5862.5512 5862.5513 5862.5515 5822.5512 5822.5513 5842.5512 5842.5513 5842.5515 5842.5512 5842.5512 5822.5513 5842.5512 5842.5512 5842.5512 5842.5512 5842.5512 Subledger Account Description Continued... COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX COST -OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR 5822.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 5822.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 5822.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 5822.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 1470.6552 PROTECTIVE CLOTHING 337220 1- 01686 -500 1140.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 337107 20- 01686 -300 01404.1705.20 CONSULTING DESIGN 337108 3- 01686 -440 01404.1705.20 CONSULTING DESIGN 337111 5- 01686 -480 1260.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 337110 6- 01686 -470 1260.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 337109 8- 01686 -460 01417.1705.20 CONSULTING DESIGN 3/11/2014 11:57:01 Page - 25 Business Unit VERNON SELLING VERNON SELLING VERNON SELLING 50TH ST SELLING 50TH ST SELLING YORK SELLING YORK SELLING YORK SELLING YORK SELLING YORK SELLING 50TH ST SELLING YORK SELLING YORK SELLING YORK SELLING YORK SELLING YORK SELLING 50TH ST SELLING 50TH ST SELLING 50TH ST SELLING VERNON SELLING YORK SELLING YORK SELLING 50TH ST SELLING FIRE DEPT. GENERAL PLANNING FRANCE AVE PEDESTRIAN CORRIDOR, FRANCE AVE PEDESTRIAN CORRIDOR ENGINEERING GENERAL ENGINEERING GENERAL HAZELTON'RDIMPROVEMENTS R55CKR2 LOGIS101 CITY OF EDINA 3/11/2014 11:57:01 Council Check Register by GL Page - 26 Council Check Register by Invoice & Summary 3/13/2014 - 3/13/2014 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 380900 3/13/2014 106740 WSB & ASSOCIATES INC Continued... 380902 311312014 101726 XCEL ENERGY 14.50 51-6050184 -2 336891 402558439 4086.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AQUATIC WEEDS 41.60 51- 0193479 -4 336843 402611901 5934.6185 LIGHT & POWER STORM LIFT STATION MAINT 2,440.94 51 -4159265 -8 337221 402683339 7411.6185 LIGHT & POWER PSTF OCCUPANCY 1,671.82 51- 5547446 -1 336850 402712676 1628.6165 LIGHT & POWER SENIOR CITIZENS 36.85 51- 8102668 -0 336846 402740323 1321.6185 LIGHT & POWER STREET LIGHTING REGULAR 263.60 51- 8987646 -8 336647 402752329 1321.6165 LIGHT & POWER STREET LIGHTING REGULAR 55.89 51- 8976004 -9 336848 402753545 1321.6185 LIGHT & POWER STREET LIGHTING REGULAR 152.38 51- 9608462 -5 336845 402764989 5921.6185 LIGHT & POWER SANITARY LIFT STATION MAINT 26.42 51- 9770163-6 336849 402765505 1321.6185 LIGHT & POWER STREET LIGHTING REGULAR 109.64 51 -4827232-6 336894 402663086 5311.6165 LIGHT & POWER POOL OPERATION 100.09 51- 5936955 -6 336892 402879172 4086.6165 LIGHT & POWER AQUATIC WEEDS 299.37 - 51 -6046826 -0 337225 402879914 5422.6185 LIGHT & POWER MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS 826.01 51- 6229265 -9 337222 402884403 1481.6185 LIGHT & POWER YORK FIRE STATION 2,052.83 51 -6229265 -9 337222 402884403 1470.6185 LIGHT & POWER FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 11,746.83 51- 9603061 -0 337223 402925239 1552.6185 LIGHT & POWER CENT SVC PW BUILDING 241.94 51- 9337452 -8 336693 402926160 1321.6165 LIGHT & POWER STREET LIGHTING REGULAR 727.24 51- 5634814 -2 336844 403050633 5934.6165 LIGHT & POWER STORM LIFT STATION MAINT 6,306.90 51- 0837548 -4 337194 403334712 5915.6165 LIGHT & POWER WATER TREATMENT 25.31 51 -4151897 -6 337195 403383330 1646.6185 LIGHT & POWER BUILDING MAINTENANCE 25,057.52 51- 4888627 -1 337193 403394678 5511.6185 LIGHT & POWER ARENA BLDG /GROUNDS 39.42 51- 7567037 -0 337196 403437624 1321.6185 LIGHT & POWER STREET LIGHTING REGULAR 555.80 51- 9422326-6 - 337197 403485751 1322.6185 LIGHT & POWER STREET LIGHTING ORNAMENTAL 5,290.72 51 -6824328 -7 337224 403598145 5420.6185 LIGHT & POWER CLUB HOUSE 58,085.62 380903 3/13/2014 100668_ XEROX CORPORATION 220.30 FINAL INVOICE 337237 072036837 1554.6230 SERVICE CONTRACTS EQUIPMENT CENT SERV GEN - MIS 220.30 1,163,468.11 Grand Total Payment Instrument Totals Checks 1,163,468.11 Total Payments 1,163,468.11 R55CKS2 LOGIS100 CITY OF EDINA Council Check Summary 3/13/2014 - 3/13/2014 Company Amount 01000 GENERAL FUND 224,486.85 02500 PEDESTRIAN AND CYCLIST SAFETY 906.25 03100 GENERAL DEBT SERVICE FUND 425.00 03300 PIR DEBT SERVICE FUND 450.00 04000 WORKING CAPITAL FUND 13,707.75 05200 GOLF DOME FUND 282.09 05300 AQUATIC CENTER FUND 109.64 05400 GOLF COURSE FUND 24,234.09 05500 IC E AR E NA FU N D 48, 393.39 05550 SPORTS DOME FUND 113,477.26 05700 EDINBOROUGH PARK FUND 5,601.41 05750 CENTENNIAL LAKES PARK FUND 530.00 05800 LIQUOR FUND 277,895,88 05900 UTILITY FUND 407,467.97 05930 STORM SEWER FUND 5,128,88 05950 RECYCLING FUND 35,223.11 07400 PSTF AGENCY FUND 3,834.84 09900 PAYROLL FUND 1,313.70 Report Totals 1,163,468.11 We confirm to the best of our knowledge and belief, that these claims comply in all material respects with the requirements of the City of Edina purchasing policl an .� procedures d 3/11/2014 11:57:07 Page - 1 .. _. ... � r. _ ... � ... - -. -, �� -: - . 4,.. •- ,. ,, -; CITY OF EDINA CITY COUNCIL CREDIT CARD PAYMENT REGISTER 12/26/13- 01/25/14 Account Name Date Amount Description Vendor City State Account * *6043 LISA SCHAEFER 2014/01/17 $95.00 Membership Dues TWIN CITIES HUMAN00 OF 00 651 - 3666081 MN 1170.6105 * *6043 LISA SCHAEFER 2014/01/17 $130.00 Employment Adverti TWIN CITIES HUMAN00 OF 00 651 - 3666081 MN 1556.6121 * *6043 LISA SCHAEFER 2014/01/24 $52.56 Ipad Repair APPLE STORE #R054 EDINA MN 1170.6406 * *0127 KAREN KURT 2014/01/06 $96.00 Luncheon SENSIBLE LAND USE COALITI 612 - 7207667 MN 1120.6104 * *0127 KAREN KURT 2014/01/08 $111.61 Food PANERA BREAD #1315 EDINA MN 1120.6106 * *0168 SCOTT NEAL 2013/12/31 $26.65 Food GOOD EARTH I EDINA MN 1120.6106 * *0168 SCOTT NEAL 2013/12/31 $52.50 Food PF CHANG'S #9700 EDINA MN 1120.6106 * *0168 SCOTT NEAL 2014/01/10 $43.94 Food TAVERN ON FRANCE EDINA MN 1120.6106 * *0168 SCOTT NEAL 2014/01/14 $94.36 Cell phone SPRINT *WIRELESS 800 - 639 -6111 KS 1120.6106 * *0168 SCOTT NEAL 2014/01/16 $265.00 Air fare - Sprague DELTA AIR 0062349064053 DELTA.COM CA 1120.6104 * *0168 SCOTT NEAL 2014/01/16 $265.00 Air fare - Bennett DELTA AIR 0062349776977 DELTA.COM CA 1120.6104 * *0168 SCOTT NEAL 2014/01/16 $275.00 Air fare - Neal DELTA AIR 0062349816330 DELTA.COM CA 1120.6104 * *0168 SCOTT NEAL 2014/01/17 $265.00 Air fare - Coyle DELTA AIR 0062349995189 DELTA.COM CA 1120.6104 * *0168 SCOTT NEAL 2014/01/20 $27.80 Food EDINA GRILL EDINA MN 1120.6106 * *0168 SCOTT NEAL 2014/01/21 $312.00 Air fare - Brindle DELTA AIR 0062349028066 DELTA.COM CA 1100.6104 * *2129 HEATHER BRANIGII 2014/01/17 $77.55 Food PANERA BREAD #601398 ST LOUIS PARK MN 1120.6106 * *2129 HEATHER BRANIGII 2014/01/17 $25.00 Conference EDINA CHAMBER OF COMMER 952 - 8069060 MN 1120.6104 * *2129 HEATHER BRANIGII 2014/01/21 $172.64 Food D BRIANS DELI - ECOMME 612 - 9617550 MN 1100.6106 * *2129 HEATHER BRANIGII 2014/01/24 $2,725.00 Conference /Meeting NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES WASHINGTON DC 1100.6106 * *0176 JOHN WALLIN 2014/01/02 $19.95 Transaction fees PAYFLOW /PAYPAL 888 - 883 -9770 TX 1550.6155 * *0176 JOHN WALLIN 2014/01/02 $59.95 Transaction fees PAYFLOW /PAYPAL 888 - 883 -9770 TX 1550.6155 * *0176 JOHN WALLIN 2014/01/02 $18.25 Transaction fees PAYFLOW /PAYPAL 888 - 883 -9770 TX 1550.6155 * *0176 JOHN WALLIN 2014/01/02 $19.95 Transaction fees PAYFLOW /PAYPAL 888 - 883 -9770 TX 1550.6155 * *0176 JOHN WALLIN 2014/01/03 ($1.00) eUB Testing EDINA UTILITIES ONLINE EDINA MN 5902.6189 * *0176 JOHN WALLIN 2014/01/03 ($1.00) eUB Testing EDINA UTILITIES ONLINE EDINA MN 5902.6189 * *0176 JOHN WALLIN 2014/01/03 ($1.00) eUB Testing EDINA UTILITIES ONLINE EDINA MN 5902.6189 * *0176 JOHN WALLIN 2014/01/03 ($1.00) eUB Testing EDINA UTILITIES ONLINE EDINA IMN 5902.6189 * *0176 JOHN WALLIN 2014/01/14 $260.00 10,000 Lakes Dues ACT *10KLAKES BUILD MEM 877 - 551 -5560 CA 1495.6105 * *0176 JOHN WALLIN 2014/01/21 $144.87 2012 UPC Loose -Lea IAPMO 909 - 4724210 CA 1495.6405 GAPurchasing cards \2014 purchasing card electronic files\2014 USB Purchasing Card Register.xlsx 3/10/2014 CITY OF EDINA CITY COUNCIL CREDIT CARD PAYMENT REGISTER 12/26/13- 01/25/14 Account Name Date Amount Description Vendor City State Account * *0143 DEB MANGEN 2014/01/06 $195.00 AIRLINE DELTA AIR 0062348568990 DELTA.COM -CA 1185.6104 * *0143, DEB MANGEN 2014/01/06 $19.00 AIRLINE DELTA AIR 0060183084484 DELTA.COM CA 1185.6104 * *0143 DEB MANGEN 2014/01/06 $19.00 AIRLINE DELTA AIR 0060183484081 DELTA.COM CA 1185.6104 * *0143 DEB MANGEN 2014/01/07 $214.17 Food D'AMICO & SONS /EDINA EDINA MN 1100.6406 * *0143 DEB MANGEN 2014/01/08 $525.00 Training EBS 866 - 383 -5677 PA 1185.6104 * *0143 DEB MANGEN 2014/01/23 $56.80 Food D BRIANS DELI - ECOMME 612 - 9617550 MN 1185.6106 * *0184 ROBERT WILSON 2013/12/29 $20.12 Office Supplies OFFICE DEPOT #0295 MINNETONKA MN 1190.6406 * *0184 ROBERT WILSON 2014/01/10 $80.00 Membership Renew; MINNESOTA ASSOC OF ASSES 763- 569 -3357 MN 1190.6105 * *0184 ROBERT WILSON 2014/01/10 $80.00 Membership Renew MINNESOTA ASSOC OF ASSES 763 - 569 -3357 MN 1190.6105 * *0184 ROBERT WILSON 2014/01/10 $80.00 Membership Renew; MINNESOTA ASSOC OF ASSES 763 - 569 -3357 MN 1190.6105 * *0184 ROBERT WILSON 2014/01/11 $80.00 Membership Renew MINNESOTA ASSOC OF ASSES 763 - 569 -3357 MN 1190.6105 * *0184 ROBERT WILSON 2014/01/11 $480.00 Registration MINNESOTA ASSOC OF ASSES 763 - 569 -3357 MN 1190.6104 * *0184 ROBERT WILSON 2014/01/11 $80.00 Membership Renew; MINNESOTA ASSOC OF ASSES 763- 569 -3357 MN 1190.6105 * *9180 MILLNER CHAD 2014/01/03 $295.00 Conference U OF M CCE NONCREDIT 612 - 625 -4259 MN 1261.6105 * *9180 MILLNER CHAD 2014/01/10 $40.74 Office Supplies STAPLES DIRECT 800 - 3333330 CA 1263.6406 * *9180 MILLNER CHAD 2014/01/10 $200.00 Membership NORTH AMERICAN SOCIETY FO 703-3515252 NY 1261.6105 * *6981 JOHN SCHEERER 2014/01/13 $65.56 Supplies HOLDAHL, INC. 763- 2313132 MN 1400.6406 * *6981 JOHN SCHEERER 2014/01/21 $40.68 Supplies HOLDAHL, INC. PLYMOUTH MN 1400.6406 * *6999 .DAN MCMAHON 2013/12/26 $98.80- License Fees DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND 1651- 2845528 MN 1240.6105 * *6999 DAN MCMAHON 2014/01/08 $20.00 Application Fee MNSCU 877- 4666728 MN 1281.6104 * *6999 DAN MCMAHON 2014/01/08 $726.36 Education MNSCU 877- 4666728 MN 1281.6104 * *6999 DAN MCMAHON 2014/01/14 $573.20 Meeting /Training MN ELECTRICAL ASSOC 612 - 827 -6117 MN 1281.6104 * *6999 DAN MCMAHON 2014/01/13 $99.00 Registration DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND 1651- 2845528 MN 1281.6104 * *7005 DAVE GOERGEN 2013/12/27 $117.99 Blue Rhino SUPERAMERICA 4047 EDINA MN 5913.6406 * *7005 DAVE GOERGEN 2013/12/27 $215.00 Utility Permits HENNEPIN CTY PUBLIC WORKS 612 - 5960236 MN 5913.6260 * *7005 DAVE GOERGEN 2014/01/08 $120.00 Conference ATSSA 540 - 3681701 VA 5919.6104 * *7005 DAVE GOERGEN 2014/01/21 $2,100.00 Training Certificatior POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY 651 - 2967250 MN 5919.6104 * *7005 DAVE GOERGEN 2014/01/21 $300.00 ?? POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY 651 - 2967250 MN 5919.6104 * *7013 GARY WELLS 2013/12/27 $123.12 Supplies MENARDS 3268 EDEN PRAIRIE MN 5913:6406 G:\Pt ising cards\2014 purchasing card electronic files\2014 USF ,rchasing Card Register.xlsx 1/2014 CITY OF EDINA CITY COUNCIL CREDIT CARD PAYMENT REGISTER 12/26/13- 01/25/14 Account Name Date Amount Description Vendor . City State Account * *7013 GARY WELLS 2014/01/14 $600.00 Electric Heater PAYPAL *ALLAH610 402 - 935 -7733 CA 5921.6530 * *7013 GARY WELLS 2014/01/22 $431.36 Gloves WW GRAINGER 877 - 2022594 PA 5921.6406 * *7013 GARY WELLS 2014/01/23 $122.60 Gloves WW GRAINGER 877 - 2022594 PA 5921.6406 * *2929 DAVID NELSON 2014/01/07 $80.93 GPS Receiver & Cabl. EXPANSYS USA 309- 834 -0303 IL 1400.6160 * *2929 DAVID NELSON 2014/01/08 $78.68 Antenna WPSANTENNAS.COM 507- 2828484 MN 1400.6160 * *2929 DAVID NELSON 2014/01/13 $38.58 OFFICE SUPPLIES WPSANTENNAS.COM 507 - 2828484 MN 1400.6160 * *2929 DAVID NELSON 2014/01/17 $17.59 OTHER GB *HQ ELECTRONIC LIMITED SHENZHEN 1400.6160 * *4334 RYAN SCHULTZ 2013/12/30 $550.00 Training ACT *ATOM 877 - 551 -5560 CA 1400.6104 * *4334 RYAN SCHULTZ 2014/01/16 $214.88 Kidde Access Point AMAZON.COM AMZN.COM /BILL WA 1400.6406 * *4334 RYAN SCHULTZ 2014/01/17 $1,079.46 Supplies IKEA BLOOMINGTON BLOOMINGTON MN 1400.6406 * *4334 RYAN SCHULTZ 2014/01/22 $185.00 Registration SQ *MINNESOTA JUVENILE OF-ST CLOUD MN 1400.6104 * *9221 JEFF LONG 2013/12/31 ($124.96) Fingerprint Sensor FULCRUM BIOMETRICS LLC 210- 3483687 TX 1400.6160 * *9221 JEFF LONG 2014/01/03 $85.00 Membership Dues FBI NATIONAL ACADEMY ASSO 703- 6321990 VA 1400.6103 * *9221 JEFF LONG 2014/01/03 $59.53 Antenna Adapters ANTENNAGEAR 513- 770 -1087 OH 1400.6160 * *9221 JEFF LONG 2014/01/09 $6.97 Frame OFFICE MAX EDINA MN 1400.6406 * *6949 DARRELL TODD 2013/12/26 $20.00 Data Plan VZWRLSS* P RPAY AUTO PAY 888 - 294 -6804 CA 1495.6188 * *6949 DARRELL TODD 2013/12/28 $40.00 Data Plan VZWRLSS *PREPAID PYMNT 888 - 294 -6804 CA 1495.6188 * *6949 DARRELL TODD 2013/12/31 $1,200.00 Battery Pack SONOSITE INC 425 - 951 -1200 WA 1470.6510 * *6949 DARRELL TODD 2014/01/08 $899.00 OSHA Training FREDPRYOR CAREERTRACK 800- 5563012 KS 1470.6104 * *6949 DARRELL TODD 2014/01/09 $20.00 Data Plan VZWRLSS *PRPAY AUTO PAY 888 - 294 -6804 CA 1470.6188 * *6949 DARRELL TODD 2014/01/09 $140.00 ICC Courses INT'L CODE COUNCIL 888 - 422 -7233 IL 1470.6104 * *6949 DARRELL TODD 2014/01/09 $280.00 ICC Courses INT'L CODE COUNCIL 888 - 422 -7233 IL 1470.6104 * *6949 DARRELL TODD 2014/01/09 $140.00 ICC Courses INT'L CODE COUNCIL 888 - 422 -7233 IL 1470.6104 * *6949 DARRELL TODD 2014/01/09 $140.00 ICC Courses INT'L CODE COUNCIL 888 - 422 -7233 IL 1470.6104 * *6949 DARRELL TODD 2014/01/10 $20.00 Data Plan VZWRLSS* P RPAY AUTO PAY 888 - 294 -6804 CA 1470.6188 * *6949 DARRELL TODD 2014/01/14 $529.65 Tarps ACE CANOPY /TARPS P 661 - 480 -1562 CA 1470.6406 * *6949 DARRELL TODD 2014/01/17 $20.00 Data Plan VZWRLSS *PRPAY AUTOPAY 888 - 294 -6804 CA 1470.6188 * *6949 DARRELL TODD 2014/01/26 $20.00 Data Plan VZWRLSS *PRPAY AUTO PAY 888 - 294 -6804 CA 1470.6188 * *8102 JEFF BROWN 2014/01/03 $45.00 Conference PAYPAL *MINNESOTAEN 402 - 935 -7733 CA 1490.6104 GAPurchasing cards\2014 purchasing card electronic files\2014 USB Purchasing Card Register.xlsx 3/10/2014 CITY OF EDINA CITY COUNCIL CREDIT CARD PAYMENT REGISTER 12/26/13- 01/25/14 Account Name Date Amount Description Vendor City State Account * *8102 JEFF BROWN 2014/01/03 $35.00 Membership Renew PAYPAL *MINNESOTAEN 402 - 935 -7733 CA 1490.6105 * *8102 JEFF BROWN 2014/01/03 $45.00 Conference PAYPAL *MINNESOTAEN 402 - 935 -7733 CA 1490.6104 * *1996 GUNNAR KAASA 2014/01/02 $231.72 Switch and Rod ROSEDALE CHEVROLET 651 - 636 -0340 MN 1553.6530 * *1996 GUNNAR KAASA 2014/01/07 $1,175.00 Furnish and Install P; KOLSTAD COMPANY INC 763 - 7921033 MN 1553.6585 * *1996 GUNNAR KAASA 2014/01/08 $191.90 Part ROSEDALE CHEVROLET 651- 636 -0340 MN 1553.6530 * *1996 GUNNAR KAASA 2014/01/07 $244.50 VitalChek -Decal VCN *MN STATE PATROL 866 - 2551856 MN 1553.6406 * *1996 GUNNAR KAASA 2014/01/17 $90.00 Re- certification DAKOTA TECH CUSTOM TRAIN 651 - 4238301 MN 1281.6104 * *1996 GUNNAR KAASA 2014/01/24 $82.44 Service? WALLYS SERVICE STATIONS I MINNEAPOLIS MN 1553.6581 * *8753 RYAN BROWNING 2013/12/26 $275.42 Polycom AMAZON MKTPLACE PMTS AMZN.COM /BILL WA 1554.6188 * *8753 RYAN BROWNING 2013/12/27 $733.65 Polycom AMAZON MKTPLACE PMTS AMZN.COM /BILL WA 1554.6188 * *8753 RYAN BROWNING 2013/12/27 $733.65 Polycom AMAZON MKTPLACE PMTS AMZN.COM /BILL WA 1554.6188 * *8753 RYAN BROWNING 2013/12/27 $400.19 iPhone Cases AMAZON MKTPLACE PMTS AMZN.COM /BILL WA 1400.6215 * *8753 RYAN BROWNING 2013/12/28 $20.00 Data Plan -Frank VZWRLSS *PRPAY AUTO PAY 888 - 294 -6804 CA 1130.6160 * *8753 RYAN BROWNING 2013/12/28 $87.11 Polycom AMAZON MKTPLACE PMTS AMZN.COM /BILL WA 1554.6188 * *8753 RYAN BROWNING 2013/12/28 $129.98 iPad Case AMAZON MKTPLACE PMTS AMZN.COM /BILL WA 1470.6406 * *8753 RYAN BROWNING 2013/12/30 $3,315.00 Membership NOREX INC 952 - 4478898 MN 1554.6104 * *8753 RYAN BROWNING 2013/12/31 $1,250.00 Training SCIENCE MUSEUM OF MN 651 - 221 -4743 MN 1554.6104 * *8753 RYAN BROWNING 2014/01/02 $127.66 VM Software DRI *VMWARE 866 - 377 -4710 MN 1554.6160 * *8753 RYAN BROWNING 2014/01/03 ($8.66) Tax Refund? DRI *VMWARE 866- 377 -4710 MN 1554.6160 * *8753 RYAN, BROWNING 2014/01/03 $6.43 App APL *APPLE (TUNES STORE 866- 712 -7753 CA 1261.6406 * *8753 RYAN BROWNING 2014/01/09 $2.00 Parking MPLS METERS MULTI MINNEAPOLIS MN 1554.6106 * *8753 RYAN BROWNING 2014/01/09 $1.00 Parking MPLS METERS MULTI MINNEAPOLIS MN 1554.6106 * *8753 RYAN BROWNING 2014/01/15 $259.96 iPad Cases AMAZON MKTPLACE PMTS AMZN.COM /BILL WA 1261.6406 * *8753 RYAN BROWNING 2014/01/21 $5.61 Cable MONOPRICE INC 909 - 989 -6887 CA 5511.6406 * *8753 RYAN BROWNING 2014/01/21 $321.81 Fax Machine OFFICE DEPOT #415 EDEN PRAIRIE MN 5410.6513 * *8753 RYAN BROWNING 2014/01/22 $31.79 Cables MONOPRICE INC 909 - 989 -6887 CA 1554.6406 * *8753 RYAN BROWNING 2014/01/23 $23.96 DMO Labeling Tape AMAZON MKTPLACE PMTS AMZN.COM /BILL WA 1554.6406 * *8753 RYAN BROWNING 2014/01/23 $113.21 IT Supplies AMAZON.COM AMZN.COM /BILL WA 1554.6406 * *8753 RYAN BROWNING 2014/01/23 $169.80 Surge Protector StriFAMAZON.COM AMZN.COM /BILL WA 1554.6406 G: \Pt: ising cards\2014 purchasing card electronic files\2014 USA rchasing Card Register.xlsx 1/2014 CITY OF EDINA CITY COUNCIL CREDIT CARD PAYMENT REGISTER 12/26/13- 01/25/14 Account Name Date Amount Description Vendor City State Account * *8753 RYAN BROWNING 2014/01/24 $104.55 Label Maker & Tape AMAZON.COM AMZN.COM /BILL WA 1554.6406 * *8753 RYAN BROWNING 2014/01/24 $12.81 Software APL *APPLE ITUNES STORE 866 - 712 -7753 CA 1554.6160 * *5546 KRISTIN AARSVOLE 2014/01/24 $66.80 Supplies TARGET 00023135 EDINA MN 1622.6406 * *5546 KRISTIN AARSVOLE 2014/01/24 $29.10 Firewood HOLIDAY STNSTORE 3530 MINNEAPOLIS MN 1622.6406 * *5587 DAWN BEITEL 2013/12/27 $109.64 Socks for Resale VISR WWW.VISR.NET NC 5720.5510 * *5587 DAWN BEITEL 2013/12/27 $220.00 Deposit /EntertainmE HAPPY FACES ENTERTAINM 952 - 4767676 MN 5710.6136 * *5587 DAWN BEITEL 2013/12/31 $58.26 EATING /DRINKING MILIO'S SANDWICHES MINNEAPOLIS MN 5720.6406 * *6841 ANN KATTREH 2014/01/22 $20:00 Data Plan VZWRLSS *PRPAY AUTOPAY 888- 294 -6804 CA 1600.6188 * *7279 DONNA TILSNER 2014/01/06 $35.00 Annual Luncheon MN RECREATION AND PARK A 763 - 571 -1305 MN 1600.6103 * *7279 DONNA TILSNER 2014/01/11 $26.81 Mini display port RADIOSHACK COR00160945 ST LOUIS PARK MN 1628.6406 * *7279 DONNA TILSNER 2014/01/15 $14.10 Supplies THE HOME DEPOT 2806 ST LOUIS PARK MN 1628.6406 * *2293 JENNIFER BENNER( 2013/12/26 $8.67 Office Supplies WALGREENS #2509 EDINA MN 1132.6406 * *2293 JENNIFER BENNER( 2013/12/31 $815.00 NAGC Award Entries NAGC 703- 8760300 VA 1130.6104 * *2293 JENNIFER BENNER( 2014/01/02 $20.00 Data Plan- Jennifer VZWRLSS *PRPAY AUTOPAY 888 - 294 -6804 CA 1130.6160 * *2293 JENNIFER BENNER( 2014/01/05 $53.63 Software ADOBE SYSTEMS, INC. 800 - 833 -6687 WA 1130.6406 * *2293 JENNIFER BENNER( 2014/01/06 $53.63 Software ADOBE SYSTEMS, INC. 800 - 833 -6687 WA 1130.6406 * *2293 JENNIFER BENNER( 2014/01/07 $300.00 MAGC Membership MAGC 651 - 6754434 MN 1130.6105 * *2293 JENNIFER BENNER( 2014/01/08 $21.44 App APL *APPLE ONLINE STORE 800 - 676 -2775 CA 1132.6406 * *2293 JENNIFER BENNER( 2014/01/08 $54.90 Stock Photos ISTOCK *INTERNATIONAL 866 - 478 -6251 WA 1130.6406 * *2293 JENNIFER BENNER( 2014/01/09 $126.61 Books BARNES &NOBLE *COM 800- 843 -2665 NJ 1130.6406 * *2293 JENNIFER BENNER( 2014/01/11 $49.50 Headset DRI *LOGITECH STORE ORDERFIND.COM MN 1132.6406 * *2293 JENNIFER BENNER( 2014/01/11 $20.00 Data Plan -Scott VZWRLSS *PRPAY AUTOPAY 888 - 294 -6804 CA 1130.6160 * *2293 JENNIFER BENNER( 2014/01/12 $32.17 Software ADOBE SYSTEMS, INC. 800 - 833 -6687 WA 1130.6406 * *2293 JENNIFER BENNER( 2014/01/13 $20.00 Data Plan- Bennett VZWRLSS *PRPAY AUTO PAY 888 - 294 -6804 CA 1100.6160 * *2293 JENNIFER BENNER( 2014/01/14 $32.17 Software ADOBE SYSTEMS, INC. 800 - 833 -6687 WA 1130.6406 * *2293 JENNIFER BENNER( 2014/01/14 $11.96 Newspaper Subscrip THE STAR TRIBUNE CIRCULAT 612 - 6734343 MN 1130.6406 * *2293 JENNIFER BENNER( 2014/01/17 $5.00 Software AKSMT.COM 877 - 273 -3049 CA 1130.6406 * *2293 JENNIFER BENNER( 2014/01/17 $20.00 Data Plan - Kaylin VZWRLSS *PRPAY AUTOPAY 888 - 294 -6804 CA 1130.6160 * *2293 JENNIFER BENNER( 2014/01/17 $29.95 Online Invoicing Sub.2NDSITE FRESHBOOKS 416- 481 -6946 ON 1130.6124 GAPurchasing cards \2014 purchasing card electronic files\2014 USB Purchasing Card Register.xlsx 3/10/2014 CITY OF EDINA CITY COUNCIL CREDIT CARD PAYMENT REGISTER 12/26/13- 01/25/14 Account Name Date Amount Description Vendor City State Account * *2293 JENNIFER BENNER(2014/01/22 $20.00 Data Plan- Swenson VZWRLSS *PRPAYAUTOPAY 888 - 294 -6804 CA 1100.6160 * *2293 JENNIFER BENNER( 2014/01/24 ($16.09) Other - Return TOYS R,US #6043 BLOOMINGTON MN 1130.6410 * *8300 MARY WOOLDRID( 2013/12/28 $20.00 Data Plan VZWRLSS *PRPAY AUTOPAY 888 - 294 -6804 CA 5440.6406 * *8300 MARY WOOLDRID( 2014/01/08 $44.44 Office Supplies OFFICE MAX CHANHASSEN I MN 5410.6513 * *8300 MARY WOOLDRID( 2014/01/13 $117.47 Office Supplies OFFICE MAX EDEN PRAIRIE MN 5410.6513 * *8300 MARY WOOLDRID( 2014/01/17 $436.00 Spirit Squad U OF M- ATHLETIC GEN TKTS 612 - 624 -5811 MN 5210.6122 * *8300 MARY WOOLDRID( 2014/01/17 $24.08 Office Supplies BARNES & NOBLE #2514 EDINA MN 5410.6406 * *8300 MARY WOOLDRID( 2014/01/18 $83.64 Florals /Accents HOMEGOODS #0581 EDINA MN 5440.6406 * *8318 TOM SWENSON 2014/01/07 $2,424.19 Sno- Master SNOW GROOMERS 231 - 5267120 MI 5422.6406 * *8318 TOM SWENSON 2014/01/21 $103.44 Speakers AMAZON.COM AMZN.COM /BILL WA 5410.6406 * *8318 TOM SWENSON 2014/01/21 $907.20 Permit -2013 Water I DEPT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 651 - 2595552 MN 5422.6103 * *6428 TODD ANDERSON 2014/01/03 $13.27 Office Supplies OFFICE DEPOT #415 EDEN PRAIRIE MN 5410.6513 * *6428 TODD ANDERSON 2014/01/20 $11.03 Supplies MENARDS 3268 EDEN PRAIRIE MN 5210.6406 * *7820 SUSIE MILLER 2013/12/29 $321.34 Deco re/Accesso ry MARSHALLS #0488 BLAINE MN 5510.6406 * *3792 MICHAEL FREY 2013/12/27 $185.54 Paint HIRSHFIELDS /SOUTH DALE EDINA MN 5111.6406 * *3792 MICHAEL FREY 2014/01/03 $25.00 Advertising CRAIGSLIST.ORG 415 - 566 -6394 CA 5110.6122 * *3792 MICHAEL FREY 2014/01/07 $30.00 Food for Opening GROUPON INC 877 - 788 -7858 IL 5120.6406 * *3792 MICHAEL FREY 2014/01/09 $217.70 Food for Opening BUCA DI BEPPO - MINNEAPOLI MINNEAPOLIS MN 5120.6406 * *3792 MICHAEL FREY 2014/01/09 $62.64 Cost of Goods Sold OFFICE MAX 800 - 283 -7674 IL 5125.5510 * *3792 MICHAEL FREY 2014/01/16 $87.85 Postcards for Openir OVERNIGHTPRINTS 888 - 677 -2000 CA 5120.6406 * *5821 AMY SMITH 2014/01/24 $54.25 Beer /Wine EDINA LIQUOR YORK EDINA MN 5420.5513 * *5821 AMY SMITH 2014/01/24 $63.20 Beer /Wine EDINA LIQUOR YORK EDINA MN 5420.5514 * *9665 SUSAN FAUS 2014/01/02 $30.00 Data Plan VZWRLSS *PRPAY AUTO PAY 888 - 294 -6804 CA 1600.6188 * *1282 PATRICIA MCGRAT 2014/01/03 $35.61 Rental Equipment PITNEY BOWES* 800- 228 -1071 CT 5710.6235 * *1282 PATRICIA MCGRAT 2014/01/09 $28.20 Personal Chg- Reimb' RAINBOW FOODS 00088112 W SAINT PAUL MN 5710.6406 * *1282 PATRICIA MCGRAT 2014 /01/15 $100.00 Postage POSTAGE REFILL 800- 468 -8454 CT 5710.6235 * *6906 TOM SHIRLEY 2013/12/28 $38.97 Supplies AMAZON MKTPLACE PMTS AMZN.COM /BILL WA 5761.6406 * *6906 TOM SHIRLEY 2014/01/06 $44.54 Supplies TARGET 00023135 EDINA MN 5761.5510 * *6906 TOM SHIRLEY 2014/01/08 $85.81 Supplies DICK'S CLOTHING &SPORTING RICHFIELD MN 5761.6406 GAR ising cards\2014 purchasing card electronic files\2014 USF rchasing Card Register.xlsx 1/2014 CITY OF EDINA CITY COUNCIL CREDIT CARD PAYMENT REGISTER 12/26/13- 01/25/14 Account Name Date Amount Description Vendor City State Account * *6906 TOM SHIRLEY 2014/01/08 $29.19 Supplies AMAZON MKTPLACE PMTS AMZN.COM /BILL WA 5761.6406 * *6906 TOM SHIRLEY 2014/01/17 $61.50 Minnesota Grown L2 DEPT OF AGRICULTURE 651- 2016433 MN 5760.6105 * *0093 STEVEN GRAUSAM 2013/12/29 $33.54 Supplies PARTY CITY #773 BLOOMINGTON MN 5822.6406 * *0093 STEVEN GRAUSAM 2013/12/29 $33.54 Supplies PARTY CITY #773 BLOOMINGTON MN 5842.6406 * *0093 STEVEN GRAUSAM 2013/12/29 $33.53 Supplies PARTY CITY #773 BLOOMINGTON MN 5862.6406 * *0093 STEVEN GRAUSAM 2014/01/03 ($13.94) A/C Cord JERRY'S DO IT BEST HAR EDINA MN . 5842.6406 * *0093 STEVEN GRAUSAM 2014/01/03 $13.94 A/C Cord JERRY'S DO IT BEST HAR EDINA MN 5842.6406 * *0093 STEVEN GRAUSAM 2014/01/03 $23.43 Supplies THE HOME DEPOT 2805 BLOOMINGTON MN 5841.6406 * *0093 STEVEN GRAUSAM 2014/01/02 $28.58 Building Permit CITY OF EDINA BUILDING EDINA MN 5860.6260 * *0093 STEVEN GRAUSAM 2014/01/15 $17.97 Bulbs JERRY'S DO IT BEST HAR EDINA MN 5841.6406 * *0093 STEVEN GRAUSAM 2014/01/15 $19.59 Bulbs JERRY'S DO IT BEST HAR EDINA MN 5861.6406 * *0093 STEVEN GRAUSAM 2014/01/16 $186.55 Jack Bar Load Lock J J KELLER & ASSOCIATES JJKELLER.COM WI 5842.6406 * *0093 STEVEN GRAUSAM 2014/01/15 $54.78 Office Supplies OFFICE MAX EDINA MN 5840.6513 * *0093 STEVEN GRAUSAM 2014/01/20 $17.65 Mop THE HOME DEPOT 2805 BLOOMINGTON MN 5861.6406 * *0093 STEVEN GRAUSAM 2014/01/23 $115.82 LED Strips BATTERIES PLUS #16 BLOOMINGTON MN 5842.6406 * *0093 STEVEN GRAUSAM 2014/01/23 $24.00 Subscription MSC *THE WHISKY ADVOCAT 800 - 610 -6258 NY 5842.6105 * *0093 STEVEN GRAUSAM 2014/01/24 $26.67 USB Cable TOTAL REGISTER SYSTEMS 1 763 - 5371906 MN 5822:6406 * *0093 STEVEN GRAUSAM 2014/01/24 $26.67 USB Cable TOTAL REGISTER SYSTEMS 1 763 - 5371906 MN 5842.6406 * *0093 STEVEN GRAUSAM 2014/01/24 $26.66 USB Cable TOTAL REGISTER SYSTEMS 1 763- 5371906 MN 5862.6406 * *0093 STEVEN GRAUSAM 2014/01/24 $10.72 Supplies CUB FOODS #3128 EDINA MN 5842.6406 * *0093 STEVEN GRAUSAM 2014/01/23 $46.08 Broom THE HOME-DEPOT 2805 BLOOMINGTON MN 5841.6406 * *7021 DEB FIELDS 2014/01/02 $402.56 Range Passes SQ *POSTAL DISPATCH BUSIN MINNEAPOLIS MN 7414.6406 * *7021 DEB FIELDS 2014/01/02 $77.04 Email service EMA *EMMA EMAIL MARKETIK 800 - 5954401 TN 7410.6122 * *7021 DEB FIELDS 2014/01/03 $83.95 Sign SMARTSIGN 718- 797 -1900 NY 7411.6406 * *7021 DEB FIELDS 2014/01/05 $38.26 Advertising GOOGLE *ADWS5107668870 CC @GOOGLE.CON CA 7410.6122 * *7039 GERALD KOPLOS 2013/12/28 $92.00 Stamps USPS 26632604133408592 MINNEAPOLIS . MN 7410.6406 * *7039 GERALD KOPLOS 2013/12/27 $14.12 Supplies JERRY'S DO IT BEST HAR EDINA MN 7411.6406 * *7039 GERALD KOPLOS 2014/01/06 $142.40 Plumbing Supplies SPS COMPANIES #1 SAINT LOUIS P MN 7411.6530 * *7039 GERALD KOPLOS 2014/01/09 $337.37 Jet Air Filtration Syst ROCKLER WOOD* MINNETONKA MN '7411.6406 GAPurchasing cards\2014 purchasing card electronic files\2014 USB Purchasing Card Register.xlsx 3/10/2014 CITY OF EDINA CITY COUNCIL CREDIT CARD PAYMENT REGISTER 12/26/13- 01/25/14 Account Name Date Amount< Description Vendor City State Account * *7039 GERALD KOPLOS 2014/01/11 $22.02 Supplies JERRY'S DO IT BEST HAR EDINA MN 7412.6406 * *7039 GERALD KOPLOS 2014/01/15 $14.57 Supplies JERRY'S DO IT BEST HAR EDINA MN 7411.6530 * *7039 GERALD KOPLOS 2014/01/15 $108.57 Supplies MENARDS 3268 EDEN PRAIRIE MN 7411.6406 * *7039 GERALD KOPLOS 2014/01/17 $70.49 .Gun Cleaning Supplie ARNZEN ARMS LLC EDEN PRAIRIE MN 7412.6406 * *7039 GERALD KOPLOS 2014/01/21 $31.91 Supplies JERRY'S DO IT BEST HAR EDINA MN 7411.6530 * *7039 GERALD KOPLOS 2014/01/22 $20.31 Supplies JERRY'S DO IT BEST HAR EDINA MN 7411.6406 * *7039 GERALD KOPLOS 2014/01/25 $7.00 Gas HOLIDAY STNSTORE 3596 EDEN PRAIRIE MN 7411.6406 $39,980.58 We confirm to the best of our knowledge and- belief, that these claims comply in all material respects with the requirements of the City of Edina purchasing polipiesia9d G: \Pi -ising cards\2014 purchasing card electronic files\2014 USr - .1rchasing Card Register.xlsx 0/2014 I To: Mayor and Council From: Jeff Brown, Community Health Administrator, Community Health Commission Staff Liaison Date: 3/18/14 Subject: Community Health Commission Bylaws o�VU •vv• Agenda Item #: W.C. Action Discussion ❑ Information ❑ Action Requested: Adopt revised Community Health Commission bylaws, as approved by the Community Health Commission. Information / Background: The Community Health Commission bylaws have been revised to reflect a change in meeting schedule, a change in meeting frequency, and the name change from Community Health Committee to Community Health Commission. The Community Health Commission approved the attached bylaws at its March 4th, 2014 meeting. City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina. MN 55424 Community Health Commission Bylaws Section 1: Introduction The bylaws outlined below are approved procedures for the Community Health Commission. Members should review and understand City Code Chapter 2, Article III, Division 1 and Chapter 2, Article III, Division 4, which are included in the appendix of these bylaws. In the event of a conflict between the City Code and the Community Health Commission bylaws, the City Code will prevail. Some components of these bylaws are common across all City boards and commissions. The City Staff Liaison should be consulted prior to considering bylaw amendments. Proposed bylaw amendments should be announced one meeting prior to voting on the proposed change. Bylaw amendments require the approval of a majority of the voting Community Health Commission members and approval by the City Council. In addition to the City Code and these bylaws, the Community Health Commission will be guided by those policies and procedural documents applicable to the Community Health Commission or City advisory boards in general. Copies of these documents will be made available to members at the beginning of their service with the Community Health Commission. Section 2: Mission and Business Address Refer to City Code Chapter 2, Article III, Division 1, Section 2 -78 and Chapter 2, Article III, Division 4, Section 2 -163 for the Community Health Commission mission. The business office for the Community Health Commission is located at Edina City Hall, 4801 W. 501h Street, Edina, MN, 55424. Members of the public can also contact the Community Health Commission at edinamail @ci.edina.mn.us. Section 3: Membership Membership Composition Refer to City Code Chapter 2, Article III, Division 1, Section 2 -80 and Chapter 2, Article III, Division 4, Section 2 -164. Terms of Membership Refer to City Code Chapter 2, Article III, Division 1, Section 2 -81. Contact Information Community Health Commission members are required to provide a mailing address and phone number or email address to the City Clerk. This contact information is available to City staff and members of the public. Responsibilities Community Health Commission members are expected to be present and adequately prepared for all meetings and to actively participate in meeting discussions. Members who are unable to complete assigned tasks should notify the Chairperson as soon as possible. 1 1 P a g e �v9 Z139.,� . Off. O Community Health. Commission Bylaws Attendance Refer to City Code Chapter 2, Article III, Division 1, Section 2 -86. If a member cannot attend a regular meeting, he or she should notify the Staff Liaison as soon as possible and ideally no later than two hours prior to the start of the meeting. Cancelled meetings will be counted as meetings held and attended for purpose of calculating attendance percentages. Resignation or Removal Refer to City Code Chapter 2, Article III, Division 1, Section 2 -81. The Community Health Commission may ask the City Council to review a member's appointment based on the member's failure to perform the responsibilities outlined above. Section 4: Meetings Meeting Notice Refer to City Code Chapter 2, Article III, Division 1, Section 2 -84. All board and commission meetings are open to the public. To comply with legal requirements and ensure accessibility to the public, the City Clerk gives official notice of all Community Health Commission meetings on the City's website and at City Hall. Regular Meetings Refer to City Code Chapter 2, Article III, Division 1, Section 2 -84. Regular meetings of the Community Health Commission are held at Edina City Hall or another officially noticed location on the first Tuesday of each month. A regular meeting may be rescheduled by the Community Health Commission at a prior meeting. Annual Meeting In March, the Community Health Commission will hold an annual meeting to: • Elect officers for the upcoming year, • Review and update bylaws as necessary, and • Affirm the regular meeting schedule for the upcoming year. Special Meetings Special meetings of the Community Health Commission may be called by the Chairperson, City Council, City Manager or by the directive of a majority of the Community Health. Commission voting members. Members will be notified of the special meeting by written or email.communication at least three calendar days in advance of the meeting. To comply with the open meeting law and to ensure accessibility to the public, the City Clerk posts official notice of all special meetings. A quorum is not required for special meetings; however, members cannot take action on a motion unless a quorum is present. Cancelling Meetings Meetings of the Community Health Commission.can..be cancelled by the Chairperson, City Council, City Manager or by the directive of a majority of the Community Health Commission voting members. Meetings may be cancelled for insufficient business, lack of quorum, conflict with a holiday, inclement weather or in the event of a community, emergency. 2 1 P a g e ct4 p . Community Health Commission Bylaws Quorum Refer to. City Code Chapter 2, Article III, Division 1, Section 2 -84. Meeting Agendas Meeting agendas will be prepared ,by the Chairperson in consultation with the City Staff Liaison. Members may request that items be added to the agenda; however, the addition of such items is subject to approval by a majority of the voting members. The meeting agenda and related materials will be sent electronically the Thursday prior to the scheduled regular meeting. Meeting Proceedings During regular meetings, business will be conducted in the order listed below. The order of business may be changed with the support of a majority of the voting members. • Call to order • Roll calf • Approval of agenda • Approval of minutes from preceding meeting •_ Public hearings • Community comment • Reports and recommendations • Correspondence Commission comments • Staff comments • Adjournment Meetings will be conducted according to the latest edition of Roberts Rules of Order. Community Comment During "Community Comment," the Chair will ask to hear from those in attendance who would like to. speak about something not on the agenda that is relevant to the Community Health Commission. Individuals must limit their presentations to three minutes. Chair has the right to limit the number of speakers making similar statements and to limit comments related to matters previously discussed. The Community Health Commission is not required to respond to the comments. In order to maintain a respectful environment for all those in attendance, disruptive behavior such as the use of signs, clapping, cheering or booing is not allowed. Motions and Voting A simple majority of voting members present and voting will decide all motions before the Community Health Commission. At the request of a member, a roll call vote will be taken when there is a divided vote on any item. A tie vote on any motion will result in a failure to pass. Student members are not eligible to vote. 3 1 P a g e Community Health Commission Bylaws o� a t+ fiS 0 V .b Meetine Minutes Refer to City Code Chapter 2, Article III, Division 1, Section 2 -85. City staff will prepare minutes for Community Health Commission meetings. The minutes will include which members were present and absent, a summary of each item discussed and any motions proposed, and the votes on those motions. If a member of City staff is not present to record minutes, the Community Health Commission will appoint a secretary to prepare the minutes. The secretary will prepare draft minutes within two weeks of the meeting date and forward the draft to the Chair and City Staff Liaison. Approved minutes will be posted on the City's website and forwarded to the City Clerk for distribution to the City Council by the City Staff Liaison. Section 5: Officers Refer to City Code Chapter 2, Article III, Division 1, Section 2 -83. The Community Health Commission will hold elections for the officer positions of Chairperson and Vice Chairperson at the annual meeting in March. The Chairperson may make and second motions and vote on all motions. The duties of the Chairperson include but are not limited to: • Prepare the agenda in consultation with the City Staff Liaison. • Lead the meeting in accordance with the agenda and facilitate discussion on agenda items. • Invoke a reasonable time limit for speakers during public testimony. • Ensure that the bylaws are followed and actions are properly taken. • Maintain meeting decorum. • Extend meetings or schedule special meetings as necessary. • Cancel meetings, in consultation with the City Staff Liaison. • Facilitate the development of the annual work plan. • Develop annual calendar of anticipated agenda items for each month. • Consult with members regarding attendance issues. • Encourage active participation by Community Health Commission members and members of the public. The Vice Chairperson performs the duties of the Chairperson in his /her absence. If both the Chairperson and the Vice Chairperson are absent, an acting chairperson may be assigned in advance by either officer or at the meeting by a majority vote of the members. Section 6: City Staff Liaison Refer to City Code Chapter 2, Article III, Division 1, Section 2 -79. The Community Health Commission has a City Staff Liaison appointed by the City Manager. The City Staff Liaison is expected to work cooperatively with Community Health Commission members. Members may not direct City staff but can request assistance through the City Staff Liaison to carry out the Community Health Commission mission. The duties of the City Staff Liaison include but are not limited to: Work with Chairperson to prepare and distribute meeting agendas. • Reserve meeting rooms and other needed meeting equipment. • Record and prepare meeting minutes (or delegate the responsibility to another City staff member). 4 1 P a g e 915 A. l O e'' Community Health Commission Bylaws • Provide technical expertise and access to City resources. • Work with Chairperson to ensure bylaws are followed and annual work plans are submitted. • Relay information or directives from City Council meetings or work sessions relevant to the Community Health Commission. • Respond to Community Health Commission inquiries in a timely manner. • Forward information to and between Community Health Commission members. • Record meeting attendance, include the current attendance record with each packet and consult with the Chairperson and City Clerk regarding attendance issues. • Provide orientation materials to new members and chairperson. • Handle funds allocated to the Community Health Commission in accordance with its directives, City policies and legal requirements. • Serve as the custodian of Community Health Commission records. • Work with City Clerk to serve all notices required by law or these bylaws. Concerns with the performance of the City Staff Liaison should be directed to the Assistant City Manager. Section 7: Committees and Working Groups Introduction Committees or Working Groups may be established by a majority vote of the Community Health Commission to study issues in greater depth and report findings. Committees or Working Groups present their analysis to the Community Health' Commission for discussion and recommendations. The Community Health Commission has the sole authority to mak e. final recommendations on all matters on which a Committee or Working Group has given guidance. The Community Health Commission defines the scope and the duration of the Committee or Working Group's mission. In no case may the Committee or Working Group exceed the authority granted by the Community Health Commission. Committee and Working Group participants may not include enough voting Community Health Commission members to constitute a quorum for the Community Health Commission. Committees or Working Groups may be designated as standing (ongoing) or temporary in nature. Definitions Committees' and Working Groups may be comprised of two or more people, one of whom is the chair appointed by the Community Health Commission. A Committee is comprised of current Community Health Commission members only. A Working Group is led by a Community Health Commission member, but will also include members of the public. Working Group Announcement Public notice will be given of the formation of any Working Group, including a press release from -the City to local media outlets. Individuals will have a minimum of 14 days after the public notice to express interest in joining before members are selected. Public Access 5 1 P a g e o e f tA 10 o Community Health Commission Bylaws Based on the potential public interest in the topic, some Committee and Working Group meetings may be designated as public meetings by the Community Health Commission or the City Council. If a Committee or Working Group's meetings are designated as public meetings, official meeting notices, written agendas and written minutes are required. Refer to Section 4 of these bylaws for additional information on meeting notices. Appointments and Chair Assignments Committees: The Community Health Commission Chairperson will ask for Committee volunteers from the Community Health Commission membership. A majority vote may approve the Committee appointments once sufficient volunteers are established. A temporary Committee Chair will be appointed by the Community Health Commission at the time of Committee formation. The Committee will elect its own chair and notify the Community Health Commission Chairperson. Working Groups: The Community Health Commission Chairperson will ask for volunteers from the Community Health Commission to serve as the Working Group Chair. The Working Group Chair is approved by a majority of the Community Health Commission members. The Working Group Chair will recommend other Working Group members. By definition, those members will include individuals outside of the Community Health Commission. The Chair may also nominate a co -chair who is not a Community Health Commission member. Working Group appointments will be made by a majority vote of Community Health Commission members. The duties of the Committee or Working Group Chair(s) include but are not limited to: • Set the meeting schedule and, if required, notify the City Staff Liaison for public notification. • Prepare and distribute a written meeting agenda, if required. • Lead the meeting in accordance with the agenda and facilitate discussion on agenda items. • Ensure that this section of the bylaws and Community Health Commission directives are followed. • Maintain meeting decorum. • Recommend members and notify Community Health Commission of changes in membership (Working Group only). • Report on the Committee or Working Group's activities at each regular Community Health Commission meeting. • Communicate to the Committee or Working Group any directives, questions or input from the Community Health Commission. Resignation or Removal A Committee or Working Group member may voluntarily resign by submitting his or her written resignation to the Chair of the Committee or Working Group. A Committee or Working Group member may be removed by a majority vote of the Community Health Commission. Disbanding A Committee or Working Group may be disbanded at any regular meeting of the Community Health Commission by a majority vote of the members. Committees or Working Groups will automatically be disbanded if no member of the Community Health Commission is available to serve or appropriate volunteer membership cannot be established. 61 Page Community Health Commission Bylaws Section 8: Communication o G. ''U Applicability This section applies to all types of media and communication methods including face -to -face, telephone, email and social media. Communication Between Members Outside of Meetings Community Health Commission - related communication between members when a quorum of voting members is present constitutes a violation of open meeting laws if it takes place outside of publicly- noticed meetings. Members are prohibited from discussing Community Health Commission business in such a situation. Since email communication is common outside of meetings, the following email protocol is adopted: • Any email communication intended for a majority of Community Health Commission members should go through the City Staff Liaison so that an appropriate record can be established. • Members should not respond "reply all" to group messages. • Members should not blind copy (bcc) other members. Members must not engage in a serial discussion of Community Health Commission business. A serial discussion occurs when members discuss official business with a majority of voting members through successive communications: Serial communication can occur through a combination of communication methods such as face -to -face, email, telephone or on a social media site. Communication with the Public Outside of Meetings Community Health Commission members are encouraged to share their work with members of the public within the guidelines noted in the paragraph below. When communicating Community Health Commission business with the public, members should understand and convey the. following: • The deliberations and decisions of the Community Health Commission will be based solely on information contained in the public record presented to all Community Health Commission members participating in the deliberation or action. • The member's comments do not represent the opinion or viewpoint of other commissioners or the Community Health Commission as a whole. . Members should exercise care not to communicate how they intend to vote on any pending matter or give the appearance any matter has been pre- decided. Public Announcements and Press Releases The City's Communications and Technology Services Department will approve and coordinate any public announcements, press releases or other media contact desired by the Community Health Commission. 7 1 P a g e Community Health Commission Bylaws Section 9: Financial Transactions r�� r O v .S �n. U All financial expenditures by the Community Health Commission must relate to the Community Health Commission mission and be covered under the Community Health Commission budget. All expenditures must be approved in advance by a majority of the voting members. The City Staff Liaison is responsible for ensuring that all approved expenditures or reimbursements meet the criteria above as well as other City financial policies. Expenditures that do not meet the criteria above will not be reimbursed. The Community Health Commission does not have the authority to execute contracts or to otherwise financially obligate the City of Edina. Any contract related to Community Health Commission business will be managed by the City Staff Liaison and may be subject to City Council approval. Section 10: Ethical and Respectful Conduct Conflict of Interest Members may not use their position on the Community Health Commission for personal benefit. The interests of the Community Health Commission must be the first priority in all decisions and actions. Any member who has a financial interest in, or who may receive a financial benefit as a result of, any Community Health Commission action or decision must disclose this fact as a conflict of interest. A member who has disclosed a conflict of interest should abstain from discussion and voting on the matter. Gifts Community Health Commission members may not receive personal gifts from any "interested person" in conjunction with their board and commission duties. An "interested person" is a person, or representative of a person or an association, who has a direct financial interest in a recommendation under the Community Health Commission's purview. This section does not apply to lawful campaign contributions. The Community Health Commission may recommend acceptance of general gifts or donations through the City's donation policy. Respectful Behavior The City of Edina is committed to providing a work environment free from violence for all elected and appointed officials, employees and visitors. The City does not tolerate any form of violence in the workplace including threats or intimidating actions by or against any of the groups cited above. Violence and threats may include, but are not limited to: • Any act which is a physical assault • Any threat, behavior or action which is interpreted by a reasonable person to carry the potential to harm or endanger the safety of others, or result in an act of aggression, or destroy or damage City property. The Chairperson and City Staff liaison have the right to call for the immediate removal of anyone who threatens or commits an act of violence on City property. 8 1 P a g e Community Health Commission Bylaws Ok e: to r, Respectful behavior also includes how Community Health Commission members relate to each other, City staff and members of the public. Members share a joint responsibility in modeling, monitoring and addressing, behavior within the group. During Community Health Commission interactions, members should strive to: • Treat people with courtesy, politeness and kindness • . Encourage others to express their opinions and ideas • Listen to what others have to say • Use the ideas of others to improve decisions and outcomes • Recognize cultural differences Members should avoid: • Speaking over or cutting off another individual's comments • Insulting, disparaging or putting down people or their ideas • Bullying other members by displaying a pattern of belittling, demeaning, judging or patronizing comments. How to Report Members can report cases of unethical conduct to the City Staff Liaison, Assistant City Manager, City Manager or City Attorney. Appendix City Code Chapter 2, Article III, Division 1— Generally Sec. 2 -78. Establishment (a) Authority to establish. Pursuant to Minn. Stats. § 412.621, and other such statutes as are specifically cited herein, the council establishes or continues the following boards and commissions to advise the council with respect to municipal functions and activities and to investigate subjects of interest to the city. (b) How established. A board or commission may be established by a majority vote of the council. An ordinance shall be adopted prescribing the purpose, duties and composition of the board or commission. (c) Subject to provisions in this chapter. All boards and commissions established by the council shall be subject to the provisions of this chapter, unless otherwise specified in city ordinance or state law. (d) Purposes and duties generally. All boards and commissions established by the council shall be advisory to the council and shall have the responsibility to: (1) Investigate matters within the scope of the particular board or commission or as specifically directed by the council. (2) Advise the council by communicating the viewpoint or advice of the board or commission. 91Page Community Health Commission Bylaws 0� o • ,tir�� moo. (3) At the direction of the council, hold hearings, receive evidence, conduct investigations, and, on the basis of such hearings, evidence and investigations, make decisions and recommendations to the council. (e) Advisory role. A board or commission established by the council shall not assume the role of an administrative or legislative body. Sec 2 -79 Cooperation of city officials subject to direction of city manager The manager may make available city staff members to record and prepare minutes of board and commission meetings. Such staff members shall perform only such clerical duties on behalf of a board or commission as provided in the bylaws of that board or commission or as assigned by the chairperson with the consent of the manager. The manager may assign additional staff to assist a board or commission. Sec. 2 -80. Membership (a) Regular members. Regular members of boards and commissions established by the council shall be adult residents of the city unless otherwise expressly stated by ordinance. Members who discontinue legal residency in the city shall automatically be deemed to have resigned from office as of the date of such discontinuance. (b) Student members. Student members shall be residents of the city and enrolled full time in a secondary school. Student members shall be nonvoting. Sec. 2 -81. Appointment and terms of membership (a) Regular members. Board and commission members shall be appointed by majority vote of the council and shall serve terms of membership not to exceed three years per term. Each member is eligible to serve two three -year terms, except for members of the planning commission, who are eligible to serve three three -year terms. A member in good standing shall serve until a successor has been appointed. (b) Student members. Student members shall be appointed by majority vote of the council and shall serve terms of membership not to exceed one year per term. (c) Resignation and removal. Members shall serve without compensation and may resign voluntarily by letter or e-mail to the city clerk or be removed by majority vote of the council or pursuant to section 2 -80 or 2 -86 (d) Vacancies. Vacancies in membership shall be filled by majority vote of the council for the balance of the unexpired term. (e) Term of appointment to fill vacancy. A person appointed to fill a vacancy shall be eligible to serve two (or for planning commission, three) full terms in addition to the balance of the unexpired term. (f) No concurrent membership. No person may serve concurrently on more than one board or commission. (g) Staggered terms. Terms of membership shall be staggered so that no more than one -half of the terms on a board or commission expire in any particular year. 101Page Community Health Commission Bylaws Sec. 2 -82. Committees and subcommittees All rt O :nuu (a) Establishment. A board or commission may, with specific approval of the council or pursuant to its bylaws, establish committees, subcommittees, committees of the whole or working groups that include members of the board or commission and additional persons as requested by the board or commission. (b) Prohibition. A committee, subcommittee, committee of the whole or working group may not engage in activities, functions, or duties outside the scope of authority granted to the board or commission by which it was established. Sec. 2-83. Organization and bylaws (a) Bylaws. Each board or commission shall adopt and be governed by such bylaws as shall be necessary and desirable for the conduct of its activities. Bylaws shall be subject to review and approval by the council. (b) Chairperson. Each board or commission annually shall elect from its members a chairperson and vice - chairperson to serve a term of one year. No person shall serve more than two consecutive one -year terms as chairperson of a particular board or commission. A chairperson elected to fill a vacancy shall be eligible to serve two full terms in addition to the remainder of the vacated term. Sec. 2 -84. Time, location and conduct of meetings (a) Regular meetings. All board and commission meetings are open meetings subject to the Minnesota Open Meeting Law (Minn. Stats. ch. 13D) and shall be held at a fixed time, on a fixed date and in a fixed place as shall be determined by the board or commission. The city clerk shall give notice of all board and commission meetings as required for meetings of public bodies. (b) Public comment. All board and commission meetings shall include scheduled time for public comment. (c) Quorum. A simple majority of voting members, appointed and serving, shall constitute a quorum for any regular or special meeting. If a quorum is not established or maintained during the course of a meeting, no votes onboard or commission business may be taken except a motion to adjourn or recess. (d) Meetings conducted according to bylaws. All meetings shall be conducted according to the bylaws of the board or commission. Sec. 2 -85. Meeting minutes (a) Official record. Approved minutes of board or commission proceedings shall be public record; the city shall retain a copy of the official minutes of each board or commission meeting in accordance with applicable state law. (b) Recording. A board or commission may appoint from its membership a. secretary to record and .prepare meeting minutes. Minutes so recorded shall be reviewed and approved by the board or commission and a copy forwarded to the city clerk. In the alternative, the manager may make available to the board or commission a member of city staff to serve as secretary to record and prepare meeting minutes. (c) Distributed to city council. Official minutes of each board or commission meeting shall be distributed to the council prior to the first regular council meeting after approval of the minutes by the board or commission. 11 JPage Ar'I Community Health Commission Bylaws Sec. 2 -86. Attendance requirements (a) Purpose. To assist boards and commissions in fulfilling their purposes and duties and to ensure that they are not prevented from doing so by the repeated absence of their members, the council hereby establishes an attendance policy for members serving on boards and commissions. (b) Removal. Any member of a board or commission established by the council who fails to attend three consecutive regular meetings, or in the case of members of the planning commission, four consecutive regular meetings, or who fails to attend at least 75 percent of the scheduled meetings in any calendar year, whether regular or joint work sessions with the council, shall be deemed to have resigned as a member of the board or commission. (c) Exceptions. (1) The requirements of this subsection shall not apply to attendance at special meetings, or of meetings of committees or subcommittees, including committees of the whole, established by a board or commission pursuant to section 2 -82 (2) The requirements of this subsection shall not apply to members of the housing and redevelopment authority of the city, the East Edina Housing Foundation or the city council. (d) Annual review. The council shall conduct an annual review of the attendance of members of boards and commissions established by the council. (e) Vacancies. The successor to any member of a board or commission who has been removed pursuant to this subsection shall be appointed pursuant to section 2 -81 City Code Chapter 2, Article III, Division 4 — Community Health Commission Sec. 2 -162. Establishment. The council, acting as the Community Health Board pursuant to Minn. Stats. ch.145A and article II of chapter 20, hereby establishes the community health committee. Sec. 2 -163. Purpose and duties. The Community Health Commission shall study and advise the community health board regularly on community health activities designed to protect and promote the health of the population by emphasizing the prevention of disease, injury, disability, and preventable death through the promotion of effective coordination and use of community resources and by extending health services into the community. Sec. 2 -164. Membership. 121Page Community Health Commission Bylaws' The Community Health Commission shall consist of nine regular and, two student members. Members shall include, if possible, providers and consumers of health care services. Sec. 2 -165. Subject to general provisions governing boards and commissions. The membership and operations of the Community Health Commission shall be governed by this article. 131 Page To: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL From: Chad A. Millner, PE, Director of Engineering O Agenda Item #: IV. D. The Recommended Bid is ® Within Budget ❑ NotWithin Budget Date: March 18, 2014 Subject: Award of Bid - Contract ENG 13 -18 Bridge Repairs (West 78th Street and Gus Young Lane Bridges) Date; Bid Opened or Quote Received: Bid or Expiration Date: March 61 2014 May 6, 2014 Company: Amount of Quote or Bid: PCiRoads, LLC $199,981.72 C. S. McCrossan Construction Inc. $200,913.10 Recommended Quote or Bid: PCiRoads, LLC $199,981.72 General Information: i 'This project will rehabilitate the 78th Street bridge and the Gus Young bridge, both over the Canadian Pacific Railroad Tracks. These two bridges were identified during our annual bridge inspections as requiring a more in- depth repair. The cost estimate completed in 2013 was higher than the staff anticipated amount stated in Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Project #ENG -13 -007 of $150,000. Therefor staff updated the plans for the 78th Street bridge to Minnesota State Aid Standards to utilize state aid funding. The project will be funded by a combination of state aid and CIP Project #ENG -13 -007 funds. Staff recommends awarding the project to PCiRoads, LLC. Attachments: City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 To: MAYOR AND COUNCIL Agenda Item N: IV. E. From: Chad A. Millner, PE, Director of Engineering Action Discussion ❑ Date: March 18, 2014 Information ❑ Subject:, Approve Supplemental Assessment Agreement and Waiving of Public Hearing, 4316 Eton Place. Action Requested: Authorize Mayor and City Manager to approve attached Supplemental Assessment Agreement and Waiving of Public Hearing for 4316 Eton Place. Information / Background: During the Public Improvement Hearing for the 2014 Morningside B Neighborhood Street Reconstruction project it was discovered that we incorrectly assessed 4316 Eton Place with the W. 44th Street project completed in 2011. 4316 Eton Place was assessed one (1) Residential Equivalent Unit (REU) or $2,031.94. As a corner property, the assessment should have been one - third (1 /3) REU or $670.54. We met with the. property . owners.to discuss the situation. They are in agreement that with the solution to correct the assessment and have signed the attached agreement Eton Place is scheduled for reconstruction with the 2014 Morningside B Neighborhood Street Reconstruction project. As part of that project, 4316 Eton Place will be assessed a two- thirds (2/3) REU or an estimated assessment of $5,025.00. The supplement assessment agreement allows us to make the necessary correction. Attachment: 1. Supplemental Assessment Agreement and Waiving of Public Hearing \ \ED- NT8 \EngPubWks \PW\CENTRAL SVCS \ENG DIV\PROJECTS \CONTRACTS \2014 \ENG 14 -1 Momingside B \ADMIN \LEGAL \Item xx. x. Supplemt Assess Agree.docx City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 SUPPLEMENTAL ASSESSMENT AGREEMENT AND WAI-VING OF PUBLIC HEARING 4316 ETON PLACE, EDINA, MINNESOTA ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT NO. BA -383 WEST 44T" STREET RECONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT made this L�J,54__ day of "_ _ _, 2014 by and between the City of Edina, a Minnesota municipal corporation ( "C' ") and Jeffrey R. LeMunyon and Ingrid M. J. LeMunyon, husband and wife ( "Property Owners "). Recitals A. Property Owners are the owners of the following described property, having a street address of 4316 Eton Place, Edina, Minnesota 55424: That part of Lot 87 lying South of the North 148 feet thereof and East of the West 20 feet thereof, "Morningside ". That part of the adjoining Northerly 8 feet of County Road as designated on the plat of "Mornirigside'', vacated, now West 44th Street, lying between the extensions across it of the above premises. PIN: 07-028-24-44-0101 ( "Subject Property ") B. Property Owners were incorrectly assessed 1 Residential Equivalent Unit or $2;031.94 on October 2, 2012 for City Project No. ENG 11 -7, Improvement No. BA -383. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of their mutual covenants, the parties agree as follows: 1. PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT. The correct. assessed Residential Equivalent Unit is one -third (1 /3)..or Six Hundred.Seventy and 54 /100 Dollars_($670.54) ( "Project Cost "). Doc. #I 74156v. I ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT RNK: 1/2/2014 7450 Metro Boulevard a Edina, Minnesota 55439 www.Edina.MN.gov a 952 - 826 -0371 a Fax 952 - 826 -0392 2. SPECIAL ASSESSMENT. The City will assess the Project Cost in the amount of Six Hundred Seventy and 54/100 Dollars ($670.54) against the Subject Property. The Project Cost will be assessed under the same terms as City Project No. ENG 114. The Property Owners waive any and all procedural and substantive objections to the special assessment and to the Public Improvement.arid to-' City Project No.. ENG. 11-7, including but not limited to hearing requirements and any claim`that the assessment exceeds the - benefit to the Subject Property. The Property Owners waive any appeal rights otherwise available pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 429.081. 3. BINDING EFFECT; RECORDIPTG. This Agreement shall be binding upon the Property Owners and their heirs, successors and assigns. This Agreement may be recorded against the title to the Subject Property. , 1/ AW STATE OF MINNESOTA ) (ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this Lday of 2014 by Jeffrey R. LeMunyon and Ingrid M. J. LeMunyon, husband and wife: 'Notary Public RYAN GOLDEN NOTAR'r r"i18IJC - MINNESOTA + MY COMMISSION EXPIRES 01/31/16 Doc. #174156v.1 2 RNK: 1/2/2014 CITY OF EDINA 19 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) (ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) James B. Hovland, Mayor Scott H. Neal, City Manager The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2014 by James B. Hovland and Scott H. Neal, respectively the Mayor and City Manager of the City of Edina, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to the authority granted by its City Council. Notary Public THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY: Campbell Knutson Professional Association 317 Eagandale Office Center 1380 Corporate Center Curve Lagan, Minnesota 55121 (651) 452 -5000 RNK Doc. #174156v.1 3 RNK: 1/2/2014 Off/ le- 0 11;; v . 1 roRass To: MAYOR AND COUNCIL Agenda Item #: IV. F. From: Chad A. Millner, PE, Director of Engineering Action Discussion ❑ Date: March 18, 2014 Information. ❑ Subject: Approve Release of Public Improvement and Special Assessment Agreement, 5017 W. 56th Street Action Requested: Authorize Mayor and City Clerk to approve attached Release of Public Improvement and Special Assessment Agreement for 5017 West 56th Street. Information / Background: On Oct. I1, 2012, the property owner entered into a Public Improvement and Special Assessment Agreement. The property owner has requested that the City release the subject property from the Public Improvement and Special Assessment. The property owner has paid the special assessment referenced in - .._. -.. -- . -..... - -- - - - - -- -_ . - .- the Special Assessment Agreement. Staff recommends approval of the release. Attachments: 1. Release of Public Improvement and Special Assessment Agreement 2. Public Improvement and Special Assessment Agreement \ \ED- NT8 \EngPubWks \PW\CENTRAl- SVCS \ENG DIV \PR0JECTS \C0NTRACTS \2012 \ENG 12 -4 Richmond Hills \SS471 \Release of Agreements \5017 56th St City of Edina 4801 W. 50th St. Edina, MN 55424 4 (Reserved for Recording Data) RELEASE OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT AND SPECL&L ASSESSMENT AGREEMENT RECITALS: - - - - - -_A: - The- City -of Edina, -a Minnesota- .municipal- corporation (hereinafter. referred- - to as "City "), and Ronald Pray, a single person, (hereinafter referred to as "Property Owners ") entered into a Public,. Improvement and Special Assessment Agreement dated October 11, 2012, and filed for record with the Hennepin County Recorder on April 26, 2013, as Document No. A09944845 over property legally described on the. attached Exhibit A (hereinafter referred to as the "Subject Property "); B. Tiie City has been requested by Property Owners to release the Subject Property from the Public Improvement and Special Assessment Agreement; and C. The Property Owners have paid the special assessments referenced in the Special Assessment Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE,, BE IT RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: 171s16vl 1 The Public Improvement and Special Assessment Agreement filed for record with the Hennepin County Recorder as Document No. A09944845 is hereby released. Dated: CITY OF EDINA BY: James Hovland, Mayor AND Debra Mangen, City Clerk STATE OF MINNESOTA) )ss.,. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 181 day of March, 2014, by James Hovland and Debra Mangen,.respectively the Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Edina, ,a Minnesota municipal corporation,.on behalf of the corporation and - ursuant -to -- the- authori ranted -b its -Ci Council. - - - - - - - - _P _ �, -g Y - -� ty_ - Notary Public THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY: Campbell Knutson Professional Association 1380 Corporate Center Curve, Suite #317 Eagan,.Minnesota 55121 (651) 452 -5000 AMP /cjh 171816vt 2 i I 171816A EXHIBIT A Lot 4, Nylund's Place, Hennepin_ County, Minnesota. N t Doc No A09944845 Certified, filed and /or recorded on 4/26/13 12:00 PM Office of the County Recorder Hennepin County, Minnesota Martin McCormick, County Recorder Mark V. Chapin, County Auditor and Treasurer Deputy 21 Pkg ID 963533M Doc Name: Assessment Agreement Document-Recording Fee $46.00 Document Total $46.00 This cover sheet is now a permanent part of the recorded document. I 33 \ 1� wo 3 PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT AMD SPECIAL ASSESSMENT AGREEMENT AGREEMENT made this l lth day of October, 2012, by and between the CITY OF EDINA, a Minnesota municipal corporation ( "City ") and RONALD PRAY, a single person (the "Property Owner "). RECITALS A. Property Owner is the owner of Lot 4, Nylund's Place, Hennepin County, Minnesota, having a street address of 5017 West 56th Street, Edina, Minnesota (the "Subject Property"). B. The City has requested that Property Owner replace the existing sewer service line(s) from the trunk sanitary sewer pipe to the right -of -way line on the Subject Property ( "Public Improvement ") and also consider replacing water service line from the stop box in conjunction with City Project No. ENG 12- 4. C. Property Owner has replaced his sewer and water and has requested that the City assess the _cost of the Public_Tll-provement against the Subject Property.. _ NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION OF THEIR MUTUAL COVENANTS THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT. The Owner received a quote of $6,925.00 (the "Project Cost ") from Benjamin Franklin Plumbing, 1424 Third Street North, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55411 (the "Contractor ") to construct the Public Improvement. Property Owner entered into a contract with the Contractor to construct the Public Improvement and Purchase Order No. 1088 was issued to the Contractor. The work is completed and the Contractor has submitted an invoice to the City referring to Purchase Order No. 1088 for the amount of $6,925.00. The City is in receipt of a lien waiver for the work ferfornned and will fay tine Contractor. 2. SPECIAL ASSESSMENT. The City will assess the Project Cost in the amount of $6,925.00 against the Subject Property. The Project Cost will be assessed under the same terms as City Project No. ENG 12 -4. The Property Owner waives any and all procedural and substantive objections to the. special assessments and to the Public Improvement and to City Project No. ENG 12 -4, including but not limited to hearing requirements and any claim that the assessment exceeds the benefit to the Subject Property. The Property Owner waives any appeal rights otherwise available pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 429.081. 3. . BINDING EFFECT; RECORDING. This Agreement shall be binding upon the Property Owner and the Property Owner's successors and assigns. This Agreement may be recorded against the title to the Subject Property. 169696v1 r STATE OF, MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN (SS. T e foregoing instr ment was acknowledged before me this day of • , ZUIV, by James B. Hovland and by Scott H. Neal, respectively the Mayor and City Manager of the City of Edina, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to the authority granted by its City Council. CITY OF _ B)k y :i James B. Hovland, Mayor AND , Scott H. Neal, City Man dger c'CS� ?• SHARON M. ALLISON NOTARY PUBLIC - MINNESOTA '� yt M Commission Ex fires Jan. 31, 2015 C` Y P STATE OF MINNESOTA ) (Ss. COON I I Oi �9q — ) T he foregoing instrument 20� by DRAFTED BY: CAMPBELL KNUTSON Professional Association 317 Eagandale Office Center 1380 Corporate Center Curve Eagan, Minnesota 55121 Telephone: (612) 452 -5000 RNK:srn NOTARY PUBLIC PROPERTY OWNER: 'a ej'�' -2, Ronald Pray 1 _I before me this IL V^ day of - - y AA - AT;-,- NOTARY PUBLIC 2 °`� v SHARON M. ALLISON NOTARY PUBLIC • MINNESOTA t � � . ftCommisslonFxpft.Jca.31.3013 I ``. To: MAYOR AND COUNCIL Cn v . p fNroRPORA�� p 1888 ; Agenda Item # IV.G. From: Kris Aaker, Assistant Planner Action d Discussion Date: March 18, 2014 Information Subject: Resolution No. 2014 -24 Lot Division & Front Yard Setback Variance, 5617 and 5613 Wooddale Ave.; Chris and.Anne Hill. Action Requested: Approve the Lot Division and Front Yard Setback Variance as requested. Information / Background: Chris and Anne Hill are proposing a Lot Division of property at 5617 and 5613 Wooddale to shift their north lot line by 5 feet to allow enough width for a two car garage addition in front of their existing single stall garage. The owners are also requesting a Front Yard Setback Variance to allow the garage addition with living space above to over -lap the front yard setback. The purpose of the lot line shift is to provide adequate side yard area to build a two stall garage in front of the existing single stall garage with a masterbedroom.above. The addition as proposed, requires :a minimum side yard setback of 7.4 feet, given the increased lot width and height. The lot. line shift would allow the side yard setback to be met. A 7.86 foot front yard setback variance is needed:from ordinance requirements to over -lap into the front yard. To accommodate the request the following is required: 1. A Lot Division; 2. A 7.86 foot front yard setback variance. Planning Commission Recommendation: On February 26, 2014, the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Lot Division and Front Yard Setback Variance based on.the attached findings found in Resolution 2014 -24. The proposed motion to approve the request was unanimous. Attached for reference are: • .Resolution with findings for approval • Minutes of the February 26, 2014, Planning Commission meeting • Staff report . r• Survey, plans and elevations City of Edina 4801 W. 50' St Edina; MN 55424 RESOLUTION NO. 2014-24 APPROVING A LOT DIVISION AND FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE AT 5613 AND 5617 WOODDALE AVENUE FOR CHRIS AND ANNE HILL BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edina, Minnesota, as follows: Section 1. BACKGROUND. 1.01 The applicant is requesting a Lot Division and Front Yard Setback Variance to add an attached two car garage with living space above in front of their existing single stall garage with living space above. 1.02 A Lot Division request is for a 5 -foot lot line shift to the north and a 7.86 foot front yard setback Variance. The owners are requesting to shift a 5 -foot portion of the existing north lot line that divides the two properties at 5617 and 5613 Wooddale Ave. The purpose of the lot line shift is to provide adequate side yard area to build a two stall garage in front of the existing single stall garage with a masterbedroom above. 1.03 The lot line shift would allow a two car garage width with living space above without also requiring a side yard setback variance. A front yard setback variance is needed from ordinance requirements to over -lap into the front yard. The proposed plan matches the front yard setback of the home to the north at 5613 Wooddale. The existing single stall garage with living space above would be remodeled and attached to the new addition as part of the project. 1.04 The following described tracts of land are requested to be divided: See attached Exhibit A 1.05 The owner of the described land desires to subdivide said tract in to the following described new and separate parcels (herein called "parcels ") described as follows: See Attached Exhibit A 1.06 The requested lot line adjustment is authorized under Code Chapter 32 and it has been determined to comply with the Subdivision and Zoning Regulations of the City of Edina and do not interfere with the Subdivision and Zoning Regulations as contained in the Edina City Code Chapters 32 and 36; 1.07 On February 26, 2014, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the Lot Division and Variance. CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street • Edina, Minnesota 55424 www.EdinaMN.gov • 952 - 927 -8861 • Fax 952 - 826 -0390 RESOLUTION NO. 2014-24 Page Two Section 2. FINDINGS 2.01 Approval is based on the following findings: 1. The proposal meets the Variance conditions of the Zoning Ordinance Section 36 -98, a -h. The proposal meets all applicable Zoning Ordinance requirements with the exception of front yard setback. The existing. front .yard setback of the home is an .unusual situation along .the street with the proposed #rout yard setback consistent with the .balance of the lots fo the north along the street. 2. The proposed two car garage addition is in character with this neighborhood. Two car garages are appropriate within Edina. 3. The scale and size of the proposed addition is appropriate for the neighborhood when compared to the option of tearing the home down and.building a new larger home. 4. The proposed addition and lot line rearrangement is in character with this neighborhood. The lot dimension proposed is consistent with lots to the north. The setbacks of the home to the north will remain conforming as a result of the lot line re- arrangement and front yard. setback variance. 5. The practical difficulty is caused by the existing location of the home on the lot when compared to the home to the south. The existing home is located closer to the street, similar to the homes to the north. Section'.3. APPROVAL NOW THEREFORE, it is hereby resolved by the City Council of the City of Edina, approves the Lot Division and- Front Yard. Setback Variance to allow construction of a garage addition with living space above in the front yard area, subject to the following conditions: 1. The site must be developed and maintained in conformance with the following plans: • Survey date stamped February 10, 2014 • Landscape plans and elevation date stamped February 10, 2014. • Building plans and elevations date stamped February 10, 2014. Adopted by the city council of the City of Edina, Minnesota, on March 18, 2014. ATTEST: Debra A. Mangen, City Clerk James B. Hovland, Mayor RESOLUTION NO. 2014-24 Page Two 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 March 18, 2014, and as recorded in the Minutes of said Regular Meeting. WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this day of , 2014. City Clerk Exihibt "A» EXISTING LEGAL. ASGRIPTIQNS 5617 WOODDALE AVENUE PID #19- 028 -24-13 -0075 OWNERS: CHRIS &.ANNE HILL CERTIFICATE OF TITLE NO. 1179518 The South 60 feet of� Lot' 13, Block 2, "Colonial Square, ",Village .of Edina, Hennepin County, Minnesota 5613 WOODDALE AVENUE PID _ #19- 028 -24-13 -0074 - OWNERS: DOUGLAS & ELIZABETH KINNEBERG CERTIFICATE .OF TITLE,NO: 1324232 Lot 12 and all of Cot 13, except the South .60 feet thereof, Block 2, "Colonial Square," Village of Edina, Hennepin County, Minnesota PROPOSED LQ,QAL DESCRIPTIONS 5617 WOODDALE AVENUE PID 9 -028 -24-13 -0075 OWNERS: CHRIS & ANNE HILL CERTIFICATE OF TITLE NO. 1179518 The South 60 feet of Lot 13, and the West 71.50 feet of the North 5.00 feet of the South .65.00 feet of said Lot 13, Block 2, 'Colonial Square ", Vlllaga of Edina, Hennepin County, Minnesota 5613 WOODDALE AVENUE PID #19- 028 -24-13 -0074 OWNERS: DOUGLAS & ELIZABETH KINNEBERG CERTIFICATE .OF TITLE "ISO. 1324232 Lot 12 and all of Lot 13, except the South 60 feet thereof, and except the West 71.50 feet of the North °5.00 feet of the South 65.00 feet of said Lot 13, Block 2, "Colonial Square% Village of Edina, Hennepin County, Minnesota. 12-A VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Lot Division and Variance. Chris and Anne Hill, 5617 Wooddale Avenue, Edina, MN Planner Presentation Planner Aaker informed the Commission Chris and Anne Hill are hoping to add onto the front and north side of their home to include a two car garage addition with living space above. The request is for a lot line shift to the north and a front yard setback variance. The owners are requesting to shift a 5 foot portion of the existing north lot line that divides the two properties at 5617 and 5613 Wooddale Ave. The purpose of the lot line shift is to provide adequate side yard area to build a two stall garage in front of the existing single stall garage with a masterbedroom above. The lot line shift will allow a two car garage width with living space above without also requiring a side yard setback variance. A front yard setback variance is needed from'ordinance requirements to over -lap into the front yard. The proposed plan matches the front yard setback of the home to the north at 5613 Wooddale, but will be closer to the street than the neighbor to the south. The existing single stall garage with living space above will be remodeled and attached to the new addition as part of the project. Aaker explained that the zoning ordinance requires a minimum 5 foot side yard setback plus 4 inches of setback for each I foot the lot width exceeds 60 feet and 6 inches of setback for each I foot average height exceeds 15 feet. The addition as proposed requires a minimum side yard setback of 7.4 feet, given the increased lot width and height. The lot line shift will allow the side yard setback to be met. Planner Aaker concluded that staff recommends denial of the requested Lot Division and Variance based on the following findings: I .The proposal does not meet the required standards for a variance, because: a) Staff is unable to identify a practical difficulty specific to this property given similar situations on nearby properties. b) The encroachment into the front yard setback is 319 square feet of footprint with living space above and includes a front entry porch, all beyond the existing front face of the home and within the required average front yard setback. C) The lot division is a circumstance created by the owner to adhere to side yard setback standard and not require additional variance. Staff does not find the request reasonable given the unconventional lot line created to achieve side yard setback. Even with the lot division, a front yard setback variance is still required to achieve the plan. d) Staff does not believe the addition is in harmony with the essential character of the neighborhood given existing street views. Appearing for the Applicant Chris and Ann Hill Page 2 of 13 Discussion Commissioner Grabiel asked Planner Aaker her reasons for recommending denial. Planner Aaker noted that recently the City Council approved amendments to the zoning ordinance to tighten the impact of new build and renovated houses. Aaker said in her opinion the request for a variance doesn't stand alone because it requires a lot boundary shift adding five feet onto the subject property to achieve their goals without the need for a side yard setback variance. Aaker further noted that the lot line shift only addresses the "letter of the law" by allowing the addition to comply with the side yard setback; also the design as proposed cannot avoid a front yard setback variance because of the deep setbacks of adjoining homes. Aaker reminded the Commission both lots would be nonconforming in lot width per zoning ordinance standards. Commissioner Forrest said she observed and wondered why the lots in this specific area aren't uniform, pointing out some are much larger. Planner Aaker agreed that on this block there is a difference, adding she has no explanation why the lots were platted that way. Applicant Presentation Jeff Nicholson, architect addressed the Commission and explained that in his opinion the need for a variance was not self - created. Nicholson pointed out the subject site sits next to two very unique lots on Wooddale with the houses on those lots setback farther from the street than normal. Nicholson further explained that the adjoining property has excess space to give which again; in his opinion is very unique in the neighborhood. Concluding, Nicholson said that this block is atypical to the neighborhood and that he respectfully disagrees with staff. Mrs. Hill informed the Commission their house was one of two model homes for the neighborhood. Hill said she loves her neighborhood and wants to stay; however, the undersized garage makes it difficult and extra living space is needed for their family. Mr. Hill told the Commission that weekly they receive offers to buy their house. Hill said he doesn't want to move and loves his house and neighborhood and doesn't want to see his house demolished if sold. He added the rear yards of the homes on this block are beautiful , unique and deep and everyone enjoys their rear yards. Concluding, Hill also noted.that the neighborhood supports their request and their immediate neighbor is willing to sell a portion of their property enabling them to achieve their goal and stay in the neighborhood. Chair Staunton opened the public hearing. Public Testimony Page Kittenberg, 5613 Wooddale told the Commission they were happy to sell a piece of their property to the Hills. Kittenberg said she supports the plans as presented and believes the proposed changes to the home will enhance the entire neighborhood. Concluding, Kittenberg said the proposal as submitted has no negative impact on them, reiterating her support. Chair Staunton asked if anyone else would like to speak to the issue; being none Commissioner Fischer moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Scherer seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion to close public hearing carried. Page 3 of 13 Commissioner Grabiel stated that he has no problem with the proposed lot division or variance. Grabiel said in his opinion a number of the lots on this block are out of character with the neighborhood. Grabiel said if one looks at an aerial they can certainly see how the lots are laid out. Continuing, Grabiel said if the Commission was to approve the lot division with variance it may avoid a teardown situation. Grabiel said allowing the construction of a 2 -stall garage (required by ordinance) to be built, in his opinion wouldn't compromise the neighborhood character and the neighbors have indicated their support for the project. Commissioner Forrest said her concern was with practical difficulties pointing out the subject owners are choosing to do this. Continuing, Forrest said the recent changes to the ordinance were done to ensure adequate spacing between homes. Forrest added that livability is important and the increase in garage space is important; however, changing a lot line to accomplish this has its own issues. Forrest concluded that she agrees that the front yard setback situation is difficult with the adjoining houses forcing deep setback requirements. Commissioner Platteter questioned the lot split, adding he understands the front yard setback situation. Commissioner. Fischer said this is an unusual situation, acknowledging the recent change in the Code. Fischer said in this instance neighbors got together to resolve an issue. Although the lot division may not be standard; it works and is supported by both property owners. Fischer further noted that the front yard setback situation is what it is, the lots to the south create a situation whereby nothing could be done to this house without a front yard setback variance. Commissioner Forrest wondered if the Commission was comfortable allowing for the creation of two unusual lot line configurations. Commissioners agreed that the jog is different; however, as previously mentioned by the applicant the rear yard situation on this block is unique with deep lots and ample rear yard area. A discussion ensued with Commissioners agreeing that this situation was unique and that they can support the request as submitted by the applicant. Motion Commissioner Grabiel moved variance and lot division approval based on the following: 1. The lot division creates lots that are consistent with the size of lots in the neighborhood; 2. The unusual placement of homes to the south created the need for a front yard setback variance. The variance was not self- imposed; and 3. The City of Edina requires two stall garages; Commissioner Scherer seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. B. Preliminary Rezoning. Planner Presentation Planner Teague informed the Co fission the Pen along 77th ' Street. The total s area is 43 acres in Pentagon Office Park, Edina, MN Revival is proposing to redevelop Pentagon Park ind would likely redevelop over the next 2 -15 Page 4 of 13 4�9tN�11.�. o� a 0 PLANNING COMMISSION. STAFF REPORT. Originator Meeting Date - Agenda`# Kris Aaker February 26, 2013 B -14 -05 Planner Recommended Action: Deny the variance as requested. Project Description A 7.86 foot front yard setback variance and a lot division request to accommodate a. garage.with living space above addition to the home located at 5617 Wooddale Ave. So. for Chris and Anne Hill. INFORMATION & BACKGROUND Project Description Chris and Anne Hill are hoping to add onto the front and north side of their home to incl`ade a two,car garage addition with living space above. The request is for a lot line shift to the north and a front yard setback variance. The owners are requesting to shift a 5 foot: portion of the existing north lot line that divides the two properties at 5617 and 5,613 Wooddale Ave., The purpose of the lot line shift is to provide adequate side yard area to build a two stall garage in front of the existing single stall: garage with a masterbedroom above. The lot line shift will allow a two car garage width with living space above without also requiring aside yard setback variance. A front yard setback variance is needed from ordinance requirements to over -lap into the front yard. The proposed plan matches the front yard setback of the home to the north at 5613 Wooddale, but will be closer to the street than the neighbor to the south. The existing single stall garage with living space above will be remodeled and attached to the new addition as part of the project. The. zoning ordinance requires a minimum 5 foot side yard setback plus 4 inches of setback for each 1 foot the lot width exceeds 60 feet and 6 inches of setback for each 1 foot average height. exceeds 15 feet. The addition as proposed requires a minimum side yard setback of 7:4 feet, given the increased lot width and height. The lot line shift.will allow the side yard setback to be met. The zoning ordinance requires that all new homes and additions to existing homes maintain the average front yard setback of the homes on either side of the subject property. The home to the north is located 42.59 feet from the front lot line and the home to the south is located 58.31 feet from their front lot line, for an average required front yard setback of 50.45 feet (See property location, narrative proposed lot line shift and plans on pages A1- A13.). The new addition will be 42.59 feet from the front lot line. Surrounding Land Uses The surrounding properties and uses include single - family homes zoned and guided low- density residential. Existing Site Features Single- family homes are located on both parcels. Planning Guide Plan designation: Low - density residential Zoning: R -1, Single- family residential Building Design The proposed addition is two stories with an attached two car garage and a new front entry porch. Finish materials will match throughout the exterior. Compliance Tables Zoning Ordinance City Standard Proposed Requirements Proposed Size Zoning Front- 50.45 feet *42.59 feet Side- 7.4 feet * *7.4 feet Rear- 25 feet 88 feet Building Height 2 1/2 stories 2 story, 11,080 s.f. 10,471 s.f. No change Lot coverage 25% 23.1% * Variance Required * *Lot Division Required Minimum Lot Existing Existing Proposed Proposed Size Zoning 5617 5613 5617 5613 Ordinance Wooddale. Wooddale. Wooddale Wooddale. Lot Area- 10,723 s.f. 10,828 s.f. 11,080 s.f. 10,471 s.f. 9,000 s.f. Lot Width -75 *60 feet *68.97 feet *65 feet *63.97 feet feet Lot Depth - 175 feet 156 feet 175 feet 156 feet 120 feet *Remains nonconforming 0a Minimum 500 foot Lot Size Requirements Existing 5617 Wooddale Existing 5613 Wooddale Proposed 5617 Wooddale Proposed 5613 Wooddale Lot Area - 11,107 s.f. *10,723 s.f. *10,828 s.f. *11',080 s.f. *100471 s.f. Lot Width —75 feet *60 feet *08.97 feet *65.feet *63.97 feet Lot Depth —135 feet 175 feet 156 feet 175 feet 156 feet *Remains nonconforming • 1s the proposed development reasonable for this site? No. Staff does not believe that the proposal is reasonable for the site: 1. The proposed use is permitted in the R -1; Single Dwelling Unit Zoning District and complies with all requirements with the exception of. setback from Wooddale Ave. The north side yard setback is maintained only by the acquisition of additional property from the neighbor to the north. A variance from side yard setback would also be required without the lot line change. 2. The proposed lot boundary shift adds 5 feet onto the subject property for an additional 71.5 feet of depth, with the north lot line jogging back to the existing north lot line creating an odd: shape or notch in the lot: The new. north lot line will overlap a portion of a wood privacy fence currently located on the neighbor's property to the north. It is unclear how the fence will be addressed between properties. 3: The existing and proposed lots are nonconforming regarding the minimum lot width standard in the'zoning ordinance of 75 feet and will .remain nonconforming _regarding lot widths and area within a 500 foot radius of the property. 4. The ordinance requires a minimum two car garage per single dwelling unit; however; .it does not require a double wide garage. The variance and lot line shift increases`spacing between the subject home /addition and,the modified lot line, however, it reduces spacing between structures. The lot. line shift only addresses he "letter of the law" by allowing the addition to comply with side yard setback. There is no opportunity for a front addition to the house without the benefit of a front yard setback variance. The design as proposed cannot avoid a front yard setback variance.. _ • Is the proposed variance justified? No. Per the Zoning Ordinance, a variance should not be. granted unless it is found that the enforcement of the ordinance would cause practical difficulties in complying 3 with the zoning ordinance and that the use is reasonable. As demonstrated below, staff believes the proposal does not meet the variance standards, when applying the three conditions: Section 36 -98 requires the following findings for approval of a variance: Minnesota Statues and Edina Ordinances require that the following conditions must be satisfied affirmatively. The Proposed Variance will: 1) Relieve practical difficulties that prevent a reasonable use from complying with ordinance requirements. Reasonable use does not mean that the applicant must show the land cannot be put to any reasonable use without the variance. Rather, the applicant must show that there are practical difficulties in complying with the code and that the proposed use is reasonable. "Practical difficulties" may include functional and aesthetic concerns.. Staff believes the proposed variance and required lot division needed for the project is forcing an addition that is perhaps too large in the front yard area and imposes an undue burden on the adjacent property and the streetscape. 2) There are circumstances that are unique to the property, not common to every similarly zoned property, and that are not self - created? No. The lot line adjustment and front yard setback as proposed are self - created and not as a result of circumstances uncommon to properties within the vicinity. The property to the north that is relinquishing property to the proponent has a single stall garage with no ability to widen it to a two car garage given their existing north side yard setback unless they are also able to gain additional yard area. 3) Will the variance alter the essential character of the neighborhood? Yes. The proposed project will introduce garage with living space above in the front yard area where none exists currently. The front yard setback pattern from the home to the north, subject property and the home to the south steps back from the street in a staggered pattern. The addition erodes the current street scape. Staff Recommendation Deny the requested Lot Division and Variance based on the following findings: 4 1 1. The,proposal does not meet the required standards for a variance, because: a) Staff is unable to identify a practical difficulty specific to this property given similar situations on nearby properties. b) The encroachment into the front yard setback.is 319 square feet'of footprint with living space above and includes a front entry porch, all beyond the existing front face of the home and within the required average front yard setback. c) The lot.division is a circumstance created by the owner to adhere to side yard setback standard and not require additional variance. Staff does not find the request reasonable given the unconventional lot line created to achieve side yard setback. Even with the lot division, a front yard setback variance is still required to achieve the plan. d) Staff does not believe the addition is in harmony with the essential character of the neighborhood given existing street views. Deadline for a city decision: April 11, 2014. 5 0J CASE NUIIBBE"R V DA -T'E FEE PAip____AO;!!�_ ('ity o'Edina Planting i7epard -rient X wwvv.cityofedirla.coni 4801 Wost I=ifi:iech Street '° Edina, IViN 4 * (962) 826 -0369 * fax (gal) 826 - 0389 C =EI::. RE`J ;050,00_idON- I: ESh600.( i0�__...._._.. o,.., �.....,._.._....__.. _.._.._..,�__....,._.---- -_.... APPLICANT: �lAi'llll: �fdlLlyNn 11J1V 4t; 11' (Signaius'e required on back, page) AD1)I;E a;i: �7 b I? W000n,.t_>✓ +jyn%)V_ PHONE: U11.11A11..o kF�J?�!!� F�►r�:IIS.Carn Nn► 1 !'ROPE!: T Y OWNER: NAME: 6Hfk5 ,4ni- 41vNC H"If (Signature required on hack pago) W0oj2O�}M-'_ �4JF5 PHONE: (sL? . "5. to3 6 5 LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY (written and electronic form): "You must provide a full legal descripton. If more space is needed, please use a separate sheet. Note: The Counly may not accept the resolution approving your project if the legal description does not match their recoras. This May delay your project. G PI 0P,'__I;t "j'Y ADDRESS: 561? Iaoot7p PI:ESENT ZONING: R,1 P.I.D. #_ I -a Ib -;l% `"13�-� � 101 1-- XPLANA i ION ()F ! ROUES T: (Use reverse side or addifjonal pages if Necessary) AF;r; ►II'0.:C.1': NAME: ?t;ff NILHot,sot1 PHONE: '16a -0237`g7 ��:fUiAfL: - �/ JL�p` �D�LQVAf�r�HtS�wN�S ►GA►guL+.f�.0 ®� "'(WOlr_YON: HAIVIE: MAIA( kfMPV� Pi- IOn'L:: SI- X31 -a�q� Minnesota Statues and Edina Ordinances require that the following conditions must be satisfied affirmatively. Please fully explain your answers using additional sheets of paper'as necessary. The, Proposed Variance will; YES NO Relieve practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance and. that the use is reasonable _ Correct extraordinary circumstances applicable to this property but not applicable to other property in the vicinity. or zoning district Be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning ordinance \ ❑ Not alter the essential Character of a neighborhood FA APPLICANT'S STATEMENT This application should be processed in my name, and I am the party whom the City should contact about this application. By signing this application, I certify that all fees, charges, utility bills, taxes, special assessments and other debts or obligations due to the City by me or for this property have been paid. I further certify that I am in compliance with all ordinance requirements and conditions regarding other City approvals that have been granted to me for any matter. I have completed all of the applicable filing requirements and, to the best of my knowledge, the documents and �nformation 1 have submitted are true and correct. I- 2 r- j`.1 Applicant's Signature OWNER'S STATEMENT I am the fee title owner of the above described property, and I agree to this application. (If a corporation or partnership is the fee title holder, attach a resolution authorizing this applicVoWbehalf of the board of directors or partnership.) X�_, Owner's Signature Date /- 2 Y- 1L[ Date Note. Both signatures are required (if the owner is different than the applicant) before we can process the application, otherwise it is considered incomplete, \``�` on 0 1, %, Lo F� 6 The Proposed Variance.will: Relieve practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance and that the use is reasonable. Edina City Code requires a 2 car garage. The existing home has a one car attached garage on the north side of the house. The present garage sits only 5.69 feet from the present property line. The typical options for a home in this scenario is to add onto the back of the existing garage and create a tandem garage, or remove the°existing one car garage entirely and relocate a new two car garage, attached or detached, to the backyard. The house at 5617 Wooddale and its neighbor to the North 5613 Wooddale however sit uniquely on their.two properties. 5613 Wooddafe is 69' wide and 5,617 Wooddale is 60' wide. What is unique, is that the home at 5613 Wooddale is located centered on the northern 60' of the 69' foot property. Therefore rather than the typical 12 —13 feet between homes for these size lots, there is 23' -4" between these two homes. The lot at 5617 Wooddale is described as the "South 60' of lot 13..." and the neighbor's property to the north 5613 Wooddale is described as "Lot 12 and all of lot 13, except the South 60 feet thereof... ". Essentially given where 5613 was constructed on Lot 12, there is a 9 foot strip of 'extra' land between these two homes. What does this all mean at present? This means that if the 9 extra feet of room between the two homes Were split between the two properties, another option for a two'.car garage for 5617 would exist. That option is to expand the present garage to the north 3.29 feet and.7.38 feet past the present front of the house. With approval of the new lot division, the only variance necessary for this garage expansion is one for the front yard setback. The neighboring homes sit 42.59 feet and 58.31 feet from their front property lines, creating a 50.45 feet setback for this property. The current house sits at 48.75 feet from the front property line, so as it already.exists, it is nonconforming. This however isn't unusual for this block of Wooddale Avenue South. This block of Wooddale Ave S. is very atypical for the street and neighborhood. Of the seven homes on the block, none of the 5 homes in the middle of the block are conforming. The proposed new garage only extends as far forward as the house to the North. By allowing the home at 5617 to extend as far.forward as their neighbors home, a new precedence isn't set. The front yard setback remains the same for the house to the south. TO F� This. solution to fitting a two car garage on the property is so favorable to any other option, the homeowners to the North, the only property affected by the variance, are willing to sell a portion of their land to make the project possible. Correct extraordinary circumstances applicable to this property but not applicable to other property in the vicinity or zoning district 5617 Wooddale sits on the edge of an anomaly. To the north, all the homes area standard distance from the street (around 40') while to the south, there are 3 homes with much larger than average front yard setbacks. These three houses are the only properties on this whole section of Wooddale Avenue with such large setbacks. Because of this, the front yard setback for 5617 Wooddale is increased to over 50' (taking the average front yard setback of both abutting properties). This is much larger than the standard 30' and causes the existing house to be non - conforming. Our proposed addition aligns with the more standard front yard setback of the main house to the north and is not visible to the house from the south. Be in harmony with general purposes and intend of the zoning ordinance The proposed addition continues the normal front yard setback of majority of the street and neighborhood. By aligning with the standard front yard setback, the addition does not block the sightlines of the neighbor the north or the neighbor to the south. Not alter the essential Character of a neighborhood. The proposed addition attempts to maintain the essential character of the vast majority of houses in the neighborhood. It aligns with the typical setback and does not disrupt neighboring sightlines. The neighbors of the property are in agreement that one main asset of the neighborhood is the wide open space created by their backyards. This, is an area all of the families enjoy together. And the neighbors also agree that adding a large two car garage to the back of the property would diminish this essential character of the neighborhood. The neighbor most affected by the project feels so strongly that they are willing to sell a portion of their land to keep this open bac space intact. ��;® cxp ;*V LOT DIVISION APPLICATION (Minor Lot Line or Party Wall Adjustment) CASE NUMBER,&PrIDATE daMVICA FEE PAID V City of Edina Planning Department's www.citvofedina.com 4801 West Fiftieth Street* Edina, MN 55424" (952) 826 -0369 *fax (952) 826 -0389 FEE: $100.00 APPLICANT: NAME: e :AZI5 ANp rin1Nr--- qf//, (Signature required on back page) ADDRESS: -561 PHONE: EMAIL: PROPERTY ADDRESS (1): 56�� y�oot7i7s4�E >9-y�nty� PRESENT ZONING: R,I P.I.D.# PROPERTY: ADDRESS (2): �61� u/eoUt7}t>� �fy�P1v� PRESENT ZONING. iZl P.I.D.# 1I —CV$'�.�- 13—t7�� EXPLANATION 'OF REQUEST: (Use reverse side or additional pages if necessary) SURVEYOR: NAME: PHONE: , 1 - 3�, ) -0 1 \ EMAIL: �F: 0'�N. APPLICANT'S STATENNEINT be crocess ed in iny came, and I am khe pat fly whorl 'I lie Ci:- s ould -s application should f a0cut'h;v alu.r,!:!�;a ft '1- Sv s�qning this applicaflon I ceifffcv fiat all fees. L:t;Ii;Itv 'her deb '0 fl L axes, special' assessi-nents anld o- 4 or obligaknis S ,--rcperty have osen pa*d. • further certLify that I P-ni In compliance v!::L,I) all ordfirance- 4'eciWl'erients aoid condii-tizins regarding other City approvals that have been-, crantec-I tome for hnive coniplacted all of the applicabe fiiing reqU:rernents, and. kc best o-' rid; ov.,! edge , �Ijjs cfocurll.ents an-d 'in-ferf-nati )n - have subm. itted are tru-= and correct. llvL /- 7- K-/c/ A*plicant's Signature Date OWNER'S STATEMEN T .F rLA -e='o this th- -:-!e ner 07 '11:" ar- *.i'.- -1 .- 2L'�Ve property. and I a_oj - t a con-icrintion c-'-a? rersf ii? :s thiz fee tiff ho:der, atts& a —sclut or aUJI. - .'.i.: -f`tj * ': -card n" di—ctors -,r par-*r.S—S".:r Owner-s Signature 17'-oi. Date 7 Owqef!s-'-'S'ignatwe of 2'. Date Note. Botili signatures are required (if the different fbal? IMG applicant) beforc t,,L,e can process L 'he appiicaticn, OtheA'ViSe it is considered incomplate, Lot Division Application — 5617 Wooddale Ave. and 5613 Wooddale Ave. Explanation of request The homeowners at 5617 Wooddale Avenue are requesting to purchase a 5' -0" by 71' -6" portion of the neighbor's property to the north in order to build a 2 car garage. CEg l ®201 Jackie Hoogenlakker From: kathleen froeber <kafroeb @yahoo.com >. Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2014 7:03 PM To: Jackie Hoogenakker Subject: Case File:.B -14 -05 We certainly approve the variance and have no objections of any kind to the request of Chris.and Anne Hill at 5617 Wooddale Ave. Thank you, Jim and Kathi Froeber 5606 Wooddale Ave. Jackie Hoogenakker From: Dave Steingart <daVe @steingart.com> Sent: Monday, February 17, 201410:13 AM To: Jackie Hoogenakker Subject: Case File: B -14 -05 I am the property owner of 5633 Wooddale Avenue. I support'the garage modifications requested by my next door neighbor, Chris and Anne Hill. David J. Steingart Steingart & McGrath, P.A. 2500 West County Road.42, Suite 22.0 Burnsville; MN '55337 Phone: 952- 832 -0693 Fax: 952 -894 -9716 Mobile: 612 - 750 -0348 E -Mail: dave@steingart.com Circular 230 Notice: IRS regulations require us to advise you that,�unless otherwise specifically noted, any federal tax advice in this communication (including any attachments, enclosures or other accompanying materials) was not intended or written to be used, by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding tax- related penalties imposed under the U.S. Internal Revenue Code or any other applicable state or local tax law provision; furthermore, this communication was not intended or written to support the promoting, marketing or recommending of any of the transactions or matters it addresses. Electronic Privacy Notice: This e -mail, and any attachments, contains information that is, or may be, covered by electronic communications privacy laws, and is also confidential and proprietary in nature. If you are not the intended recipient, please be advised that you are legally prohibited from retaining, using, copying, distributing, or otherwise disclosing this information in any manner. Instead, please reply to the sender that you have received this communication in error and then immediately delete it. 1 „ ItELL,t GG Ki— ID: Owner C M Hill & A M Hill Name: Parcel 5617 Wooddale Ave Address: Edina, MN. 55424 Property sources and is furnished "AS IS” with no Sale 03/2006 Residential Type: implied, including fitness of any particular Home- Homestead stead: completeness of the information shown. Parcel 0.25 acres Area: 10,721 sq ft Print Date: 2/20/2014 Market Total: Tax Total: (Payable: 2013) Sale Price: This map is a compilation of data from various sources and is furnished "AS IS” with no Sale 03/2006 representation or warranty expressed or Date: implied, including fitness of any particular purpose, merchantability, or the accuracy and completeness of the information shown. Sale Warranty Deed Code: COPYRIGHT © HENNEPIN COUNTY 2014 'A Th ink Green' z _ � TOtV[n57 U.J ~ i[NN0T0NA»[ � 19'028-24'13'0075 A-T-B: � |D: Owner ' CK�HiU&A[NHiU , Market z _ � TOtV[n57 �� S6TMSTxx K[LLC-GGM ' Map Scale: 1^=2OOft. Print Date: 2/202O14 This map is a compilation of data from various sources and is furnished "AS IS" with no representation or warranty expressed or implied, including fitness of any particular purpose, merchantability, or the accuracy and completeness of the information shown- Cop,n/GHr@ HcwwsPIw COUNTY uow A Tuhi. Green! Parcel 19'028-24'13'0075 A-T-B: Tonons |D: Owner ' CK�HiU&A[NHiU , Market Nome Total: Parcel 5817VVooddu|oAve Tax NNNION Address: Edina, yNN55424 Total: (Payable: 2013) Property Sale, Sale, ' Residential R Price: Home' Homestead Sale 03/2O0G stead: Date: Parcel 0.25 acres Gm|e Warranty Deed Area: 10.721 sqft Code: �� S6TMSTxx K[LLC-GGM ' Map Scale: 1^=2OOft. Print Date: 2/202O14 This map is a compilation of data from various sources and is furnished "AS IS" with no representation or warranty expressed or implied, including fitness of any particular purpose, merchantability, or the accuracy and completeness of the information shown- Cop,n/GHr@ HcwwsPIw COUNTY uow A Tuhi. Green! Neghbor I t 9f n e. JUL -Isom L. fRR1 jj.1�� 0 mil_ -Isom L. r r dt° L� AM, pails �r is f ; a'Sf el- OW ��fti i fa L� AM, pails �r is ;� 4a ,�.:� V �� ; � �.- � -, _ - - yam. '•::'• '�. ' 1 -`ntit- t 1 Imo- •• sue: I �� C sr"tik. -� �",��C�..,�..Yf��i -' .y's �' _ _ . , - - '.• .s;� �'�.,�.. #' 1 - ~ � ��} I,�` t°' � Y't Rr�. t�"%' 4�'�v �7� "v"'��1 _ . •� ^�.��,,, "�- x.�.Y.�,.z ; �yL C y.s ' i c 4. 't.� ----------- RN 1" f* y _'�f3++� `�_.'Apq /6"11�`,w Y�i �kpi•k 7.1'^'.'�iy W �, � 1 � 9. I �� I _ t Map of Existing Front Yard Setbacks along Wooddale Ave. Lakeview Dr. W 55th St. -_ - -� ■ Oak Dr. Lexington St. -- 59._5.. 37'_5,. 48' -9" =- -39._7., W 56th St. 35._4„ v 3 39._7,. I ow _ . 42'-7" Tower St. 48' -8" (exist) 42' -7' (propsed - - � 58•_4•, W Woodland Ad. I Woodland Rd.W I i Phiibrook I.n, . I W 58th St. ■ 5617 Wooddale ■ ■ ■ Proposed Addition Map of Non-Conforming lots - Numbers indicate existing lot width 60 60 6 0 60 60 60 60 60 =Un ca cim-4 1 60 60 60 60 4 60 60 60 1 66 60 60 6 0 60 60 60 60 1 60 59 60 60 fI 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 I 60 60 60 60 60 60 i 60 60 60 60 60 60 j 60 60 GW 60 60 1 60 60 i 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 r_cmb 1 7 60 60 6 0 6 0 60 6 0 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 6 0 60 i 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 jI 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 1 [60 60 60 60 60 60 60 i 01 0 60 60 60 6060 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60": 60 60 60 64 60 60 60 60 60 60 601 so 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 45 -.157 1 69 50 iz 7- Orin_ Zen WRIM CM7.vFXM 7 PMA 48 48 4�_ !U - 4 48 _i § 8 f _.ig 8 v 50 50 50 5 50 50 50 50 50 so so 50 50 50 50 50 00 0 1 5 5 50 50 i 50 50 so- so so so so 50 50 50 50 50 5 0 50 5 0 so 50 50 so 5 0 so so so so 50 50 50- 50 50 50 50 50 5 1 so 50 0 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 1 50 50 50 1 so 0 0 5 5 1 1 50 50 50 so so so so 50 so 50 50 SO 0 0 5 5 50 50 i So so 50 50 50 so 50 0 0 5 5 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 1 I 50 So J I 50 50 50 50 1 50 50 I 50 so i 50j 1 50 50 i 1 50 50 i 50 50 1 i 50 50 50 50 j so so 50 so so -5.0 I .50 50 50 50 0 __50 -- -- 48 50 so so 50 50 50 _48- 50 W.: 50 So So So So 50! . 50 i I 150 so 50 50 5 50 50 50 i 50 so 50 1 150 50 50 50 so so 50 50 i 50 50 50 1 150 50 50 50 1 50 50 50 Non-Confrming lots. 5617 Wooddale Maps of other "odd" shaped lots in area around 5617 Wooddale e $' lad► ;s .« (es) cSL G - -- - O 5640 Wooddale. Pb *ELLUGO'1 A t 38 dS n f I C9 3�e g (85; (86) n � !U6 1 , � 1 a5 U 40 . i0 180 5616 Kellogg ,Vf (26) 9' ,=.• . ,s s'e 2>) 9 jno� p r1O OS IrOB � ws.r ,SS '! 5516 France pp ISO ' IYe is U IO' IW Zia a o ro � IGI 5655 Wooddale ials- � ina a (t3s) . 5500 Halifax v 0 - "WNCRUE 9oEWAl n a 0 n m z A m 0 Z a �^ m �a o� L � 5 g your os z z y gg ao g �g =90 0 r� Z APRON I PCRf I I I I gs o� aI I �I I I ra I I I I �o o� I Q? I ZN fm \ of O I _ I Ex 13 I Fs I I m I I I I I I I a I liy�4� I IEUR I I I I I A Ea 4c e Remodel e Avenue South IN 55424 g g a 0 n z Vl . - O 2 n ' N 6E 6o 9� Residence Remodel 5617 Wooddale Avenue South 5 r E Edina, MN 55424 N G7 GG y ti 6E 6o 9� Residence Remodel 5617 Wooddale Avenue South 5 r E Edina, MN 55424 l p5,�# Dill Residence Remodel ® gg G o 5617 Wooddale Avenue South Edina, MN '55424 p5,�# T �I�i 1 To: Mayor and City Council From: Ann Kattreh Ow e CID Heil � �y • ,�roRPOTISS O • 1880 Agenda Item #: IV.H. Action Parks & Recreation Director Discussion ❑ Date: March 18, 2014 Information ❑ Subject: Authorization To Utilize Metro ECSU Cooperative Purchasing Agency — Purchase Of Artificial Turf for the Sports Dome & Pamela Park Projects Action Requested: Authorize staff to utilize the Metro ECSU Cooperative Purchasing Agency to purchase artificial turf for the Sports Dome and Pamela Park projects Information / Background: The Metro ECSU (Educational Cooperative Services Unit) is the local affiliate and one of eight branches of the Minnesota Services Cooperative. The Minnesota Services Cooperative is a member of a 26 state national buying consortium called the AEPA (Association of Education Purchasing Agencies). Since 1976, Metro ECSU has been helping schools and other government agencies fulfill their missions by delivering high quality services while reducing costs through collaboration. A wide variety of products is available through the Metro ECSU, including over 40 contracts for a wide variety of products and services. Vendor contracts are established through a formal bid process conducted by the Minnesota Service Cooperatives. In addition to the excellent pricing, purchasing from the partnered vendors satisfies Minnesota competitive bidding requirements. The FieldTurf artificial turf contract was established through a Request for Proposal which was competitively solicited, reviewed and awarded by AEPA. It was done in accordance with the Municipal Contracting Law M.S. 471.345 Subd. 15 and allows Minnesota members to purchase products from the contract without additional competitive bidding requirements. The contract number is MSC - 012 -C. The Metro ECSU was utilized to purchase FieldTurf artificial turf at the Maple Grove Dome, Minnetonka High School, Osseo Area Schools, Richfield High School, McMurray Fields in St. Paul, St. Croix Sports Complex, Jimmy Lee Recreation Center in St. Paul, and Wayzata High School along with many others. The exact turf products and turf markings are still to be determined, but the price for each the Sports Dome and Pamela Park turf fields will cost approximately $385,000 - $460,000. This purchase will also be made without the addition of sales tax per Minnesota Statute section 297A.70, subdivision 2, saving over $50,000. Metro ECSU offices are located in Arden Hills, MN. City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 To: MAYOR AND COUNCIL Oln r �'��naroRn'�co IHHH Agenda Item #: IV. I. From: Bill Neuendorf Action ❑ Economic Development Manager Discussion ❑ Date: March 18, 2014 Information Subject: Receive Report from Community Advisory Team - Redevelopment Strategy for Grandview Public Works Site Action Requested: Receive the submitted documents and supporting information. Information / Background: At the direction of the City Council, an I I- member Community Advisory Team (CAT) was convened in June 2013 to help implement the community vision adopted in the 2012 Grandview Redevelopment Framework The CAT's first task was to prepare a RFI document and process to select a potential development partner for the former Public Works site at 5146 Eden Avenue. During the execution of this task, several questions and concerns arose among CAT members. Clarification and direction was provided by the City Council during the September 2013 and January 2014 Work Sessions. After several months of intensive discussion, members of the CAT are split regarding how to proceed with returning, this vacant site to an active use. Some members are . in favor of working with a developer in partnership to bring a new public/private' project to the site. Other members are strongly opposed to working with a developer before a final project is agreed upon. While the CAT had initially been preparing an RFI for a Development Partner, several members of the group preferred a different approach. At the March I0t CAT meeting, the majority of members in attendance indicated a preference to engage a consultant prior to working with a developer. As a result, drafts of two RFIs are submitted for consideration by the City Council. Both drafts, as well as related information, are attached. . General Format - Both documents follow a similar format. They outline the general objective and summarize the background work completed by the community thus far. A four step process is proposed that includes time to select a consultant/tentative partner, time to create a process to identify community priorities for the public space and time to determine the feasibility of various scenarios attractive to the City before selecting a final project design. Both documents also identify the submission requirements and summarize a potential process that could be used to select the most appropriate consultant/development partner. City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. Edina, MN 55424 Redevelopment Strategy for Grandview Public Works Site March 18, 2014 Page 2 Consultant RFI The first document seeks a consultant (instead of a development, partner). This approach was preferred by four of the seven CAT members in attendance at the last meeting. This version calls for a consultant to be engaged to further refine the type of potential projects to consider on the site. After a final design is selected, a traditional Request for Proposals (RFP) process is suggested to select a developer. Development Partner RFI — The second document seeks a potential development partner. This approach attempts to' respond to the direction expressed by a majority of,,the City Council. This process identifies critical points when the City can choose whether or not to continue working with the tentative development partner. If the preliminary project concept satisfies the needs of the City, this process anticipates that the tentative developer would then be named as the full developer responsible for implementing and building the vision. Several CAT members expressed their concerns and fundamental difference of opinion via email and requested that their individual perspectives be forwarded to the Council (see attached packet). CAT members who are supportive of engaging a consultant (instead of a developer) expressed concerns with the ability of developers to work in partnership to achieve a project in the community interest. Some questioned whether any private development was needed on this site. The Consultant RFI took shape after the CAT was presented with the results of a. recent Resident Survey. Some CAT members interpreted residents' opinions to be better served by refining the vision for the site with a consultant instead of a developer. A copy of the preliminary survey results is attached. The Morris Leatherman Company is scheduled to present the complete findings of the Resident Survey to the City Council on May 6th. Recently completed studies also contributed to the content of the draft documents. Based on the direction of the City Council, studies were completed to better understand the parameters that shape redevelopment of the Grandview site. The completed studies include: Community Facilities Inventory, Resident Survey, Water and Storm Sewer infrastructure and Transportation overview. The draft versions of the CAT's work product are hereby submitted. The co- chairs and members of the CAT are willing to present their work at a future date at the Council's discretion. Attachments: Consultant RFI, 3 -12 -14 draft Development Partner RFI, 3 -10 -14 draft Compilation of member emails Preliminary Results of 2014 Resident Survey Consultant RFI, Page 1 Request for Interest to Collaborate with the City of Edina on Implementing Phase 1 of GrandView -District Redevelopment Introduction Prepared 3/12/2014 The City of Edina has a rich history of. innovative developments. We are looking for a consultant to collaborate with us to create the next great idea. Objective The City of Edina is looking for a consultant with real estate development experience to collaborate in implementing the GrandView District Development Framework. As Phase I in the implementation process, this consultanfwill work with the City to determine public and private uses on a 3.3 -acre parcel (the former public works site) in the center of the District. It is important to the City that the site be developed in a manner that is innovative in responding to the needs of the community and is successful in the marketplace. .Background In 2010, the City initiated a community -based small area guide plan process for the GrandView District, led by residents, business and property owners, supported by a volunteer team of architects, landscape architects, and planners (all Edina residents). The innovative, collaborative and intensive process (10 meetings in 20 days) resulted in the unanimous approval of seven Guiding Principles for redevelopment of the GrandView District: Leverage publicly -owned parcels and civic presence to create a vibrant and connected District that serves as a catalyst for high quality, integrated public and private development. 2. Enhance the District's economic viability as a neighborhood center with regional connections, recognizing that meeting the needs of both businesses and residents will make the District a good place to do business. 3. Turn perceived barriers into opportunities. Consider layering development over supporting infrastructure and taking advantage of the natural topography of the area. 1 Consultant RFI, Page 2 Prepared 3/12/2014 4. Design for the present and future by pursuing logical increments of change using key parcels as stepping stones to a more vibrant, walkable, functional, attractive, and life.-filled, place. 5. Organize parking as an effective, resource for the District by linking community parking to public and private destinations while also providing parking that is convenient for businesses and customers. 6. Improve movement= within and access to the District for people of all ages by facilitating multiple, modes of transportation, and preserve future transit opportunities provided by the rail corridor. 7. Create an identity and unique sense of place that incorporates natural spaces into a high quality and sustainable development reflecting Edina's innovative development heritage. In April of 2012, with the help of a $100,000 Met Council Livable Communities grant, the City completed the second citizen -led phase of the process resulting in the City Council adopting the GrandView District Development Framework, a copy of which is attached. The Framework provides a vision for how to bring the guiding principles to life. For GrandView, the former public works site provides a unique and singular opportunity to create a major new public realm amenity.that will add interest to the area for all stakeholders, value to real estate, and provide a signature gathering place in the heart of the District. This amenity, the GrandView Commons, is envisioned to include a community building, public green,. and new street (GrandView Crossing). Additional uses considered for the site include a Metro Transit park and ride -and a variety of housing types. In keeping with the Development Framework, all uses must provide for bicycle and pedestrian connectivity and adhere to best practices with regard to sustainability. In addition, development should consider and must preserve future transit use of the adjoining. rail line. A representative community survey was conducted. in January 2014 to provide additional information for this process. Survey results indicated that Edina residents support having a large percentage of the site be for public use. Based on the survey results, a mix of public and private, uses would be supported on the site, provided that apartments, condominiums and townhomes are not part of the development. 2 Consultant RFI, Page 3 Prepared 3/12/2014 Proposed Process The City proposes a multi -stage process to engage a consultant and collaborate with a consultant to accomplish the goals of Phase 1. Stage One: The City will review letters of interest and select prospective consultants to interview. After conducting interviews, the City may select a consultant. Stage Two: The City and the consultant will work together during an approximately 60 -120 day period to create a process for identifying the appropriate uses on the City =owned parcel, and framing ways in which the remainder of the district might respond to a new use on this city -owned parcel. Stage Three: Upon approval of this process by the City Council, the consultant and the City will implement the process with an objective to generate alternative scenarios for development aligning with the Grand View District Development Framework. Each scenario will demonstrate all aspects of a feasible development of the former Public Works site (and any other sites that become a part of this process), including but not limited to: • A general plan of development indicating public and private uses, intensities, and patterns of built elements, open spaces, and supporting circulation patterns and infrastructure requirements; • An economic model demonstrating the feasibility of each scenario, including the potential financial or other support required of the City of Edina to ensure each scenario is financially feasible and ultimately successful for the city and the partner; and • A staging model illustrating the timing and sequencing of development. Stage Four: The City Council will consider the alternative scenarios and determine which, if any, is in the best interests of the city. If a scenario is selected, then the City will move the selected development scenario forward through an RFP process. While the City expects this process will result in a supportable development scenario, other approaches are encouraged and will be considered as a part of the initial submittal of a Letter of Interest. 3 Consultant RFI, Page 4 Prepared 3/12/2014 Submission Requirements Interested entities (whether an individual, company, or team) should submit a statement of interest that includes the following information: • Name, mailing address, telephone number, and email address of the primary contact for the entity, responding to this RFI • A general description of the entity's professional capabilities, including past experience with civic /community projects • A general statement of why the entity-is interested in this opportunity, their perspective of the vision outlined in the Framework, and their ideas of how they might work with the City to identify preferred uses for the site and generate innovative development scenarios. • The identities of primary team members who would work with the City on this project • Any other information that would be useful to the City in evaluating the statement of interest While the City has not set a page limit, respondents are encouraged to be thorough., but concise and to the point, with unnecessary content avoided. Submission of the Letter of Interest is due to Bill Neuendorf,'City of Edina Economic Development Manager, by 4:30pm on Day, Month, Date. The letter can be emailed as a PDF to bneuendorfa- edinamn.gov. In addition, 15 printed copies should be delivered to: Bill Neuendorf Economic Development Manager City of Edina 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424. Selection All complete submittals received prior to the deadline for submissions will be evaluatedby the City. Information gathered through this process will assist the City in determining which responders, if any, to interview based on their perceived ability to collaborate with the City to create innovative development options that achieve the goals of the Framework. 4 Consultant RFI, Page 5 Prepared 3/12/2014 Terms This is a request for Letters of Interest and in no way obligates the City to enter into a relationship with any entity that responds, nor does'it limit or restrict the, City's right to enter into a relationship with. any entity that does not respond to this request. In its sole discretion, the City may pursue discussions with one or more entities responding to this request,'or none at all, and reserves the right to add members to any team it selects to participate in the initial development stage. The City further reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to cancel this. Request for Letters of Interest at any time for any reason. All costs associated with responding to this request will be solely at the responder's expense. Additional Information Questions about any matter contained in this Request for Letters of Interest can be directed to Bill Neuendorf, Economic Development Manager 952 - 826 -0407 or bneuendorf(aD-edinamn.gov Please do not contact members of the Community Advisory Committee. Supplemental information is available online at www.edinamn.gov . Site Photographs April 2012 GrandView District Development Framework Environmental Documents (Phase I and Approved RAP) 2008 Comprehensive Plan Edina Zoning Code 2013 Community Facility inventory 2014 Traffic Study 2014 Infrastructure Study 2014 Edina Resident Survey 5 This page intentionally left blank. Development Partner RFI, Page I Grandview Request for Letter of Interest Final Draft (3 -16 -14 Version) Request for Interest to Partner . . with the City of. Edina to Develop Phase of the GrandView'District- Introduction The City of Edina has a rich history of innovative developments that have become national models for public /private partnerships. We are looking for a development partner to collaborate with us to create the next great idea. Objective The City of Edina is looking fora partner with real estate development expertise and experience to collaborate in implementing the Grandview District Development Framework. As Phase I in the implementation process, this partner will work with the City to determine public and private uses on a 3.3 -acre parcel (the former public works site) in the center of the District and then design and construct the structure(s) that house those uses. It is important to the City that the site be developed in a manner that is innovative in responding to the needs of the community and is successful in the marketplace. Background In 2010, the City initiated a community- based small area guide plan process for the GrandView District, led by residents, business and property owners, supported by a volunteer team of architects, landscaper architects, and planners (all Edina residents). The innovative, collaborative and intensive process (10 meetings in 20 days) resulted in the unanimous approval of seven Guiding Principles for redevelopment of the GrandView District: 1. Leverage publicly -owned parcels and civic presence to create a vibrant and connected District that serves as a catalyst for high quality, integrated public and private development. 2. Enhance the District's economic viability as a neighborhood center with regional connections, recognizing that meeting the needs of both businesses and residents will make the District a good place to do business. Development Partner RFI, Page 2 Grandview Request for Letter of Interest Final Draft (3 -10 -14 Version) 3. Turn perceived barriers into opportunities. Consider layering development over supporting infrastructure and taking advantage of the natural topography of the area. 4. Design for the present "and future by,pursuing logical increments of change using key.parcels as stepping stones to a more vibrant, walkable, functional, attractive, and life--filled place. 5. Organ nize parking as an effective resource for the District by linking community parking to public and private destinations while also providing parkingthat is convenient for businesses and customers. 6. Improve movement within and access to the District for people of all ages by facilitating multiple mod_ es of transportation, and preserve future transit opportunities provided by the rail corridor. 7. Create,.an identityy and unique sense of place that incorporates natural spaces into a high quality and sustainable development reflecting Edina's innovative development heritage. In April of 2012, with the help of a $100,000 Met Council Livable Communities grant, the City completed the second citizen -led phase of the process resulting in the City Council adopting the GrandView District Development Framework, a copy of which .is.attached.. The Framework provides a vision for how to-bring the guiding principles to life. For GrandView, the former public works site provides a unique and singular opportunity to'create a major new public realm amenity that will add interest to the area for all stakeholders, value to.real estate, and provide a signature gathering place in the, heart of the District. This amenity, the GrandView Commons, is envisioned to include a community building, public green, and. new street (GrandView Crossing). Additional uses considered for the site include -a Metro Transit park and ride and a variety of housing types. In keeping with. the Redevelopment Framework, all uses must provide for bicycle and pedestrian connectivity and adhere to best practices with regard to sustainability. In addition, development should consider and must preserve future transit use of the adjoining rail line. Proposed Process he City proposes a multi -stage process to engage and collaborate with evelopment partner to achieve the vision outlined in the Framework F_ 2 Development Partner RFI, Page 3 Grandview Request for Letter of Interest Final Draft (3 -10 -14 Version) ,Stage One: The City will review letters of interest and select prospective partners to interview. After conducting interviews, the City may select a tentative development partner Stage Two: The City and the tentative development partner will work together during an approximately 60 -120 day period to create a process for identifying the appropriate uses on the City -owned parcel, idesigning and financing the structures associated with those, fuses, and framing ways in which the remainder of the district" might respond to a new use on this city -owned parcel) . City and Development Partner agree to move forward ,Stage Three: Using the City Council approved process, the City's development partner will collaborate with the City to generate alternative scenarios for development aligning with the Grandview District' Development Framework. Each scenario will demonstrate all aspects of a feasible development of the former Public Works site (and any other sites that become a part of this process), including but not limited tof �A general plan of development indicating public and private uses, intensities, and patterns of built elements, open paces and supporting circulation patterns and infrastructure requirements; An economic model demonstrating the feasibility of each scenario, including the potential financial or other support required of the City of Edina to ensure each scenario is financially feasible and ultimately successful for the city and the partner; and �A staging model illustrating the timing and sequencing of development. OR ge Four: The City Council will consider the alternative scenarios and determine which, if any, is in the best interests of the city. If a scenario is selected, then the City, working with the development partner, will establish terms for an agreement under which the City and the development partner will work exclusively to pursue the selected development scenario. ile the City expects this process will result in a supportable development nario, other approaches are encouraged and will be considered as a part of initial submittal of a Letter of Interest! 3 Development Partner RFI, Page 4 Grandview Request for Letter of Interest Final Draft (3 -10 -14 Version) kil complete submittals received prior to the deadline for submissions will b :valuated by the City. Evaluation of submittals will be completed by [DATE]. On )r more responders may be selected to be interviewed. The information athere hrou h this process will assist the City in determining next steps Submission Requirements Interested, entities..(whether an individual, company, or team) should submit a statement of interest that includes the following information: Name, mailing address, telephone number, and..email address of the primary contact for the entity responding to thisRFl A general description "of the entity's professional capabilities, including past experience with civic /community projects A general statement of why the entity is interested in this opportunity, their perspective of_the vision outlined in the Framework, (including how development of the City -owned parcel can serve as a catalyst for private development of the, surrounding parts of the District), and their ideas of how they might work with the City to convert the vision outlined in the Framework to reality — specifically, how they might approach: • The community building • The public park or plaza • Transportation (bicycle, pedestrian, parking, street network, and potential for future rail transit) • Sustainability • Affordable housing • Financing The identities of primary team members who would work with the City on this: project Any other information that would be useful to the City in evaluating the statement of interest While the City'has not set a page limit, respondents are encouraged to be thorough, but concise and to the point, with unnecessary content avoided. Submission of the Letter of Interest is due to; Bill Neuendorf, City of Edina Economic Development Manager, by 4:30pm on Day, Month, Date. The letter can be emailed as a PDF to bneuendorftccD- edinamn.gov. In addition, 15 printed copies should be delivered to: Bill Neuendorf Economic Development Manager City of Edina 4 Development Partner RFI, Page 5 Grandview Request for Letter of Interest Final Draft (3 -10 -14 Version) 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424. Selection All complete submittals received prior to the deadline for submissions will be evaluated by the City. Information gathered through this process will assist the City in determining which .responders, if any, to interview based on their perceived ability to collaborate with the City.to create innovative development. options that achieve the goals of the Framework. Terms This is a request for Letters of Interest and in no way obligates the City to enter into a relationship with any entity that responds, nor does A limit or restrict the City's right to enter into a relationship with any entity. that does not respond to this request. In its sole discretion, the City may pursue discussions with one or more entities responding to this request, or none at all, and reserves the right to add members to any team it selects to participate in the initial development stage. The City further reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to cancel this Request for Letters of'Interest at any time for any reason! All costs associated with responding to this request will be solely at the responder's expense. Additional Information Questions, about any matter contained in this Request for Letters of Interest can be directed to Bill Neuendorf, Economic Development Manager 952 - 826 -0407 or bneuendorf(cD-edinamn.gov Please do not contact members of the Community Advisory Committee. Supplemental information is available online at www.edinamn.gov . Site Photographs April 2012 GrandView District Development Framework Environmental Documents (Phase I and Approved RAP) 2008 Comprehensive Plan Edina Zoning Code 2013 Community Facility inventory 2014 Traffic Study 2014. Infrastructure Study 2014 Edina Resident Survey 5 This page intentionally left blank. Community Advisory Team Email Comments related to RFI preparation March 9 -12, 2014 Several CAT members submitted email comments regarding their concerns with moving forward with an RFI for a Development Partner and their preference for an alternative approach. These comments are attached for City Council consideration. - Pat OI k - Sue Jacobson - Sandy Fox - Kevin Staunton - Jennifer Janovy - Jimmy Bennett Pat Olk comments, page 1 Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2014 10:16 PM Subject: Re: Grandview CAT - March 10 Reminder Fellow CAT members, I wasn't able to participate in the RE discussion at our last meeting because I had to leave early. However, . after listening to the Morris Leatherman Company present their survey findings, it is clear to me that the process that we are trying to implement where we retain a "Development Partner" is premature. Based on the survey findings, the community strongly opposes Apartments, Condos and Townhomes based on density concerns. The survey results also showed that the community wants to, have the majority of any development of the Public Works site be retained for public use. As you know, I have raised my concerns of retaining a Development Partner at this early stage in previous meetings, but was willing to proceed down this path because I assumed that there would be a community need for a residential component for the Public Works site. To me, this meant that a Development Partner made some sense because there would be a significant private component to the development of the public works site. I now no longer feel that a Development Partner as we have defined in our meetings makes .sense for this RFI. Therefore, I recommend the following: 1. Instead of a Development Partner, we retain a paid Consultant to help us work through a process to determine the best use for the Public Works site. The Consultant would be someone who would not expect to benefit financially from having a development/construction role for the Public Works site. 2. Move forward with the RFI replacing the Development Partner with a Consultant and submit the RFI to the City Council. 3. Have a process where we specifically identify the community and any private needs of the Public Works site. After these needs are determined, a Request For Proposal would be created and made available to prospective developers for the Public Works site. I know this is somewhat of a deviation from the path we were heading down, but I feel strongly that we need to incorporate the results of the community survey into the development of the - Public Works site. To ignore the survey results at this juncture and proceed with a Development Partner who would expect to benefit financially by having a development role for the project based on a significant private component to the Public Works site is not prudent given the community feedback. I have edited the RFI that Bill sent us and have attached it for your review. I think we should discuss this at our meeting tomorrow. Pat Sue Jacobson comments, page 1 Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2014 10:42 PM Subject: Re: Grandview CAT - March 10 Reminder Thanks for your thoughts Pat, I agree. To me, it would seem like any developer would have, too much of a personal focus to adequately represent the public needs of our community. I have thought from the start that the ideal way to create an appropriate vision of future development would be to engage talented urban planning consultants, before diving into development partnership, like Minneapolis just did for the redesign of Nicollet avenue downtown. I feel like we got a high quality result with our survey and that it can help us build a good potential vision. _ I want to acknowledge the hard work of the prior Grandview team .... you must feel that we have already done this, but that was one representative vision. It was work was done without public survey results, assuming the funding would come from a developer figuring out,how to make enough profit from their definition of what they want to build for us. My main takeaway of the survey discussion was at the taxpayers are not strongly supportive enough of new development at this time. The lynchpin to drive their support would be the need to replace our current community center .... and we do not have a clear understanding of the fate of the existing community center. We need to clarify this ASAP, with the school board. If we can confirm the long -term elimination of the community center existing location, Morris Leatherman said that we would likely be able to rally the community and gain their support for this new development. We need the buy -in of the tax base of Edina or we are being premature. We need to define plans for us to begin to engage in community discussions. See you tomorrow, Sue Sandy Fox comments, page 1 Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2014 11:37 PM Subject: Re: Grandview CAT - March 10 Reminder Just read Pat's revisions and completely agree. As you know I've always felt we needed a consultant, rather than a developer, to help us decide what to put on the site. The earlier process left us with too many choices and possibilities. The survey results only confirmed my thinking. I believe such a consultant could give us the most creative ideas that are financially feasible. The survey showed us specifically what is not wanted. Now we need to narrow it to what is wanted/needed. We're not there yet and a consultant can help us get there. Sandy Fox Kevin Staunton comments, page 1 Sent: Monday, March 10, 2014 11:39 AM Subject: Re: Grandview CAT.- March 10 Reminder I appreciate the thoughtful comments and Pat's proposed edits to the RFI. I think the good news is that we all appear to be in -agreement on the basic, structure of the RFI. Pat's changes (and'the comments offered by Sue and Sandy) merely propose using the RFl structure we have.created over the past months to engage a consultant rather than a development partner. While I respect this viewpoint, I continue to think we should focus on engaging a development partner (whose team may well include urban planning consultants). In part, my perspective is the result of a different read on the survey. To me — and contrary to Pat's take — it clearly supports a mix of public and private uses on the site. Consider that: 1. While the survey confirmed that residents strongly value public use on the parcel, it does not support the conclusion that the parcel should be- dedicated exclusively to a public use. To the contrary, more respondents expressed a preference for a combination of public and private uses (46 %) than supported a purely public use (37 %). See Development Preference Slide on page 5 of the handout. Moreover, almost two- thirds (65 %) of respondents either supported or strongly supported "a development project that includes both public and private uses on the Grandview public works site ". See Survey Results, Q40. 2. The survey shows broad support for a community center on the site. But it also reveals little appetite for the substantial public expenditures that will be necessary to make that happen if there is not a combination of public and private development on the site. By far the largest plurality of respondents (38 %) were not willing to support any increase in property taxes to pay for a community center. See Property Tax Increase for Community Center Slide on page 8 of the handout. This interest in minimizing tax payer sponsorship of a community center is further underscored by the survey's showing that 20% of the small minority of those opposed to a mixed use project (only 29% of respondents) would favor it if it "reduced the potential tax impact of constructing and operating a Community Center ". See Arguments Slide on page 9 of the handout and Q42. These conclusion are entirely consistent with the Development Framework which envisioned a substantial public use on the. site but also contemplated (and, in fact, illustrated) such a public use being mixed with compatible private uses. The problem I think we are wrestling with is a lack of a clear consensus regarding the use or uses that should be part of the public part of the site. What I think is revealing about the survey results is that they reflect that lack of consensus. While the results support the general notion of a public use in the form of a community center, they do not reveal a groundswell of support for any particular public use. Instead, the kinds of things we have been discussing Kevin Staunton comments, page 2 (Arts /Culture, Performing Arts, Recreation, etc.) all receive some support but-no particular public use (other than the broad idea of a "Community Center. ") receives the level of support that makes it a "must do ". The question, then, is how to best move forward to implement the Framework. As we discussed at the- very'end of our last meeting, tFie real choice left bythe - survey results is between doing nothing'(based`on the notion that there: is no groundswell of support for any particular public use) and moving forward to create development scenarios that lead the community to the right destination. My concern with another round of consulting is that it will take us further down the path of waiting for the right answer to appear. Engaging the right development partner (who may well have urban planning expertise), on the other hand, moves us closer to developing financially - feasible development scenarios that can be implemented without yet another step in the process. We know the universe of potential public uses that should be part of a new Community Center. We can move forward with the right development partner to configure those uses with compatible private uses that fulfills the vision articulated by the Framework. We shouldn't delay further. I look forward to further discussion tonight. Jennifer Janovy Comments, page 1 Thanks to everyone so far for sharing your thoughts. Pat has proposed a reasonable compromise and I personally think it's the better path. A few follow -ups to Kevin's email: (1) The survey confirmed that 61% of residents agree the City should not sell public land. Bill Morris called this a "foundation value." Sixty -six percent of residents agree that public land should be used for public purposes only. Thirty -seven percent of residents said the former public works site should include only public amenities. In comparison, only 9% said it should include only private amenities. Forty -six percent of residents said it should include a mix of public and private uses. Bill Morris said they include the choice of mixed public and private because they expect thaf a majority of responses will fall into that category; however, he said responses to this `question were "strongly suggestive" that any mixed public and private use should have a prominent public component. Later in the survey, residents are asked whether they would support or oppose a development project that includes public and private components. Sixty -five percent said they would. A community center and restaurants got the most support (21 %). Apartments and condos were supported by 5% and 12% of respondents respectively. This was consistent with responses earlier in the survey, which identified apartments, condos, and town homes as the most opposed potential uses for the land. Bill Morris said to avoid apartments, condos, and town homes, and noted that the "blow back" on apartments if included in a development scenario would be "severe." (2) The survey shows broad support for a community center on the site (53 %). Peter Leatherman called this a "concept question." People answered the question based on their conceptions of what a community center is and not a specific program. The survey then asked if they would be more likely to support the construction of a new community center if the current community education facility were converted back to classrooms. Thirty -two percent of residents said they would be more supportive. Bill Morris called this a "game changer." In contrast, only 20% of respondents were more supportive of mixed use development if "privately owned components like residential units or office space" could reduce the tax impact of constructing and operating a new community center -In other words, support for a community center grew enough to be called a "game changer" when people saw a need for it. Support for mixed use grew less, even when residents were told that private development could reduce the tax impact of a new community center. The conclusions of the survey are not entirely consistent with the Development Framework, which shows a significant amount of the property devoted to apartments, condos and town homes —the most opposed uses for the site. The survey shows that there is a consensus about how public land should be.used. A majority believe that it should be used for public purposes. A mix of public and private uses would be appropriate, provided the public uses are prominent and the private uses Jennifer Janovy Comments, page 2 do not include housing. The survey was not intended to reveal a groundswell of support for any particular use. It was intended to get an understanding of people's values as they relate to the sale and redevelopment of public land and give us further direction. I disagree with Kevin that the "real choice left by the survey results is between doing nothing (based on the notion that there is no groundswell of support for any particular public use) and moving forward to create development scenarios that lead the community to the right destination." This uses the survey in a way that it wasn't intended to be used and sets up a false choice. While Kevin believes that partnering with a developer is the best way to move forward, I remain unconvinced. The proposed process to partner with a real estate developer raises too many questions for me. In thinking about it over the weekend, I put together the attached that compares the proposed process to partner with a developer, an alternative process that would have the City collaborate with a consultant (as Pat has proposed); and a third option: putting an interim use on the site. We have all been working hard on this for several months and I appreciate everyone's input. I look forward to our discussion tonight. Thanks, Jennifer Jennifer Janow Comments, page .3 Table of Options Mike & Kevin Process Alternative Process Interim Option Uses RFI to solicit interest from Uses RFI to solicit interest Holds off for now on process real estate developers from qualified to pursue permanent professional(s), who will development on the site work in a consulting' capacity The project is to partner with the The project is to collaborate The project is to pursue `city to: ` with the City to: interim uses while the City (1) determine the public and (1) identify preferred uses completes other important private uses for the site; and program for public work (2) design the uses; and spaces; (3) construct the uses (2) generate innovative development scenarios Goal at end of project: Goal at end of project: get Goals at end of project: to completed project City to the point of being have successfully ready to prepare an RFP for implemented interim uses one or more selected that fostered a strong sense of scenario(s) community, added vibrancy to the District, and helped the public to see creative possibilities for permanent uses for the site Timeline: three or more years Timeline: six to nine Timeline: two years months (three or more years to completed development) Pros: Pros: Pros: • Keeps process moving • Keeps process moving • Keeps site from sitting • Professional(s) provide • Professional(s) provide vacant valuable expertise valuable expertise • Allows the City to try • Fits within timeline for • Generates multiple something new and establishing TIF district development scenarios innovative before selecting • Acknowledges that the developer to design and timing may not be right to construct project pursue permanent • Process to identify redevelopment of the site preferred uses and Gives the City time to program for public complete the Parks spaces less likely to be strategic plan, Vision 2040 influenced by private plan, and the 2015 development interests I community -wide survey Jennifer Janovy Comments, page 4 • Process has been done Gives the City time to before successfully; complete capital raises fewer questions improvements, such as the • If City chooses to sports dome, pursue one or more improvements to Braemar scenario(s), City can Golf Course and Arena, solicit developer 501 & France parking, and interest through RFI or more`, RFP •. Allows time to work with • Developer is selected MnDOT on Highway 100 once we know what we interchange want; increases. improvements possibility that Grants may be available to developer will be the fund interim right match improvements • City benefits from competitive process to select developer for the project • Costs are transparent • Fits within timeline for establishing TIF district Cons: Cons: Cons: • Selects real estate developer Upfront costs Upfront costs if grants are BEFORE we know what we not available want on the site; increases Public may prefer to make possibility developer may interim uses permanent not be the right match for project; limits our options early on in the process • Biased toward private development • Proponents have stated this process has not been tried before • Process raises many. questions (attached). • Costs not likely to be.. transparent; if developer does not go on to design and construct the project, developer will need to be paid Jennifer Janovy Comments, page ,5 Stage Questions Responses Preliminary Stage: The City How will the RFI be distributed? distributes RFI. City addresses • Advertised? Where? inquiries from developers. • Audience? Real estate development community only? Architects ?, Local? National? Stage One: The City will review Who is "the City ?" in this stage? letters of interest and select What is the timeframe for prospective partners to interview. reviewing letters of interest? After conducting interviews, the What is the process by which City may select a tentative prospective partners are selected development partner. to be interviewed? Prior to selecting developers to be interviewed, will the City ask for supplemental information or clarifications? If yes, what isthat process? What are the criteria for selection? How are those criteria developed and approved? At what point should CAT members and staff disclose any prior discussions with a respondent about any phase of this process and any past or continuing relationships? What'would signify a conflict of interest 7, How would any conflict of interest be addressed? Who will conduct the interviews? How will questions be developed and,approved? If there has been a parallel process to recommended preferred public uses for the site, how will stakeholders and knowledge from that process be incorporated into the selection of developers to interview and the recommendation /selection of developer partner? What is the timeframe between developer interviews and when CAT discusses and makes a recommendation? How is the public engaged in this discussion? Jennifer Janovy Comments, page 6 Once a developer is selected, what are the terms of the relationship? How are these terms developed? How are they reviewed? Approved? Who is involved? How is public involved? Stage Two: The City and the Who is the "City" in this stage? tentative development partner What is the process for "working will work together during an together "? Who is involved? approximately 60-12o day period Ifthere ' h ' as been a parallel process to create a process for identifying to recomended preferred public the appropriate uses on the City- uses for the site, how.will owned parcel, designing and stakeholders and knowledge from financing the structures that process be incorporated into associated with those uses, and the process to identify appropriate framing ways in which the uses on the parcel? remainder of the district might Four processes will be created respond to a new use on this city - during this phase: (s) process for owned parcel. identifying uses; (z) process for engaging public in design of structures; (3) process for identifying and evaluating costs and financing.options; and (4) process for framing ways in -which the rest of the district might respond to new use on the former public works site. How will each of these processes be vetted? Who will be involved ?, What is the process for approval? What is the process for public input? How will transportation improvements be incorporated into the above processes? For example, (s) process for identifying transportation . improvements (bike, ped, transit, rail, highway, street network); (z) process and timeline�for studying ._ identified improvements; (3) process for identifying costs,, funding sources, funding timeline, partners, and-feasibility; (4) process for framing ways in which the rest of the district might respond to transportation improvements. Jennifer Janovy Comments, page 7 Who evaluates the proposed processes? By what process are they evaluated? Who approves the proposed processes? What factors, criteria or considerations will determine whether this Stage has been successful and the developer should move on to the next stage?. City and Development Partner What are the terms of the agree to move forward agreement? How are these terms developed? How are they reviewed? Approved? Who is involved? How is public involved? What is the timeline? Stage Three: Using the City What factors, criteria or Council approved process, the considerations will determine City's development partner will whether scenarios align with the collaborate with the City to Grandview District Development generate alternative scenarios for Framework? development aligning with the Who verifies each scenario GrandView.District Development demonstrates all aspects of a Framework. Each scenario will feasible development? By what demonstrate all aspects of a process? feasible development of the Is there a minimum or maximum former Public Works site (and any number of scenarios? other sites that become a part of Will advisory boards and this process), including but not commissions be engaged during limited to: this Stage? For example, will • A general plan of Planning Commission look at development indicating scenarios to identify zoning code public and private uses, or comp plan changes that would intensities, and patterns of be required? Will Transportation built elements, open Commission look at spaces, and supporting transportation elements? Will circulation patterns and Park Board look at park and infrastructure recreation facilities associated requirements; with scenarios? Will Energy and • An economic model Environment look at demonstrating the sustainability? feasibility of each How will incompatible timelines scenario, including the be addressed? potential financial or other support required of the City of Edina to ensure each scenario is financially Jennifer Janovy Comments, page 8 feasible and ultimately successful for the city and the partner; and • A staging model . illustrating the timing and sequencing of development. Stage Four: The City Council will What factors, criteria or consider the alternative scenarios considerations will determine and determine which, if,any, is in whether a scenario is in the best the best interests of the city. If a . interest of the city? scenario is selected, then the City, -By'what process will development working with the development scenarios be considered and a partner, will establish terms for an development scenario selected? agreement under which the City Special meetings, public hearings? and the development partner will What is the timeline? work exclusively to pursue the When will the typical selected development scenario. redevelopment process kick in (preliminary development plan, final development plan)? Assuming significant public input to this point, what tolerance will there be for substantive changes to the scenario as result of Planning Commission and City Council review of preliminary and final redevelopment plans? What would define a substantive change? If selected scenario includes sale of land, what process is required? While the City expects this process What factors, criteria or will result in a supportable considerations will be used to development scenario, other weigh alternative approaches? approaches are encouraged and will be considered as a part of the initial submittal of a Letter of Interest. Jimmy Bennett comments, page 1 From: James Bennett [mailto:jimmy @uwalumni.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2014 12:08 PM To:;Bill Neuendorf Subject: - Grandview MW For whatever it may be worth, following the Grandview meeting and related discussions, I have had more time to think about.my stance on whether I prefer the 'RFI for consultant' versus the 'RFI for development partner'. I prefer the RFI for consultant, and list my reasons below. Please pass along to the other CAT members as you wish. The Grandview. Resident Survey (answers to Questions #2, #3, and #5), show that the majority of community members express that the city should not sell publicly -owned land (61/31), the value of publicly -owned land is greater than the revenue that can be generated from it (58/30), publicly -owned land should be retained and used for public purposes only (66/31). Such values suggest that the majority of the community wants to keep publicly - owned land, and reserve it for public uses only. Generally speaking then, a development partner is not the logical next step for a situation like the Grandview public works site, unless there exists a wont' about the financial situation (specifically the long -term financial success) of whatever goes there. I have heard opinions from others involved in this process about such financial worries and uncertainty, and in response, the need for non- public uses (specifically residential) on site to help drive the success of the public component of the Grandview public works site. Those opinions duly justify the route of.a development partner, as the City would then prefer to unload an upfront financial burden off of the taxpayers and onto a developer to get the.public component that the community wants /needs, but also benefit the development partner for helping the City out. These opinions seem to have been based on other developments and situations where, without non- public uses (specifically residential), there is a tough time bringing enough appeal and traffic to a public amenity throughout the entire day (specifically outside of typical daytime work hours) to bring about success. I completely agree with these opinions, assuming that the context is appropriate. However, regarding the Grandview public works site, I have a major fundamental difference of opinion. As a nearby resident, an engaged community member, and a daily user of the current Grandview area, I personally see continual usage of the Grandview area throughout the day and all throughout the weekends. The exception is late night usage, which is because nothing (except the grocery store) is open for people to use. If there were an attractive late -night use, and it fit the Grandview area well, people would use it. The Grandview area is already a successful commercial and service hub for the surrounding community, and has been for decades. So, for the former public works site (located in the heart of all this success and traffic), there is not a justifiable worry about people using the public component of the future development of the site, especially outside of normal working hours. Therefore, the City has a much more realistic opportunity, compared to almost any other one they have had (or any one they could ever have again), to make a successful public amenity on the Grandview site, without the need of non- public uses to tee it up. Jimmy Bennett comments, page 2 Refer to Question #14 and #15 of the Grandview Resident Survey, 92% of all respondents visit the Grandview area (75% of them, at least monthly). Regardless, of all the people that do visit the Grandview area, what are their primary purposes? Question #15 results reveal that most people visit for shopping, eating, library, live in area, service businesses, senior center, etc; no respondents visit the Grandview area to work. Thus, one can logically assume that the majority of the 4,200 daily vehicle trips on Gus Young Lane�(see the Transportation Summary), which connects various Grandview businesses and services (not serving primarily as a thru - traffic route), relate to similar visits. So, why again, do we need a development partner to, help the City develop this site? Already, plenty of people throughout the community visit the Grandview area. But the Grandview area remains incomplete, because the people's visits are primarily of the stop - and-go nature (no one stays around), so what the area needs is a public amenity as identified in the Grandview Area plan. So the big question remains, should we really consider dedicating portions of the former public works site to other non - public purposes as well? Well, people already visit the Grandview area (it is their destination), these people visit the area throughout the day and on weekends, so I believe that we do not need non - public uses (specifically residential) configured into the former public works site to justify engaging a development partner. The community did speak and say publicly -owned land should be retained and used for public purposes only (66/31). The survey did not point out an exact potential use that residents are looking for in Grandview, however, that does not mean that we should engage a development partner to vet the community needs out. The survey did illustrate that the majority of the community still desires primarily potential public uses on the site (seethe top results for Potential Uses for Land and the top results for Priority of Potential Uses), and' opposes non- public uses (the only things where the majority of respondents opposed were apartments (33/64) and townhomes /condos (44/54)). Furthermore, results from Questions #7 and #10 reveal that a strong majority of people believe that the City should create more all -age, all- income recreational opportunities (68/31) and cultural /arts opportunities (72/25). Thus, the next step should be to vet out what recreational, cultural/arts, and other public -use options, the community needs /desires; keeping in mind financial feasibility. The City should see this entire site (not just a portion) as a huge opportunity for a major public amenity that addresses the many potential uses the community desires, and be confident that there is a high potential for great success (financially, socially, and environmentally) without the need to engage a development partner `initially. After all, a 3.3 acre site, even in 3 dimensions, that"addresses necessary parking concerns, transportation concerns, anew road (Grandview Crossing), potential park- and -ride, and reserved space for a future transit station, does not leave all that much space to accommodate a variety of the public uses that the community prefers. A development partner, in essence, will have their own interests in the mix (especially financially) that will ultimately infringe upon the long -term potential for this site, as it relates to the community at large. A consultant (with a strong financial background), however, would best help to identify ideal site uses and potential configurations that will attract, and garner support of, the community, but also provide revenue in return (if not enough support is generated). If the consultant reveals that the community needs, and financial feasibility, allows "for a site completely dedicated for public uses, there would have been no use to engage a development Jimmy Bennett comments, page 3 partner initially. We all want the future development of the` former public works.site to be the most desirable place for anyone in (and outside of) Edina to visit and experience, for years and years to come. If we go forth with a development partner, instead of a consultant, I believe that we inherently lessen the chance for that. Thank you. Sincerely, Jimmy Bennett This page intentionally left blank. Grandview Resident Survey February 27, 2014 In November 2013, the City of Edina engaged the Morris Leatherman Company to poll a sample of Edina households to gauge their general interest and preferences regarding redevelopment of the former Public Works site. The questions were prepared by the consultants based on the input and direction of members of the Grandview Community Advisory Team, Edina Community Education, and Edina Parks and Recreation. The survey included some "value - oriented" questions, some general questions regarding community facilities and, more specific questions intended to identify the willingness of residents to fund potential improvements. The telephone poll was conducted in January and February 2014. Edina households were randomly selected. Traditional land -lines and cellular phones were included. This packet contains raw data and a summary analysis prepared by the Morris Leatherman Company in February 2014. Based on input from the Grandview Community Advisory Team, this information will be synthesized into a final report in March 2014. 2/24/2014 City of Edina 2014 Residential Survey The Morris Leatherman Company Value Statements 1 2014 City of Edina so - - - -- - - - - -- 66 70 51-------- 58-- - - - - -- fit - - - - -- --------- - - - - -- 60 -- -- - - - -- - - - -- 53 50 as 35 40 si -- 30 -- - -3t -- - 30 20 10 0 Not Sell Public Land Look to Generate Revenue Enough Park Space Value Greater than Revenue Public Purposes Only Agree MDisagreel The Morris Leatherman Company 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Sense of Comm Important More Rec Opps More Community Spaces Agree Disagree The Morris Leatherman Company Value Statements II 2014 City of Edina More Cultural /Art Opps Facilities to Improve 2014 City of Edina Parks n Bicycle Lanes e Trails s Senior Center s Arts Center c Braemer Golf Course 6 Braemer Ice Arena s Parking Lots 2 Scattered 2 Unsure e Nothing 42 0 20 40 60 80 100 The Morris Leatherman Company 2/24/2014 N Facilities to Expand or Add 2014 City of Edina Community Center » Bicycle Lanes Trails s Open Spaces s Parks 4 Public Art Space s Scattered 6 Unsure 9 No so 0 20 40 60 80 100 The Morris Leatherman Company Familiarity with Grandview District 2014 City of Edina Somewhat Familiar 40% The Morris Leatherman Company miliar 46% nsure 1% at all Familiar 5% Not too Familiar 9% 2/24/2014 3 Visit Grandview District 2014 City of Edina 25 23 20 15 10 5 0 Almost Daily Weekly Monthly Never 1 to 3 times /week 2 to 3 times -month Less than once a month The Morris Leatherman Company Grandview Redevelopment Framework 2014 City of Edina Yes /Very Familiar No 9% 46% Yes /Somewhat Familiar 27% Yes /Not At All Yes /Not too Familiar 2% 16% The Morris Leatherman Company 2/24/2014 17 16 15 13 - 8 - -- -8 Grandview Redevelopment Framework 2014 City of Edina Yes /Very Familiar No 9% 46% Yes /Somewhat Familiar 27% Yes /Not At All Yes /Not too Familiar 2% 16% The Morris Leatherman Company 2/24/2014 Development Preference 2014 City of Edina I I I I Public /Strongly 10 I I I I I I I I Public Amenities 27 I I I I I I I Private /Strongly 3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Private Uses 6 I I I I I I I I 1 I I I Combination /Strongly 16 I I Combination 30 I I I Unsure 9 I I I I I 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 The Morris Leatherman Company Public Amenities Indoor vs. Outdoor 2014 City of Edina Outdoor Indoor 6% _. Comt 57% The Morris Leatherman Company Unsure 7% 2/24/2014 5 Potential Uses for Land 2014 City of Edina Outdoor Plaza/Park °bi, Sitdown Restaurants 65 35 Retail Shops 65 35 i i Performing Arts Space 35 64 Multi- Purpose Rooms 41 ;59 Art Center w /Gallery 41 57 Exercise /Fitness Center 55 44 Indoor Pool /Play Area 4 53 Indoor Athletic Courts 53 4611 Office Space 4 51 Townhomes /Condos 54 Apartments 64 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 The Morris Leatherman Company Priority of Potential Uses 2014 City of Edina Outdoor Plaza/Park Exercise /Fitness Center 9 Performing Arts Space 9 Art Center w /Gallery Indoor Pool /Play Area 7 Townhomes /Condos s Multi- Purpose Rooms 6 Sitdown Restaurants 13 Indoor Athletic Courts 7 Retail Shops 9 Apartments 4 Office Space 4 All Multiple None 3 Unsure i 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 First OSecond The Morris Leatherman Company 2/24/2014 Most Opposed Potential Use 2014 City of Edina Apartments Outdoor Plaza/Park Office Space Townhomes /Condos Indoor Pool /Play Area Exercise /Fitness Center Art Center w /Gallery Sitdown Restaurants Retail Shops Performing Arts Space Multi- Purpose Rooms Indoor Athletic Courts All Multiple None Unsure 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 The Morris Leatherman Company New Community Center 2014 City of Edina Amenities to Include Support (Supporters): Fitness Center 30% 44% PAC 20% - Indoor Pool 16% - Meeting Rooms 14% Strongly Support 9% Unsure 8% Oppose Strongly Oppose PP 12% 28% The Morris Leatherman Company 2/24/2014 7 Likely Use of Community Center 2014 City of Edina Somewhat Likely 36% Very Likely 18% Unsure 1% Not too Likely 21% Not at all Likely 24% The Morris Leatherman Company Property Tax Increase for Community Center 2014 City of Edina 50 40 30 20 10 0 --3&- --------------- - - -- Property Tax Increase: $3.28 per month 19 13 12 - - - - - -- -- 01 6 6 = � M Nothing "$4.00" "$8.00" More than $10.00 "$2.00" "$6.00" "510.00" Unsure The Morris Leatherman Company 2/24/2014 8 Amenities to Include (Supporters): - Restaurants 21% - Community Center 21% - Boutique Shops 13% - Condos 12% - Big Box Retail 11% Mixed Use Project 2014 City of Edina Support 55% Oppose 21% The Morris Leatherman Company Strongly Support 10% sure Oppose 8% Arguments 2014 City of Edina 60 55 32% of Opponents 53 20% of Opponents 50 _ _ -were More Likely to - - - - _ - - - - were More Lik@ly_to_ Support Support 40 --------- 3& - --------- - - - - -- 34 30 - - - -- - - - - -- - 12 10 - - - -7 -- - - -- 0 Convert Current Community Center Reduce Tax Impact More Likely Less Likely ONo Difference The Morris Leatherman Company 2/24/2014 THE MORRIS LEATHERMAN COMPANY 3128 Dean Court Minneapolis, Minnesota 55416 EDINA RESIDENTIAL SURVEY FINAL JANUARY 2014 Hello, -I'm of the Morris Leatherman Company, a polling firm located in Minneapolis. We've been retained by the City of Edina to speak with a random sample of residents about an opportunity for publicly_owned land in the city. The survey is being taken because your city representatives and staff are interested in your opinions and suggestions. I want to assure you that all individual responses will be held strictly confidential; only summaries of the entire sample will be reported. (DO NOT PAUSE) 1. Approximately how many years have you lived in the City of Edina? LESS THAN TWO YEAR ..... 5% 2.1 TO FIVE YEARS ...... 9% 5.1 TO TEN YEARS ...... 18% 10.1 TO 20 YEARS ...... 26% 20.1 TO 30 YEARS ...... 18% OVER THIRTY YEARS ..... 24% DON'T KNOW /REFUSED..... 0% I would like to start out by reading you a list of statements about publicly -owned land and community development'in the City of Edina. For each one, please tell me if you strongly agree with it, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree or strongly disagree with it. (ROTATE) 2. The city should not sell publicly -owned land. 3. The value of publicly -owned land is greater than the revenue that can be generated from it. 4. The city should look for ways to generate revenue from the sale and development of vacant publicly -owned land. 5. Publicly -owned land should be retained and used for public purposes only. 6. The city has enough park space and does not need to add anymore. 7. A strong sense of community is important to me. 8. The city should create more community gathering spaces. 9. The city should create more recreational opportunities for people of all ages and incomes. STA SMA SMD STD DKR 30% 31% 24% 7% 9% 21% 37% 24% 6% 12% 28% 33% 22% 13% 5% 29% 37% 26% 5% 2% 28% 25% 31% 13% 4% 60% 33% 50 1% 1% 19% 36% 28% 14% 4% 28% 40% 19% 12% 20 STA SMA SMD STD DKR 10. The city should create more cultural and arts opportunities for people of all ages and incomes. 29% 430 16% 9% 30 Continuing.... The City of Edina's Vision Statement is making Edina the preeminent place for living, learning, raising families and doing business. Keeping this vision in mind.... 11. First, what existing public facilities in Edina, if any, should the City seek to improve? UNSURE, 80; NO, 42 %; BRAEMAR ICE ARENA, 3 %; BRAEMAR GOLF COURSE, 6 %; ARTS CENTER, 6 %; SENIOR CENTER, 6 %; PARKS, 11 %; TRAILS, 6 %; BICYCLE LANES, 9 %; PARKING LOTS, 2 %; SCATTERED, 2 %. 12. Second, what specific public facilities, if any, should the City should seek to expand or add? UNSURE, 9 %; NO, 50 %; COMMUNITY CENTER, 11 %; OPEN SPACES, 5 %; PARKS, 4 %; TRAILS, 6%;, BICYCLE LANES, 7 %; PUBLIC ART SPACE, 3 %; SCATTERED, 6 %. Moving on.... As you may know, the Grandview District is located near Highway 100 and Vernon Road. There are a number of businesses, including Jerry's Foods, Edina Family Physicians, Eden Avenue Grill, Starbucks and Davannis. The Edina Senior Center and public library are also located here. There are several apartment and condominium buildings in the District. 13. How familiar are you with the Grand- VERY FAMILIAR ......... 46% view district in Edina - are you SOMEWHAT FAMILIAR..... 40% very familiar, somewhat familiar, NOT TOO FAMILIAR ....... 9% not too familiar or not at all NOT AT ALL FAMILIAR .... 5% familiar? DON'T KNOW /REFUSED..... 1% 14. How often do you visit the-Grand- view district - almost daily, one to three times a week, weekly, two to three times a month, monthly, less than once a month, or never? ALMOST DAILY .......... 13% ONE /THREE TIMES WEEK..23% WEEKLY ................15% TWO /THREE TIMES MONTH.16% MONTHLY... .............8% LESS THAN ONCE MONTH..17% NEVER ..................8% DON'T KNOW /REFUSED..... 0% IF RESPONDENTS VISITS DISTRICT, ASK: (N =369) 15. What`is your primary purpose when you visit the Grand- view District? SHOPPING, 68 %; LIVE IN AREA, 4%;' RESTAURANTS, 9 %; LIBRARY, 8 %; SERVICE BUSINESSES,.4 %; MEDICAL OFFICES, 2 %; SENIOR CENTER, 2 %; SCATTERED, 2 %. From 2010 to 2012, a large group of residents prepared a potential vision for future changes that may occur in the Grandview District. The effort culminated in the formal adoption of a "Redevelopment Framework" for Grandview District. 16 Have you heard of the Grandview, Re- NO ....................46% development Framework? (IF "YES," YES /VERY FAMILIAR...... 90 ASK:)' How familiar are you with the YES /SOMEWHAT FAMILIAR.27 City's vision of the Grandview Re- YES /NOT TOO FAMILIAR.-.16% development Framework - are you, very YES /NOT AT ALL FAMI .... 2 familiar, somewhat familiar, not too DON'T KNOW /REFUSED..... 0% familiar or not at.all familiar? As you may know, the city's public works repair facility used to be located in the Grandview District. These operations were relocated to a modern facility in 2010. The former public works site is currently vacant and the city is considering potential uses for this three acre parcel of land. 17. Do you think the development of PUBLIC/STRONGLY ....... 10% this site should include only public PUBLIC.. ............27% amenities, should it be sold for PRIVATE/STRONGLY ....... 3 private use or should there be some PRIVATE ................6% combination of public amenities and COMBINATION /STRONGLY..16% private use? (WAIT FOR RESPONSE) COMBINATION ........... 30% Do you feel strongly that way? DON'T KNOW /REFUSED..... 9% IF "COMBINATION /STRONGLY" OR "COMBINATION," ASK: (N =184) 18. Approximately what percent of 25% OR LESS ........... 15% the available land should be 26% TO 49 %............23% developed for public use? 50 %........... ......34% meetings, events and classes. 17% 51% OR HIGHER ......... 23% 1% 22. UNSURE .................5% 32% 19. If public uses were developed on the INDOOR ................30% site, would you prefer them to be OUTDOOR ................6% indoor facilities, outdoor facili- COMBINATION ........... 57% ties or a combination of both? DON'T KNOW /REFUSED..... 7% I would like to read you a list of potential uses for the land. For each one, please tell me if'you strongly support it, somewhat support, somewhat oppose or strongly oppose it. (ROTATE) STS SMS SMO STO DKR 20. An outdoor plaza or park. 22% 44% 23% 11% 1% 21. Multi- purpose community rooms for meetings, events and classes. 17% 42% 25% 16% 1% 22. An exercise and fitness center. 23% 32% 27% 17% 2% 23. An indoor pool and water play area. 20% 33% 26% 21% 1% 24. Indoor athletic courts. 21% 32% 26% 20% 2% 25. A performing arts space. 2'60 38 %.22% 13% 2% 26. A community art center with a gallery. 230 34% 23% 18% 3% 27. Sit -down restaurants. 22% 43% 15% 20% 0% 28. Retail shops. 20% 45% 20% 15% 1% 29. Town homes and condominiums. 13% 31% 24% 30% 3% 30. Apartments. 9% 26% 24% 40% 2% 31. Office space. 11% 400 21% 260 3% 32. Please tell me which one, if any, of those potential uses you would place as the top priority? 33. Of,the remaining potential uses, which one would you rank as the second priority? 34. Is there any one potential you are most opposed to? (IF "YES," ASK:) Which one? TOP SEC OPP AN OUTDOOR PLAZA OR PARK .............. 14 %...11 %...12% MULTI - PURPOSE COMMUNITY ROOMS FOR MEETINGS, EVENTS CLASSES .......... 8 % .... 6 %....3% AN EXERCISE OR FITNESS CENTER ......... 13° % .... 9 % .... 7% AN INDOOR POOL AND WATER PLAY AREA ... .10 % .... 7 % .... 9% INDOOR ATHLETIC COURTS. .................5 %....70....2% A PERFORMING ARTS SPACE ............... 12 %....9 %....3% A COMMUNITY ART CENTER WITH A GALLERY ........................ 10 %...11 %....5% SIT -DOWN RESTAURANTS ...................7 %...13 %.. .4% RETAIL SHOPS .......... .................4 %....9 %....4% TOWN HOMES OR CONDOMINIUMS .............9 %....6 %...10% APARTMENTS ............ .................3 %....4 %...26% OFFICE SPACE............ .............2 %....4 %...11% ALL ( VOL.) ............ .................0 %....0 %....1% MULTIPLE ( VOL.) .. ......................1 %....0 %. .1% NONE (VOL.) .......... .................1 %....3 %....2% DON'T KNOW / REFUSED .... .................0 %....1 %....1% Continuing.... Some people have been discussing the possibility of a new Community Center in Edina. The former Grandview public works site has been mentioned as one possible location. 35. Do you support or oppose the con- struction of a new Community Center by the City of Edina on the former Grandview public works site? (WAIT FOR RESPONSE) Do you feel strongly that way> STRONGLY SUPPORT....... 9% SUPPORT ...............44% OPPOSE ................28% STRONGLY OPPOSE....... 12% DON'T KNOW /REFUSED..... 8% IF "STRONGLY SUPPORT" OR "SUPPORT," ASK: (N =212) 36. What types of amenities would you most like to see in a new Community Center on the former Grandview public works site? UNSURE, 40; FITNESS CENTER, 30 %; GYMNASIUMS, 7 %; MEETING ROOMS, 14 %; INDOOR POOL, 16 %; PERFORMING ARTS CENTER, 20 %; INDOOR ATHLETIC COURTS, 7 %; SCATTERED, 3%. 14 37. If a new Community Center were built VERY LIKELY ........... 18% at this location, how likely would SOMEWHAT LIKELY....... 36% .you or members of your household be NOT TOO LIKELY........ 21% to use the facility -- very likely, NOT AT ALL.LIKELY.....24% somewhat likely, not too likely, or DON'T KNOW /REFUSED..... 1% not at all likely? The construction and operation of a new Community Center might possibly require additional property taxes. Suppose,the City of Edina proposed a new Community Center development which you considered to be a reasonable approach. 38. How much would you be willing to NOTHING........... ..38% see your property taxes increase $2.00 ......:..........13% to fund this construction? Let's $4:00.................19% say, would you be willing to see $6.00 .................12% your monthly property taxes in- $8.00. ..............6% crease by $ ? (CHOOSE RANDOM, $10.00 ..... ...........6% STARTING POINT; MOVE UP OR DOWN MORE THAN $10.00.......3% DEPENDING ON RESPONSE) How about DON'T KNOW /REFUSED..... 4% .$ per month? With the population of Edina continuing to grow, there is a strong possibility the current Edina Community Center on Normandale Road may be converted back into classrooms for students in the future. 39. Knowing this, would you be much more MUCH MORE LIKELY...... 21% likely to support a new Community SOMEWHAT MORE LIKELY..34% Center project at the former Grand- SOMEWHAT LESS LIKELY ... 3% view public works site, somewhat MUCH LESS LIKELY....... 4% more likely, somewhat less likely NO DIFFERENCE (VOL.)..38 %' or much less likely to support a DON'T KNOW /REFUSED..... 1% new Community Center project? Moving on.... Another type of development which could be located on the Grandview public works site is a mixed -use project. A mixed -use project can include a mix of all private uses, a mix of all public uses or a mix of private and public uses. There are a few examples of mixed use projects in Edina that you might already be familiar with: Centennial Lakes, which includes a public park, retail, offices and townhomes; and Edinborough, which includes indoor public recreation space, senior apartments, offices and a hotel. 40. Would you support or oppose a de- STRONGLY SUPPORT...... 10% velopment project that includes both SUPPORT ...............55% public and private uses on the OPPOSE ................21% former Grandview public works site? STRONGLY OPPOSE........ 8% (WAIT FOR RESPONSE) Do you feel DON'T KNOW /REFUSED..... 6% strongly that way? IF ".STRONGLY SUPPORT" OR "SUPPORT," ASK: (N =261) 41. What types of services, businesses or amenities would you most like to see in a mixed -use project on the former Grandview public works site? UNSURE, 9 %; RESTAURANTS, 21 %; BIG -BOX RETAIL, 11 APARTMENTS, 5 %; CONDOMINIUMS, 12 %; BOUTIQUE SHOPS, 13 %; COMMUNITY CENTER, 21 %; PARK, 5 %: SCATTERED, 3 %. A mixed -use project with privately -owned components like resi- dential units or office space on a portion of this site could reduce the potential tax impact of constructing and operating a Community Center on the same site. 42. Knowing this, would you be much more MUCH MORE LIKELY...... 18% likely to support a mixed -use pro- SOMEWHAT MORE LIKELY..35% ject on the former Grandview public SOMEWHAT LESS LIKELY ... 6% works site, somewhat more likely, MUCH LESS LIKELY....... 6% somewhat less likely or much less NO DIFFERENCE (VOL.)..34% likely to support a mixed -used DON'T KNOW /REFUSED..... 2% project? Now, just a few more questions for demographic purposes.... Could you please tell me how many people in each of the following age groups live in your household. Let's start oldest to young- est, and be sure to include yourself.... 43. First, persons 65 or over? 44. Adults under 65? 45. School -aged children or pre- schoolers? NONE ..................66% ONE ...................20% TWO OR MORE ........... 14% NONE ..................26% ONE..... ...............20% TWO ...................50% THREE OR MORE.......... 5% NONE ..................70% ONE ...................12% TWO ...................12% THREE OR MORE.......... 6% 46. What is your age, please? 47. What is the last grade of formal education you completed? 48. Do you reside in an apartment, townhouse or condominium, or a detached single family home? 49. Do you own or rent your present residence? 18- 24 ..................3% 25- 34 .................10% 35- 44 ............. 16% 45- 54 .... ............22% 55- 64 .................22% 65 AND OVER ........... 27% REFUSED ................0% LESS THAN HIGH SCHOOL..2% HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATE ... 9% VO- TECH /TECH COLLEGE ... 6% SOME COLLEGE .......... 16% COLLEGE GRADUATE...... 49% POST - GRADUATE......... 18% REFUSED ................1% APARTMENT .............17% TOWNHOUSE /CONDO....... 24% SINGLE - FAMILY HOME .... 59% SOMETHING ELSE (VOL)...l% DON'T KNOW /REFUSED..... 0% OWN ...................75% RENT... .............25% REFUSED ................1% And now, for one final question, keeping in mind that your answers are held strictly confidential.... 50. Thinking about your household fin- STATEMENT A............2% ances, how would you describe your STATEMENT B...........27% financial situation, would you say STATEMENT C...........51% that -- STATEMENT D...........19% A) Your monthly expenses are ex- DON'T KNOW /REFUSED..... 2% ceeding your income; B) You are meeting your monthly expenses but are putting aside little or no savings; C) You are managing comfortably while putting some money aside; D) Managing very well? 51. Gender. 14ALE ..................49% FEMALE....... .......51% 52. Region of City. NE ....................25% NW......... ....25% SE ....................25% SW ....................25% Agenda Item IV. J. Resolution No. 2014 -28 Declaring Hazardous Building, 4100 Parklawn MEMORANDUM To: Edina City Council From: Soren Mattick, City Attorney Date: March 11, 2014 Re: Hazardous Building Located at 4100 Parklawn Avenue, Apt. 109 This matter is now before the Edina City Council to determine whether to declare the Subject Property a Hazardous Building. The following documents are attached to this memorandum for Council review: 1) A Proposed Resolution - Ordering the Abatement of the Hazardous Building 2) Exhibit A: This contains all evidence (documents, reports, and photographs) relating to the code violations at the Subject Property. 3) : Exhibit B: An Order for Repair and Removal of Hazardous Conditions Summary of Code Violations at 4100 Parklawn Avenue, Apt. 109 On May 15, 2013, the Edina Police Department responded to a complaint to conduct a health and safety welfare check at 4100 Parklawn Avenue, Apt. 109 in the City of Edina ( "Subject Property "). Upon arrival at approximately 4:13 a.m., police learned that Ms. Karen Brundin was asleep in the building library of the Subject Property. Ms. Brundin is the owner of the Subject Property. Police officers accompanied Ms. Brundin to her apartment. The officers observed excessive storage at the apartment, such that the officers could only open the door approximately ten (10) inches. Excessive storage including cardboard boxes, bags, and other storage items blocked the entrance and exit area of the Subject Property. Subsequently, the City of Edina obtained and executed an administrative search warrant at the Subject Property to document the code violations. Fire Marshal Jeff Siems mailed notices to the owner in an effort to have her remedy the code violations. The Fire Marshal granted the owner an extension to remedy the code violations, but the owner failed to take action to remedy the code violations. Overview of Hazardous Building Declaration Process Minnesota law permits the Edina City Council to order the repair, and abatement of hazardous conditions that exist within its city limits. Hazardous conditions include healthy, safety, and fire hazards that exist because of inadequate maintenance, dilapidation, physical damage, unsanitary condition, or abandonment. Minn. Stat. § 463.15, subdiv. 3. A condition is a hazard if it affects public safety or health. If the Edina City Council determines that the Subject Property constitutes a hazardous building, it may sign a resolution ordering the owner to abate the hazards. Once the resolution has been signed, the Order for Repair and Removal of Hazardous Conditions (Exhibit B) will be served upon the owner, Ms. Karen Brundin. Ms. Brundin will then have twenty (20) days to remedy the hazardous conditions. If she fails to comply within that time period, we will seek permission from .District Court to allow the City of Edina to abate the hazardous conditions. 174178 RESOLUTION NO. 2014 -28 CITY :OF EDINA A RESOLUTIO N RI - ORDENG ABATEMENT OF HAZARDOUS BUILDING WHEREAS, the Fire Marshal for the City of Edina has attempted without success to have the owner of certain property remedy the hazardous and unsafe condition of the uninhabitable apartment situated on property at 4100 Parklawn Avenue South Unit # 109, Edina, Minnesota 55435 ( "Subject Property"), in Hennepin County; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the building on the property constitutes a hazardous building and is a health and safety hazard within the meaning of Minn. Stat. § 463.15, subd. 3; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA: The City has fully considered all evidence relating to the code violations at the Subject Property. Said evidence is attached hereto as Exhibit A. Exhibit A includes the following documents: a. Ownership, Documents:, Parcel Data for the Subject Property for the year 2013; An Owners and Encumbrance. Report for the Subject Property dated October 24, 2013 b. Police Report and Photographs: Initial Complaint,- Edina Police Department Report from May 15, 2013 with attached photographs of the Subject Property C. Administrative Search Warrant d. Correspondence: A letter from Ms. Karen Brundin dated October 14, 2013; A letter from Fire Marshal Jeff Siems to Ms. Brundin dated December 9, 2013 e. Past Code Violations: Letters regarding violations at the Subject Property and photographs 2. After fully considering all of the reports, photographs, documents, and other evidence pertaining to the code violations at the Subject Property, the City of Edina finds: . a. Karen Lynn Brundin, 4100 Parklawn Avenue, Apt. 109, Edina, Minnesota 55435, is the owner of the Subject Property..The lienholders of the Subject Property are as follows: Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7h Street, SW, Washington, D.C. 20410; and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., P.O. Box 17339, Baltimore, Maryland 21297. b. The Fire Marshal for the City of Edina has made repeated efforts without success to have the owner, Ms. Karen Brundin, remedy the code violations. The administrative search warrant dated September 5, 2013, notified Ms. Brundin of the code violations. Ms. Brundin acknowledged the excessive storage but failed to take any action to resolve the matter. On October 14, 2013, Ms. Brundin requested an extension to remedy the code violations via letter, and the City granted her an extension. On December 9"2013, the City sent a letter requesting that Ms. Brundin schedule an inspection of the Subject Property no later than December 17, 2013. Ms. Brundin failed to respond to that letter. Resolution No. 2014 -28 Page Two C. The condition of the property located at 4100 Parklawn Avenue, Apt. 109, Edina, Minnesota 55435, in Hennepin County, is a health and safety hazard and contains a fire hazard or a.hazard to public safety or health and is therefore a Hazardous Property within the meaning of Minn. Stat. § 463.15, subd. 3. d. Piles of cardboard boxes, bags, and other storage items have blocked the front door of the Subject Property, such that, on May 15, 2013,- police officers could only open the front door approximately ten (10) inches. Officers observed that the boxes, bags, and other storage items were °piled within inches of the ceiling and blocked all view of the rest of the apartment unit. This constitutes a violation of Edina City Code -§ 605.0 1, subd. I and Minn. State Fire Code § 315.2. e. The piles of cardboard boxes, bags, and other storage items are not maintained at least 2 feet or more in non - sprinklered areas of the Subject Property or at least 18 inches below sprinklered areas of the Subject Property in violation of Edina City Code § 605.0 1, subd. I, 2; Minn. State Fire Code § 315.2.1. f. The piles of cardboard boxes, bags, and other storage items are not separated from heaters or heating devices in the Subject Property in violation of Edina City Code § 605:01, subd. I and Minn. State Fire Code § 315.2. g. The piles of cardboard boxes, bags, and other storage items are stored near exits, making access into and out of the Subject Property nearly impossible in violation of Edina City Code § 605.0 1, subd. I and Minn. State Fire Code § 315.2.2. Said storage obstructs and impedes the ability to exit in the case of a fire or other emergency in violation of Edina City Code § 605.0 1, subd. 2, 3; Minn. Admin. R. 751 1.1028.2, 7511.1028.3; and International Property Maintenance Code (IPMC) § 702.1. 3. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes § 463.16 et seq., the City hereby adopts and approves the Order for Repair and Removal of Hazardous Conditions attached hereto as Exhibit B. 4. The City's legal counsel, Campbell Knutson, P.A., 317 Eagandale Office Center, 1380 Corporate Center Curve, Eagan, Minnesota 55121, is directed to serve the Order for Repair and Removal of Hazardous Conditions and to proceed with enforcement in accordance with Minn. Stat. § 463.15 et seq. ADOPTED this 18th day of March, 2014, by the City Council of the City of Edina, Minnesota. Attest: Debra A. Mangen, City Clerk STATE OF MINNESOTA) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) SS CITY OF EDINA ) CERTIFICATE OF CITY CLERK James B. Hovland, Mayor 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 March 4, 2014, and as recorded in the Minutes of said Regular Meeting. WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this day of City Clerk 174057 Exhibit A pHntdetails.jsp Page 1 of 2 Parcel Data for Taxes Payable 2013 Property ID: 31- 026 -24 -41 -0023 Building Market Address: 4100 PARKLAWN AVE #109 Municipality: EDINA Qualifying Improvements School Dist: 273 Construction year: 1970 Watershed: 1 Approx. Parcel Size: IRREGULAR Sewer Dist: Owner Name: KAREN LYNN BRUNDIN Taxpayer Name KAREN LYNN BRUNDIN & Address: 4100 PARKLAWN AV #109 EDINA MN 55435 Sale Information Sales prices are reported as listed on the Certificate of Real Estate Value and are not warranted to represent arms - length transactions. Sale Date: November, 2005 Sale Price: $5,693 Transaction Type: J Tax Parcel Descriotion The following Is the County Auditor's description of this tax parcel. It may not be the legal descriptlon on the most recent conveyance document recording ownership. Please refer to the legal description of this property on the public record when preparing legal documents for recording Addition Name: APARTMENT OWNERSHIP NO. 0088 HEATHERTON OF EDINA CONDOMINIUMS Lot: Block: First Line Metes & Bounds: APT # 109 Full Metes & Bounds: Note: To read full tax parcel description, click here. Abstract or Torrens: TORRENS Value and Tax Summary for Taxes Payable 2013 Values Established by Assessor as of January 2, 2012 Estimated Market Value: $80,000 Taxable Market Value: $49,960 Total Improvement Amount: Total Net Tax: Total Special Assessments: Solid Waste Fee: Total Tax: $758.38 Ezpa d,f.r d.tails- Property Information Detail for Taxes Payable 2013 Values Established by Assessor as of January 2, 2012 Values: Land Market $20,000 Building Market $60,000 Machinery Market Total Market: 480,000 Qualifying Improvements Veterans Exclusion Homestead Market Value Exclusion $30,040 Classifications: http: / /www l 6.co.hennepin.mn.us /pins /printdetails.j sp?pid= 3102824410023 10/17/2013 pi-intdetails.jsp Property Type CONDOMINIUM Homestead Status HOMESTEAD Relative Homestead Agricultural Exempt Status Page 2 of 2 http: / /wwwl6.co.hennepin.mn.us /pins /printdetails.jsp ?pid= 3102824410023 10/17/2013 First American Title Insurance Company 701 Xenia Avenue South, Ste 450 Golden Valley, MN 55416 October 24, 2013 Jean Olson Campbell Knutson PA 1380 Corporate Center Curve, STE 317 Eagan, MN 55121 Phone: (651)234-6212 Fax: (651)452 75550 Any inquiries concerning this Owners and Encumbrance Report, please call the Customer. Service Department at (763)852 -3800 or mproducdon @flrstam.com. Order Number: 1330435 Borrower: Brandin Property: 4100 Parklawn Avenue #109 Edina, Minnesota Attached please find the following Item(s): Owners and Encumbrances Report Thank You for your confidence and support. Customer First. OWNERS AND ENCUMBRANCES REPORT File No. 1330435 For the exclusive use of Campbell Knutson PA Effective Date of this Report: September 30, 2013, at 7:00 A.M. On Real Estate described as: Apartment Number 109, and 1.13013 percent of undivided interest in the common areas and facilities, Apartment Ownership No. 88, Heatherton of Edina Condominiums, Hennepin County, Minnesota. NOTE: This property Is Torrens, the Torrens Certificate No. Is 561582. The County Recorders or Register of Titles records indicate that: A. The Grantees on the last deed of conveyance, are: Karen Lynn Brundin B. The Real Estate is encumbered by the following Mortgages, Contract for Deeds, and other liens, including: Mechanic's Liens, Tax Liens, Bankruptcies and Judgments: 1. A mortgage to secure an original principal Indebtedness of $228,000.00, and any other amounts or obligations secured thereby, recorded October 20, 2006 as Doc. No. 4318466 of Official Records. Dated: February 27, 2006 Mortgagor: Karen Lynn Brundin, a single person Mortgagee: Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. 2. A mortgage to secure an original principal indebtedness of $228,000.00, and any other amounts or obligations secured thereby, recorded October 20, 2006 as Doc. No. 4318467 of Official Records. Dated: February 27, 2006 Mortgagor: Karen Lynn Brundin, a single person Mortgagee: Secretary of Housing and Urban Development NOTE: A name search of Karen Lynn.Brundin has not been completed at the request of the customer. The County Tax Records Indicate that the real estate taxes are: Taxes currently due and payable In 2013 are UNPAID Amount: $ 758.38 PIN: 31- 028 -24 -41 -0023 Homestead or non- homestead: Homestead Delinquent taxes: 2013 Address: 4100 Parklawn Avenue #109, Edina, MN Estimated Market Value: $ 80,000.00 This Report Is limited to only the information described above. This Report specifically does not Include Information relating to: a. Rights of dower, curtesy, homestead, or other marital rights of spouse if any, of any Individual shown. b. Any lien, or right to lien, for services, labor or materials heretofore or hereafter furnished or Imposed by law. C. Any encroachments, measurements,,party walls, overlaps, boundary line disputes, or other matters which would be disclosed by an accurate survey or Inspection of the real estate. d. Easements, or claims of easements. e. Rights or claims of parties in possession not shown by the public records. Minerals and mineral rights. g. Covenants, conditions, and restrictions. h. Levied and /or pending special assessments. This report Is not nor Is to be construed as, an Abstract of Title, title opinion, or title Insurance policy. The total liability of this Company by reason of losses and damages that may occur by reason of any errors and omissions in this Company's report, Is limited to the fee It received for the preparation and Issuance of this report. Poli*ce Report and t= Type: ❑ Garbage/Refuse ❑ Recycling ❑ Public Nuisance ❑ Public Health Nuisance ❑ Freedom to Breathe COMPLAINT RECORD Edina Health Department Date: 5/13/13 ❑ Housing ❑ Food El. Pools ❑ Other:. FIRE Complaint. Location: 4100 Parklawn Ave.—Unit # 109_ Owner: Owners Address: Complainant: Laural Spande Complainant Address: 4100 Parklawn Ave. Unit #110 Complainant Telephone (If) _651- 775 -2935 (W) Received by: _Brown — Forwarded to Jeff Siems (Fire Dept.) Nature of Complaint: Resident (Karen) is sleeping in common areas of condo complex, and using laundry room for hygiene purposes, as her unit is full of belongings. Complainant states that management is investigating and has taken pictures inside the unit. She indicated that the door to the unit can barely open because of the accumulation of items in front of the door. This unit has a history of accumulating items, but not of unsanitary, conditions. Complainant said she spoke with resident, who indicated her heating /cooling system was not working. Egress from the unit may be an issue. Report of Investigation: Comments: Inspection Date: Compliance Date: Date of Referral: 5/13/13 Refer to: ❑ Planning ❑ Building ❑ Animal Control 13 Park/Weeds ❑ Other ' N C I D Agency Name Edina Police Department INUIUCNI` /INVC,IIUAI1UN REPORT Case# 13- 001029 OR1 MN0270600 Date / Time Reported 5152 3 d Last Known Secure 0 Location of Incident 4100 Parklawn Av Apt. 109, Edina MN 55435- Premise Type Zone/Tract B2 At Found 05/15/2013 0 3 E N T # Crime Incident(s) (Corn) Mp -misc Pub- welfare Check MP- WELFARE CHECK M Weapon / Tools NONE cavity Entry Exit Security D A T A #2 Crime Incident Weapon / Tools Activity Entry Exit Security #3 Crime Incident ( ) Weapon /Tools Activity Entry it Security MO # of victims 0 Type: Injury: V I Victim/Business `T Name (Last, First, Middle) Victim o Crime # DOB Age Rac' S Relationship To Offender Resident Status Military Branch/Status THome I Address Home Phone M Employer Name/Addmss Business Phone Mobile Phone VYR I Make Model Style Color. Lic/Lis VIN CODES: V- Victim (Denote V2, V3) 0 = Owner if other than victim) R = Reporting Person (if other than victim) 0 Type: INDIVIDUAL/ NOT LAW ENFORCEMENT Injury: T H E Code Name (Last, First, Middle) SPANDE," LAURA BETH V ctim Berne DOB 12114/1961 Age S] Rac W Se F Relationship To Offender Resident Status Resident Military Bn h/Status R S Home Address 4100 Parklawn Av -110 Edina, AN 55435 Home Phone 651 -775 -2935 I Employer Name/Address Business Phone Mobile Phone 651 -775 -2935 N V Type: INDIVIDUAL/ NOT LAW ENFORCEMENT Injury: 0 L V Code IO Name s ) (Last First, Middle) BRUNDIN,KARENLYNN Victim o Crime# DOB 1210811940 Age 72 Rae W S F Relationship . Resident To Offender Status Resident Military Branch/Status E D Home Address 4100 Parklawn Av -109 Edina, AN 55435 Home Phone 952 -250 -0740 Employer Name/Address Business Phone Mobile Phone ]=None 2 = Bumed 3 =Counterfeit/ Forged 4 = Damaged / Vandalized 5 = Recovered 6 = Seized 7 = Stolen 8 = Unknown "OP' = Recovered for Other Jurisdiction VI Cod Status Value 0J OTY Property Description Make/Model Serial Number P R 0 P E R T Y Officer/ID# LA MANNA J. 106 Invest ID# 0 Supervisor ROFIDAL, K. 154 Statu Complainant Signature Case Status Inact1w- adrntn Closed Case Disposition: Pagel Frinted By: MNIBBE, MNIBBE Sys#: 225319 07/16/2013 11:01:59 INCIDENTIINVESTIGATION REPORT By:MNIBBE,MNIBBE 07/16/201311:02 Edina Police Department Page 2 Case# 13- 001029 Status 1 = None 2 = Burned 3 = Counterfeit / Forged 4 = Damaged / Vandalized 5 = Recovered 6 = Seized 7 = Stolen 8 = Unknown Codes IBR Statu Quantity Type Measure Suspected Type Up to 3 types of activity D R U G S i Assisting Officers YOUNG, S. (196), SEEGER, M. (163); DIESEL, (12), PESEK, N. (192) Suspect Hate / Bias Motivated: Narr. (cont.) OCA: 13- 001029 NARRATIVE INCIDENT /INVESTIGATION REPORT Edina Police Department Page 2 REPORTING OFFICER NARRATIVE Edina Police Deparhnent 13- 001029 Victim Offense Date / Time Reported MP-MISC P UB- WELFARE CHECK Wed 0511512013 04:13 THE INFORMATION BELOW IS CONFIDENTIAL - FOR USE BY AUTHORIZED PERSONNEL ONLY On 05 -15 -2013 at approximately 0413 hours I, Officer Jamie La Manna and Officer Sean young were dispatched to 4100 Parklawn Ave, to check the welfare of Karen Lynn Brandin. Reporting party Laura Beth Spande, Br ndiri s neighbor, was reporting that Brandin has been sleeping in common areas of the building. Upon arrival I spoke with Spande who stated Brandin was asleep in the building library. Spande stated she believed Brandin was sleeping in the common areas because she had stock piled belongings to a point where she could no longer gain access to her own apartment. Spande stated she finally contacted the police department because she could not access her storage unit, which is adjacent to Brundin's, because of all the property she is keeping. I asked Spande how long this has been going on for and she said approximately eighteen months. I found Brandin asleep in the building library as Spande stated she would be. I woke Brandin up and asked her why she was asleep in the library. Brandin stated she slept in the library because she needed to be awake early to take care of moving stuff from her storage unit before work. I asked Brandin why the library would be more comfortable than her home and she kept reiterating she needed to be awake early. I accompanied Brandin back to her apartment and asked her to open the door to make sure she could return to her unit safely. Brandin used her keys to open the door and explained that she was in the process of moving some of her belongings and could not open the door very far. I tried to assist Brandin in opening the door to her apartment and I was only able to open the door about ten inches. I observed various boxes and bags stacked within inches of the ceiling in the hallway behind the door. The volume of boxes and bags prevented the front door from being open. I was unable to see past the boxes and bags to determine the condition of the rest of the apartment. I asked Brandin when she was last in her apartment and she stated "before the weekend." Given the observed condition of the home and call history the case should be referred to Adult Protection Services and the city Sanitarian. The apartment also appears to pose a great fire danger. See case number 08- 000240 for additional information. Reporting Officer: LA MANNA, J. Page 3 Printed By: MNIBBE, MNIBSBE 07/16/2013 11:02 _ _ °_ _ - - - -_ -= - = - - - - - - _ _ = .- _ _ __ - -L z - -- - _ _- = =- ___ -- - _ - - - _ _ - - - - - _ - _ - -° _ = _ - = _ _ -- _ __ _ T - - - __ _ - -- = = _ _ - _ = f. = - - _= _ _ T - - -- - - _ - -� - _ _ - _ __ - - :r _ - - - - - - - - - - _ =_ _ - - - = _ =� _- _ _ - _ - - _ = =- - r T = -- = _ __ _ - _ - _ - . �- ;.. - - _ _ - T- �� - _ _ _ - -- _ -_ _ - - _ _ - - _ - 11 _- _- - = = = - - - - - = _ - - _ - -- _ __ = _ -_ - ��r 11 - _ _ - - __ _ _ _ _ - = - - _ - - y T r - - - _- _ = _ __ - �� T_ - -_ _ - _._ - - -- - - - -- _ _ - -� = - - _ = = - - - _ - _ _ _ - -= -= - - - - - �- -- - -_ - = - - - - _ _- - - _ _- �_ - - - -- - _ - -__ z_- - -- _ _ -._ _ - -- = - =... __ _._ __ _- - _ - -- -- _ =z.= - - - - - _ - - _: - - - - - - - _ r _= - _ _ __ = _ -_ - - _- - -- -L -- -�_ - _- - - - _ - - - __ _ _ - _ - = _= = = - _ - _ _ -- - - - _ - __ _- - -_ _ _ - - -_ _ -_ _ - - - - - -- - - - -- -- _ - - - -T - - -- _ -_ - __ - - = -- _:- - - -- - w Ta j - - _ Af r , lz rr- w Ta j I i 1 1 5 I 11 I I I it I V 1 I �I I I 111 IF ' I I J Fj I 1� 111 II i oi1u '� T- till 1 III I fi t� 11 Jir 1. II I I I I I I I 1 I f ( I I I II 4 11 I I II I III ' I I;I I rvI I. I 1 I' I III I • I� I 'I I r. r7 II ::il I I I I I I I I I I I I L 1' I I" I -� 11 ,1, I ,: I I ;• I I ,f l�; r '. I i �I it I VIII d'; I I 1jI N I I• I 1 I li., III ICI, I I I .: I I I I "; , I I Ir I I I l ..rl IFI I H 1 III I I I n1, I I I I I I I 11 1 ', r alM1 -1 I.'I• I'• r i I I r ., III '� II4 f I.i III IIII.'.::(( I III 11� VIII 1 ( 1 , lfl IIII IIIIII :'� 11,p� 1,1171 II III III I�d( f f III III, JI il'IIII III l 1 II III(IIIIII ��IIIIII 1114E I IIII 1, (lI� IIi II III , ' 111'• II' If "III4 111 II :i ', ;'�II� ':I I I I 11.11,: I I , IIII I IIIIIr• , 11� if �� if ', I 11 ;;r ' � ' i �� 1 ' I I :• I I;� JI II I 111 -I I JI�� I i �� I I (i,. �I I II III I.; '� I ,•.I I _I�:. I i' I I 1 �• I IIII I I I I I �II�4Fry'a I I I i�;' 4 ft 1 I I ' I IIIIIF ( y 'I, li �. .: ', , � :. .I 111 if I��I I' III, •� 1111 I III f I I�I ' ' (1:1 I 1 ,, Iljfl ll '1� �:Il I I 'il I J l IIII Ili'. I 'Mc I At I I { ifI I a. IJ I4 IIII I fIl it 1 1 I I 111 I111111�� J � I'I III'(t IIIIII IJ'll I' I.I IIII IIi 1711 11 I i 1 1 5 I 11 I I I it I V 1 I �I I I 111 IF ' I I J Fj I 1� 111 II i oi1u '� T- till 1 III I fi t� 11 Jir 1. II I I I I I I I 1 I f ( I I I II 4 11 I I II I III ' I I;I I rvI I. I 1 I' I III I • I� I 'I I r. r7 II ::il Admi*nistr'ati*ve Search Warrant STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN DISTRICT COURT FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT STATE .OF MINNESOTA ) APPLICATION FOR )ss ADMINISTRATIVE SEARCH COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) WARRANT AND SUPPORTING AFFIDAVIT Sean Young being first duly sworn upon oath, hereby makes application to this Court for a warrant to search the premises hereinafter described, for the things hereinafter described. Affiant knows the contents of this application and supporting affidavit, and the statements herein are true of his own knowledge, save as to such as are herein stated on information and belief, and as to those, he believes them to be true. Affiant has good reason to believe, and does believe, that the following described things exist at the premises, to -wit: The premises located at 4100 Parklawn Avenue, Apartment 109 ( "Subject Property "), -City of Edina, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, contains excessive storage of materials that block means of egress from the Subject Property and create an unsafe condition in violation of the Minnesota State Fire Code. This affiant applies for issuance of a search warrant upon the preceding grounds. The facts tending to establish the grounds for issuance of an administrative search warrant are as follows: Your-a(rant -is -Seam loung,- a-peFlice- officer -for - the - City- of-Edina -0n- May -1-5, - _- 2013, your affiant was dispatched to check on the welfare of Karen. Lynn Brundin in response to a neighbor's complaint that Brundin was sleeping in a common area of her apartment building Your affiant and Edina Police Officer Jamie La Manna initiated a welfare check at 4100 Parklawn Avenue where the officers found Brundin sleeping in the apartment building's library. The officers asked Brundin why she was sleeping in the library instead of her apartment, and 171732 ' 1 Brundin responded that she needed to wake up early to move items to her storage unit. The officers escorted Brundin back to her apartment unit to make sure that she could safely access her unit. The officers observed that Brundin could only open the front door to the Subject Property about ten inches because it was blocked by a large volume of boxes, bags and other items. The officers observed that the boxes and bags were piled within inches of the ceiling and blocked all view of the rest of the apartment unit. Based on your affiant's observations of the Subject Property, your affiant has probable cause to believe that the Subject Property contains inadequate means of egress and excessive storage of combustible materials creating unsafe conditions and afire hazard under the" Minnesota State Fire Code. The unsafe conditions must be abated immediately pursuant to the provisions of Minnesota State Fire Code Section 110 WHEREFORE, affiant requests that an administrative search warrant be issued authorizing Sean Young and his designated agents to enter the Subject Property and to search inside the Subject Property for the existence of Fire Code violations, evidence of unsafe conditions, and other safety hazards. Subs and swo o efo a me this r ay of 414, 2013 171732 2 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN DISTRICT COURT FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE SEARCH WARRANT TO: SEAN YOUNG, CITY OF EDINA WHEREAS, Sean Young has this day on oath, made application to this Court applying for issuance of an administrative search warrant to search inside and outside of the following described premises: 4100 Parklawn Avenue, Apartment 109, City of Edina, County:of Hennepin, and State of Minnesota (Subject Property), for the following described things: Minnesota State Fire Code violations, City Code violations, evidence of unsafe conditions, and other safety hazards; WHEREAS, the application and affidavit were presented and read by the Court, NOW, THEREFORE, the Court fords that cause exists for the issuance of an - administrative search warrant upon the following grounds: Minnesota State Fire Code violations, unsafe conditions, and fire hazards exist upon the Subject Property and an interior inspection is required to determine the extent and severity of such conditions. NOW, THEREFORE, SEAN YOUNG and his designated agents are hereby commanded to enter the Subject Property and to search inside and outside the Subject Property for the existence of Minnesota State Fire Code violations, evidence of unsafe conditions, and other safetyliazar s------ - - - -'- Dated: -,-� i� , 2013 171732 BY THE COURT: Ju District Court , >�ler -f t . E 'I IIIr r II Illy I ,IIII . tl s II III .Ili 1r L k IIIIII III I t' I I II 9 III I, I ' 1 �IIIIn� '1. lal I�Iea lrl t� �Ip 1 '.I; II dl I VI11' I' y I I'I I'JsI rl I� III I WAH 1411 ;:I VI� I k r I , � 1 1 1111 Il I�I f� I II II Gy 41 111 II II 69 111 Ill 9, - IIt SIR I 1 On lot �' I9111� III -' I, flll�l:hllflllll„ ''' �� r IE�I '�'llil• � v Ip41 9 II II'Iii I F I I r f Ir 11111 i li f 1 li 14 :Ill It�J -- r - I - I I�r j44i11r�{ 31' Ii IIIE� 1 1 1Ii 11 1 J f 1 III LNI II l l r I�td11 I rl r I I I 11 �aI i1 li I _' Es I r2° III, II 74'I��r� l �IIiI� ialIII`f,rtslri 1 a a,l "rl l - I '1 'i I t�- Y I i i IC!Ril 1 d jffl 1191 (p I . 1 j1 I I P t �i l II I pin l li ir1l II I e rl s ra s :I. IIIIII I E I14k I iltp,, I Is I I tnI ' f p .r II li!. IIf1'illll ��I11' 1111s4 3 J1 � € I. I 1 'IIIIII A. f I p I I F f yt� I,V 11 11i I II'' � d �I , III IIII q �f 6 1r W -.� I III �I1': I � I _ �y Ill § I 1 I. Ira F 1 �e r Ii VII II J'4 4 III , gi a t y ' 54 1 lrrr is s I1r 'y lfll jR4yl�rli �7rt , 1111j111:, it f r � V. M.1 r I I II �� 11I i Ir �II , t I � I IJII;I q1 II j1I Illt yl"r , I �, I - H' IIIII1i'.rll6� I I I�Flhll FflI4) PiI it f'ly §I '� II I I -I Ij I Id ri' 1 Ill lj �I II E�N4 aallfl I� j„ maim f 1lllil F I II d€ I NII 1 11111111111 Ild Jr 11�'',t f ' of iy� . -il •, I 1 :; 4i 11 . ,; t -'.! r 'aG Ila f i @I t ,I .lr YI -r 1 11 a l 'IIti ,I .. _ s I .I ...,.: i,.,r� _ istC II I I II �1% 11r�1 l II�1891 11 In I�14illl111, I' III I'l II' I iI jll .I I 1 1�1�1i��I � IIIIII III I'I II II 1 i I .r 1 I I. 1 I I I I 111 1� I II III a I' II I ' I I I I I I Ili , 1 „ II ! II II IL. ,I'I IIP I:��I iI II 1 a, 111 I IIII -l1 al , 1 10 'TI I Lj I'IL {� h I Ia�41;k,r a`r �a I f.;7J Its I '41111PIn '111 411 u `i�ti I I I. � I � i I 1�'I If2 JIII'' I'I 9lrk �r 1 I t 1 �k; • I LI � V.� ,I I I ?i I I I, � I I 4141 :i I. p.!vIr fk ., :I'I) 4 IiuI 41 1141, ,, }. ;� IPIIJF iai111111'IJI Id'I' I' I'I 1 I: •I II II `.II II I,.., {I 11 , iYl- np -1 II h III 4 111 r'I Y r I h P I I I (I III 1 1 III IIIIII 1 1 11 I I I I I I • 'rll. ( ;�I � (IIIIII' I l 1 111'1 I I ' I I 411, 141 I1 14 I ' Ir J. I 1' 111, I 1 I 1 I pull I Idfli111 jq�Ir'lli' 41IIhIIII IIIr11 IIII IIII' I'' I I I u 6,1 VII nlllyll ll��'�ulJf'1 �1��1�Ir�li. 'III IIIIII II 1 ..il Ili .42. ....'�'� J��E''i111 I �� I lull IIla1V1.11�,11 1 r�!1'I J Jp1 a41J3 � II��L IJI_ 1 1V I. IIIIII ' 1 11 ' I I? 1 1141' I 1 I I. � n1�111 it �' FF'0', l I of l II 11141 Ill 'I I I I I�I ll it I ll I� I' ' IIIIII , 1 F k p- I I Id1 1 �i. ,'.I ,n fill IIII I IIII III IIIIII , rl mlrlj4 P Ili' 11 I III I III' I q Ve I II ll' I n11 11 F '1 '' t Sol it III IIII i, 1 a 11Jh1:' ,II ! J-`I III p'11�411q hI IIL11! 1 III! Il '!P A1I II JIM al., ',y I val ., II> n1. L. t' lrljryf 'rl 1 I �, I I I a.ils�^t�lr tltfl - '� I ' J'� I, IFjI IIJF I��t941VI IILIiY -3 I IILII fl':'i IIII Ill �I''I'I II' I �1 II ' ' IIII. I 'is LI h Ir_I V I+ 111JI11111 l' r Ii4 d��flV„ „l ' I I qlf, °�'�1�I'rld.�Itrlt I LI 1�F IIII i 1 „ II ! II II IL. ,I'I IIP I:��I iI II 1 a, 111 I IIII -l1 al , 1 10 'TI I Lj I'IL {� h I Ia�41;k,r a`r �a I f.;7J Its I '41111PIn '111 411 u `i�ti I I I. � I � i I 1�'I If2 JIII'' I'I 9lrk �r 1 I t 1 �k; • I LI � V.� ,I I I ?i I I I, � I I 4141 :i I. p.!vIr fk ., :I'I) 4 IiuI 41 1141, ,, }. ;� IPIIJF iai111111'IJI Id'I' I' I'I 1 I: •I II II `.II II I,.., {I 11 , iYl- np -1 II h III 4 111 r'I Y r I h P I I I (I III 1 1 III IIIIII 1 1 11 I I I I I I • 'rll. ( ;�I � (IIIIII' I l 1 111'1 I I ' I I 411, 141 I1 14 I ' Ir J. I 1' 111, I 1 I 1 I pull I Idfli111 jq�Ir'lli' 41IIhIIII IIIr11 IIII IIII' I'' I I I u 6,1 VII nlllyll ll��'�ulJf'1 �1��1�Ir�li. 'III IIIIII II 1 ..il Ili .42. ....'�'� J��E''i111 I �� I lull IIla1V1.11�,11 1 r�!1'I J Jp1 a41J3 � II��L IJI_ 1 1V I. IIIIII ' 1 11 ' I I? 1 1141' I 1 I I. � n1�111 it �' FF'0', l I of l II 11141 Ill 'I I I I I�I ll it I ll I� I' ' IIIIII , 1 F k p- I I Id1 1 �i. ,'.I ,n fill IIII I IIII III IIIIII , rl mlrlj4 P Ili' 11 I III I III' I q Ve I II ll' I n11 11 F '1 '' t Sol it III IIII i, 1 a 11Jh1:' ,II ! J-`I III p'11�411q hI IIL11! 1 III! Il '!P A1I II JIM al., ',y I val ., II> n1. L. .I '� Ify N4N11 - rIIL IIIF le ' i I k I' , Yl li l IF all 1 1 I' I I.� f l I NE i111ljI 1 -1" Ffi'I- I �IIk 1 "dl I191I I ,�a I. 11 rl I l v �I I�lp.�'i �I 11.IIjI iy�ll 11 II III I�L II I Iii 4 I. y � I' dl �I «fill li i l I !I 1 i I I ai i-mq I, II I I lil �� k �F 11 I I k+l I I III aE , " 1 l i doer MINN is ,.1 ..L:; 1 L. •� .. III 1 'i pl r I ! I 1 ,Idf i. •, .� x I Iff 1,-Y4 i.t mid ._iI11 j!`r. - I 1 .ii,„i s-�,�t"lMh IN �fy j�Ial, illr ' e�I1 jj€hIy:,.aam.l � I I I I 'il I I. I I 1 1 HIM ngi I I I I i II I I 1 16I I I I I •I i� � I � III i 2 I•��I � l I pl : - II ' _ _.,, _ '.. it lull I Ii III I _, ' t l w•. .Ji .�, . I. r � � I lI1 t ..n:l I iu -e Z\ r -1-17� & � � �� / ! is I. !114a IPI I , I IIII Iti 11 1 rI 9'9I t_ I ui�'I I flJ _ I III �I I x VIII I I �rypg Intl i �' Sll anNJ f��IJI1��aah�Hl a, �I .rWN: - 'II'.. III L11. •':. a f Ihll�l j lal 1 ! I ; ! '7111 ,l I I�,1 v IIII li laefll; II�1 III .I'II IIII I i Jl,71 I r i I i Il:lll I I I I ..L. •I e' llu I I " P11 ; I II i III Ip ' I I I , I "I I Ip "' hI'I +li!ty III I, I I'�h'ILIIl1 I' 111 �I .IIII VI1611�I!I I I ,Iii. ,n1y ry Y1 II ylFrl! ,- I 1. P 111"1111 I : „i I I i�u;:gllll��l I;I�II, �II'IIII i � )iia I IJ'11 I,II,', I 1 it ,,I i 1o'ill'' "I' 1111'!11:1! II I I I l I II I I, ' ,r� IIII I I II1 111 i.. J.I.. II LI AEI IIII lljl NqIj 11rd 1 rI 9'9I t_ I ui�'I I flJ _ I III �I I x VIII �rypg Intl i �' Sll anNJ f��IJI1��aah�Hl a, �I .rWN: - 'II'.. III L11. •':. ht {�. �I1,jI� III ,II� 'IBIIv 4Ni; +1 i nN ndJ, r s, I r;,il 1 I II II e li � u Iu,I �y,If �hJ�f,r E � ; pI I � II it �Irll,�lu;ll t h6 I' �f � 14 I 1 i, I� I]ItErti I �I II - : L.I lat I�NpLI I el N.r !: - IIII r i+ Ii III I ill .. I III 9 IIh1h1 ,i11! ,I 1,011 I.i VIII ,. !r IlilF 1 I, tIII�II, Ir tl I s I I1 11I rl I11Y 111149 I III I {;. tiw � 5q � I I � I III f p III I I �4 IIIII!q'I;III. hta; r II(� "III„ i J Ji €19�� 9 h� :l Ilh I1 III i t � I I I I' s llatdl9m! I I vp`IF I �:I4r! I Iti I3 II mJ �'t I! I I �. iI nrNrl[ n II IIII I. I;I S1rl it €s,�tl�s�''I 1'Iilll Ilfllllll ,' 111 11 III 11 II ;9t 4 ; it II F I I 1 I Y a IIII .,.I If 1 III rt Lim I��1� t5111�1!'C I h r' b.k II d .,._ .y : -.I .. -.r .. -.. . -. _ l� € = � q I la lir III. !III .'.IIII LII II d, ' d ,, -. -[ 1 x,.. .i 1 r, '•,; tj r:id 1 Ilr i,.i is -:r 1 � I I �I 1 I I II I , ;'F, I 1.. I III 'IL "I � r; JI11:. I a J;,llt ;1 , � IILIIL i I I lit ,.I I IIII, I :I. II „I� I r,l ,.11 1'111 I 11 1� •:,P' II,III LII I .III ;I•' I,. � Ili� I jl I -illll t�III':.I I I ,�:4 'II':I (. III .1'.i' IIII III,I� Ill I � 'l III I,I ,: ,.I• I II IJN:L ,I, .III i�,1 I, 1111111 IIII yl. Pi IL 'L� ql 'I '•'I Lx Il,,rilll l i,il rl k h'�.14;I r - I II,;�Ir l•:1 ! 11 ,I: � .s!:!'�I',1 1;1'' ,. .:,•,nJ t I: rl',Il..e'� I!lhl IIII, I III ' 1111 I i i.l 1 I. i I a:�iiillNil ., ','� a Ix 6 IL,. ;;,I !� IIII ! q! !l+ { ,I it n4 ' I li hlt1' I�!1i III 11111, 111 1 I III 7 tv III II I: 1 ,l .+ll 111 lull III tll�l tII �It, I I. , atI II, F_' �L1i jj �I a Ili i r �I } 1:1 it 11 t 1 ! I i 1 �! � I i' I 11'1 i' 11,11,1 I III i 11 1 I Ill III I Ik !LII II III. 111 �I I; II, IIII IIII_., I .I aili 1'..I 1 t.,. J I,, I,I: ,I. ;1; L ! 11. 1 1. 1 TVA Tp IAI!h I I �IIIIIOIIIiiIiG 11 I ' 'I�PIIi� u III, t' Illhidll'$ VIII o ' 111 I�'tII I i�1I' 'I III III IIIIII? la l''y it Noll ' ,lllulll gi�I p: "'IIII I II;Ii II "; I IIII �il'i i I I' III l u�ylt .ILI. ItP IIII (1 11 1 41 111 i III , �ro VIII IAI! I S I lil 'I Illli r 411 y i. h tl I I �i1 •. #III B,Ib;�l I; 1110C _I�I hi�'1111 t4 2f� I rili'I IAI!h I I �IIIIIOIIIiiIiG 11 I ' 'I�PIIi� u III, t' Illhidll'$ VIII o ' 111 I�'tII I i�1I' 'I III III IIIIII? la l''y it Noll ' ,lllulll gi�I p: "'IIII I II;Ii II "; I IIII �il'i i I I' III l u�ylt .ILI. ItP IIII (1 11 1 41 111 i III , �ro VIII IAI! I S I lil 'I Illli r 411 y i. h tl I I �i1 •. #III �I IIII I � '" hll� 1110C _I�I hi�'1111 t4 2f� I rili'I - 4i1 I, IT i!il III IIjVlllll i'ldl i IIIM IIIIII Ip111I1'l 11��I11, ` '1 u II III l�nlll Id I Ic I III IIII Ili 14' +1111 i I 9'1 III III ,�j i1r liI'I I I II� ' I III�Itl III LIII hlllll 1111 II III ��i I � � I II Illl'lll ll I I '� I I'I I II III I �� III 'IIII IIII IIIIII IIII !Ib,lpll,IIII,I.,' I ,I� IIII ��. JJ I;ll,ll III �api'��m��Fp�' llllh I I 1 PI �t� I I I.� II ll� IIII I I I�IIIIIIIIIIUII I IIII aIW� �'I I_!'" III II� III III — I11� IIII Ilia' Idl 1!1,,,11111 11111 IIII I- IIIIII I F IYJ'�Iilil ;IIII I I; li,i. J 11111 Dull II I I I Irl Ilty 1 1 LI�ill I 11' Ohl' til III II I I IIII I'� rlll'jllll IIII II �ILrl�,�t 1 IvpulItlt Ili ' ill Ij�IFI 4fa X111 I . t•li ' IIIII Ij� I!t IIII III0II IIII in ill 7M 111 1 �,a rh IIIIII IIII I III, 4r f IIII � I' I, 'II ' j �`�11'� 'i aE I n 1 �.I..IIIIIIIIII 1� II III'' I i I '6II y hl III I I , -III III 1 1 �l jl �'. { Ir d id I. III I• I'� III pr � III�I�I'II,IIIFP;IIllllull ,II�.� 1 II L.I I'I 'Il � ' i'.., IIh I I IIh IIII 1111111 IIII hT31u10 j,L11ll Ahll dl 1.1111 - I''I "il 1 �1! lill P11 II I VIII II IIIIII !III I I,I II 1' yell III I III VIII III�IiI II IIII _IhI I III I III Ill i I I'liil 11 ialll i I ' -III II I' jlr �111�L I I I IIII III it Ij ill Ill llt III ,nI i { I l it IIIIII I l Illl til ull ' II � ��'lu Ills :I IIII • - III If �II I' III I`� 411 I��'a4 II J'I I I � III I I llll�lla I� MINI' I' I'1 t VIII I'll f 'l IIII.: m Ili IIII ' .'.Irt'IIi411r!flli i''itlr3l __1 tit Ili,1 II i'1'' X11 �' Ili I IIII, q i I 11 „; I IIII 1 I I ' i�i'wl";I III ,I •u li j' I lahu I' I G�bl 1 I d I I ,I -i lllj il'l ij ,III I'll I 'i 1 ��I� I I � I II Ali• ylj it Ili I I I 41 LI glII a„ of II p 4 I: II ill �jil'1111111 I1'' ICI I I IIIII IIII I ''illlll''I I I I '' 1111111'll a III ,III yilll II IIII II II 11 IIII I I I h III (IIII JI III II III�IIIIII ll' �' IIII,'I11rl�ll�ll II �1 • I'lll IIj1 1_ I I III I III l a 1 I u. IIII III I „II I: 113111 NI i I I I a n,I ; � 11, ', It! rll a1 !,1 rE_.,,.k a shad _ 1Ir1 11 ._1 �h'h[Fi- rI PI1 1Ii11• .Err'OR, t hull I u..: IJ I I 1 1 11€ h�lY I I I' I I 'jll }' '� II . I pI��IIIIII III 51,.1 ," I IpuIILI,. 11 I,II II I ,a F,l II I I;I "I I IM , ' , 1 , , ,y 1111) I III II II I II , I 4�L�1�1� III I�IIII 11.� 'III :I 1., 7' IIII VIII I II N II ,I 'i ' I l 1" I .111 I N I 1 �I I I alstll I 'I If�llll'll III •IIII 111: I", IIr 1111 I L'vli I II11 I I I I : ' . nl j I I II; '' I j� 1.:,- 4.. I �5 � I: ,, ' h!,161 r JI §wll? a I rldfl IJlkll� IIII I �:h' I. - _ I . • I,1 , l � I ! l' { I I �� I Ib a 1 I'jP� •' IIi I 1 Iy �I� �i, II {;rlt 1- 41 F- IY�I �lu ll�n bFl ' S[!I IIII' �il I , h .. Ila �i �, a ' •.. I�� L, I,, }'�, � I Il�lhy� II �€��,I ihi'�Irl�� FJ �11 - "`" r J��Ij �� •�i r4 I II I I 1. , :IA. I �' 'I�lll' 1 'i lldir i�'1,; :I da� � p, I I IM,� L 1. ,.�� , � Idyl I ',.•II I ;1,1 L,pIx4Yir 11 11 , 11 PI a i 1 d I I r u.1 irJli'• ' .'. ! �I '� i'rh 'J �I �.N'` III III. 1 I ': tigl�llJ 41 A9i 11 r.'._ r��11� � ' II,,:._ rl all I 1.1 h I' , §i, 4'!'11111' 1611111 . j;'ll {I III., .:'i �; ',• ' 1r 11!• 11 a ,III 1 I �� II I,Ilh 1p a I -: =�h 1ei�"F1 ,, Ir ,i , I::, 1, •._,. NI ahf�� III II :I,yl;lll 11 In!, I III, L "'I �:I �i I 1.I 11r I i J 1 �JG; 1111 11: h1 fl ;,_I; .. I '• :', h'- p 1`j d�l IJI y[Ill 1 1 l 1. 'al, is ,1 �4r1��11 I{ L;,� IIII L,I.'. :.i1 '''r - LrII: GII �1 l!I�' IJI! II� :�1 "y' �1 .�,�: I 4r11.i a II I 41 I -,iPil :: III I I, ,. h113 d, 11: P J:;r• r� lul {':nr I�iAAHfl� �p P I P '; 6 r, lel,l!;i. III., �:I! � I I I�' I�I I I; I ILi;r:. Ill; I ' { ".INtii' � I '� 1� '� I Il _ r I �' ;! I�I ! I I I� rl I �?,� ,,�'I) , �..., I IIiU. I•r:l h JLi §I 1�II!il ' .ITT' "1' tl I �I�C +'hp' �. ;:v IIII I II G;II IIIl�I�N:, � -� 11 r a• � ' � � l � IIII iI��l�_f��!�j1111�.I 1111rI :`rl r 11111 ��i!I�r6, •Ijl::l ::il�ll hww III d i�l�J §1PZIII E1�I II: b n h tt 1pe y '4r.., rl; I I I,II h,r:',16 � a14111Y1�y t l�l U'! 1 1 ' .III I11P I I, �Sf 111�RI� II- :Ilrhl l - sIlrrllll , li �Ii1 ,. r ' ' ' ',IA..l,ik,, t t F1 �9n 1hof i� €€II.rd I11 d •ti '�' r l - .a i �,r1;1 :a I IJifi. lrl 1:I' 1 li . I I : '1 I 1 u II ,. a li %�:e _ I4i,, I I , ,,, A � . a l•d , l I h h br 1J ,l .1. ! •,I ,I€ , ",„h ��E: : 511 JrC.A.r 1 n l ! I 6A ICL Ir r, II�1•'N11 � '��„ ,� Fop §I, :r��€ .I,;,,'J t y- :, �. i 11:,.r.r... 4,q.�:[` :. s�Eal afrl,w, '�' !,IIII ri I4aLl,i'. Ir1e,1 _ l`'!1`';I 11 =. �, ,;: '71 € „r1, .:. �,�y',.. k.m P.klr�' Jl:r'I I I i u : •fi� _ I r :,, n.::,,:!.4, ..... -:,•v '. ::1 -- € '.LJ � +� � :, � = F,,{„ hr,;'. '� ;�! �, ..I�' I .:r.1 61.. 11 , r 1 IIl,rru.�. 1 .�'�7�. ly alar,Fllyll€,Iig46 i1,, 451 111 t a _:. -�� -�+� 1 JIl �, - -_ _„ �,r' '�'�' - 1 � �4hrTl�:,r I��it € L:. ,I' I. r11 =;'_ • •I � ,rfJ [. IJFn ':_ �.�t - tJar? -P 5.' IJJ'.1 � _ .ISM 14 11 �R;LGII �- ";I':� a.,r J'T' 1 .. Ia: �4', ,t- Ir:l:�l,. .41ti 1 -. d -: � �t11 III •_ ,fi ,, d. 1. 1 .:. ,A I 1: � 1 ��- , y�1 rr I r41 : Y' .:.11 6 a r, Pa x I Ir I 11n.. G II :I : 1 IJ s {J w 1 : . t SI': .r�l «: lyl r•. I [ I,Idr ? I ' €IJR,;. -1, : � ILA I !.IP aa!' €If, r. 1:'�1, �� IIJI♦I �' '�' I all'. 1 1.:1 r is nl ” 1. nl!. ,iz'14.,. a ..I I L,Ir, efi' '�•. I I � � I: -r 1:1 - 1 �_ I- _.I. €1 ,h 11..1„ ,I, I �: , I ; , u, . ' '1' � EI II I tl :1,,. pl I 'r a_,,rt:° . h •:4lli !� . II r1 •'141,t s 1, m-a h, I � tr� q ='' rir:, „I � i : I,. i 1. d ,r{ j. I I,a! , 1. 1r1q, " I�rN i 1, i I 1 � I I p I Ir , ll, ,II ,: �, ,. � I I I ..I � (�" , I : 17 , .•� ,1,. -.e ,Ir: L I III • - !'J �::11,JI..rl . €.. IlliI l IL S:,I 'iJaEln. .II •hpI,ILI_Iq;lI1, 1 1;!1, -, , - lt;,,� '11111 ,I_ �- „,r'•,t._:�' ,� '�a ryhRa''�Il dtl,;!.I, ' E;�1' 1 ;: 011!:A• �: I I I_'Pll 1a. i.1 a'l II I :il .I',, jt 1 ” "I „ -f +' I.a 1 111 � I. h. ,::I)ar, � : �IIr1I : I,I !. !II. Now i , h. ? I §'' �.. II: I s r J•1,, :I I Il 111111 IIII 4'l Ii. A -III I I � 4111 r:l .a Ili 1111" r!'I' , rl 4 1 11' : I I 'a €1 s I' 511 1 l:i' 1,1.,9. I,� �r � : 1 � i t& � a 1 „DELI F l �iri: h'1!r, l ,” I'6 P'r II;I'• y. y !I' 1!1 1 !111 , I 8q1161,41, J m Ih llp'11,I�r r „h a I l § ,6 1ti11u 5 Jli. ;15uG) I.I. ,IVra .jp,l rlrr I,rrl 6 d- . 1� i i- ' !il IIII It 1 � ' 1 .I: �IP rl!';I'• '.Ih., 19'' 1i. IA � � 3:'� I „1 4,v 1ieF�l: i, r III 1 L I;. 1 loll, Pp ��E1• � � 1 11 I. I ;'ry 4 a I 1 .z I€r t I I ::I I r : ll 1-Jr�14.�^ II § rd ,III' 1 kl !I J1 I Il')Ie §IF�I'lh�N �y h'il ":- 6:J1�� AI11s'Ir.l'1 I1� - aL�l`d II ,41411411 1lIhP'I 'I'l l;r.,' I: 911 i!I' h'I y11 I i 1111'11 l l q I' J!II'a kl!sl €lI 11ri11 ' F,- .IIr' g. 1Pt1 ,i � q:�a'r J II.I;U, a II, !:,e.1;13 @,1', 1 I�tl,l i1 11�1,i; I , 1, , '1 ','.'_' i, i. lr l F• 1 iVS ��EPIL:E ilei i + � 1 11, 51h 11114 alit II 1 .- I I'j' 1',I''' 4 16'6. � Irn'+y`II to l '•' �; �€,1 +°'.i, I ' 1 {q�i .9' _: "�y' '� �.I r- ; I •� I I I'Jii 41FI �1 I�[ 4'I ;;ta II ll'il€ E w; Ir J I t1 „1'i1.! IN Ir:: ! _§a ,_..a.etlsFd fir, r.kl IiI,!d fl�llel t: dr I' „r, II, , 1 _L L L J- I t r III I •LI li I' I, :, 11. 11 r'i' li J� @�19 L 11,1 - { �r�' �, I €,AI, , I,, I 1 1,, �' , 4!1.1.. !i111I Ifc1e1 €II 1I� .Ir ='! r1 I §hyll :;Ila yI ;; :; I ,,1:e,. t 9'I•'1,1•y. r!,,=,!I.I. E�6r t L r' =1 I I rl I .1' ,::,yy 5 h tP: J ... I1 4 .,. I II , r ,l. 1. ,•. ,' 1 I ...,,,. .. �- ,rly�yn.1.�`p, . ... r W- t, ill, -' yip. 1 : 1; � I � �, II, ,?J .. ILrll1:41 1 il,,rl ^ r I'll IIII IIi r'i!i' a 111: °j11 €1! :r�,11 ,a••a _J;II ,111— ,� , ,” u.i6P1iIIIf.:II ']. Il.,� .J� :':p,A III .1.;.1111 1. ..,q.1 „u!aEl. r::,• . , L I rrr I ,�,Iv�1 1• f. IIr + ' . :° •: 11 I -II. � ' , II ,• . I, "a, 1. 1r 1• J ' :I 'J r r.. r,:: r;:. .1 r .fir I':...,..... I I _. :.I[ 1I 1. r::.aP...,l 1 [ JI'11,,r JL..1: 1� „ILJ1l {�, J „r,rr r a1,i 1 i•;�% it 1:1... 1J' r 1'�'1 ip I,I [I!I,';!ki, Iilla!1rI1, u:. ^I:a,llal r'L �1s'1.I,II;I «. „.'. FI :.:...It” &IPr 1.r1,.:.,,.,1 ...L. a a rl,.1141. .111 la,.. r .• .� I. I�I. d. .11 €11,611 ill JII,I�1 '11.1 I!IL ;1 ,1,1 I'�'Ifil 1I LI 4. rht. l '•'1 I I: Itr .I hi ! � .I 1 f. 111.. U• ''a 1 rq1 .1 11 r t, I,' �I J... .Irl ". rat ' • 'il I. I .I; . ti �. �' '. h' 5. ,, .I d, �.I:,u ' �I :: , ,, __ __I .'I" ' � I I. .r L. "I .. .r . '_� 'I: ::: J..: lh r. -L1.1. a .1 , r 1, J, I� IJrLw L Jr • I �I I 11. :41. ::� 1,1- =r- .•.:L. �rl .:e -1:: ra Ir .:I I 1r rLr r!' 1 Irr.l. t dal. I Y : .. r.1.1I I, 1al . r I I , .I 11. r 1 I; _,� I. IL.. �, ,: 1 r1n1' r.•1'r'' 1.,:.i11 r;. ii I I � - 1., I ..- n: v ll 1.111 fr. rM1L rI. l r I r dr :Ir , .. � 1 r u. .. � _r.ri ,•_, -. � J:;1 IIr r J 11 II ..G1�.r 1. ..!111 r I:r ..I�I :I. 'Ir r. ::11..i1 r.l. o' N •... IJ...r.1 ,. 11 .;.1 r :r r. r., 9..r I.L. •. :. .r , : r.. !r _ 11 t..r, ,:•, ...,,, :.11. : r r .i•r. .,a I.. :.I. .: .. r. ., : r,. I: -. .. .. L., .,r „1 r -., u i�.. I 1r.. .. �. ..,_: '. 15 i1. I'. .. I.. f.. -I:.. J. , .. ., .1 I I.... ._-.A:� r. I. I rr 1 r. .,I •- ., .J; r..:: _. 1,1,. ,, .rll.. rr I.- rr.J 1.r.. .,_a. I r�11 .r,l r. -L. I -r. 6 .1..,...:. 1..1 .•.. r1C.M L...: . - °1:.. ,. 1.:. r -'.r r.7:._..- ; - � m-6F n. - 1. .I =,1 'I r1r r 411 rrrr.: 1,5,.r.. � r:..r ,.1. 11•� ,W.Y. .r I. r.l. _,... _.__,l!. I- ... -. rl,.,... ask : I ,L11 'r6 •_I 11, ,IF- L.- I rII 11 ,. I. .r.. ,. I, ,1 II _.. •,. A_. 1 ,a :r., _- ., r. 1.I � 4 ,.._. .;' I r.- I'. .:,,..:. ,.: .� rl.I I .1, _..J_. 1 1 l;�la lips I :. I �r -'' d 1 .rr1 - .,,.,1- .. ,Ir: 1 41.c� �'.,., .. fill, Ir: -cL. •I ,. l: a.: ::'I I '� :��.r,l' I I.,. I fill ' ir.r I., - {.. .r 1. ,:L; ._. ..- _.. ,I. : -I 1:.,, ; - ..",.. lil i.y -Fl .. ., 1 .., .. 1, J •'.r' :?I J,r � i... 1 1. la'. - i y „..r.: r., ,... ..,. F.. •. L. _ _. ;r. 1, ., . 1r -.' � ,h5 Ylll, �'.. -, •:..1. r , Ir,.r. r .a..,rP1 :..{ .LI t 1 ....1 :1,IL 5, -'r1 1 I 1.!: It': .. i -1r. - . .:L l:.,. ,. , f, a "i ' ,.:.. r:1 1 .:.. .:..r ,!, 1r...: In �.r. -r.. • - r IE 1 1 1 11�'�'IYI i � :: 1 1 III' 11 1 .,.,�, ..! ,- �,- ,.,�..,..., ,. ,. -1 .,:- I .:., _.,. ,J.r r. 1, r , I ._, :.. .r1 . I ..: .�,. 1. :...: �,.: -.1�• LP1.. ... _, , S ,.. !' I 1.:; a � - , 1, ,�:: ,.r:::,: .�_,:. ...,,..I- ..r, ,,I 1 :L, -III I „1.11- ..'.::..,II. .1,.q,: r1;.1. •.�, „1., 1. rl a a� „I 4..;��•.I�!r. r..il � aY�141 ,�L�, , €F 1-11r I .I.I .. -.,. .. r. II L1:, _,J.:ri - J..: :r.... I;_I 1..i. :: I I, L.,. I. ILL :�a:,:'I -.9 14r.1 :.�:.: -0r•rl lr'.'r :�. _,t I I _ 11 r:.111 yilA11 I -.. ,, rd' — 11::, 1 :: .III ap i;,” :....:,!- 7 .1. ;,L. ,:��:: ..,�L. :a: 4 -.I.rl n,'4: J ' 11 1 I I ,� , r.l 1 r.. .1.. .,.,. -. r .. I ..I i -,.,. 1. I I I '.. rr,•!`r ,. .._..Ir, rJ:::i'..6 , -: k...,.rr. .. ..., _-- :,_:.1 ,. <_.,I,.L1l .. ,r. r ,.,::III :...J � ,,,, r. r ,n rr •r'• ..1 a r t � r ,�, 1 — a 1- , Ilt. 111,; _ _ .. -, _. ,r ___ tl. {,.,, ,..J. ,., I ,. �1.,e. r. 1: rj _ .� r � I. r. 51 .. 1•, ��: ,.. 1,11 I ,.hill I' I ,rr. r ..:.. ..... . ... 1I Ir.r, { r16.1r1r,• ,, ., _. ,,. ,_ , r l 1 �. r , . r I 1 L _. _ .. ,: 1. i 1r l A I r .. _... __ I I � �. -..I _. t. yy ,.ip rl. r 1 ,. r.l -'jI ,, "r 1. .1 .:r. 1G I',''::€ ,rata„ .h. ,. 1.. - 1., -. ',:' -1 ,..'.' .. "u• ,,e,. , L, I r.., -r ,r.. .. I 1r::... r. r..•r. :1. ,,..IL. alr .n :7. 1' r w L ,:i :.. ... r..1 r. `F .1 JI, 1 :lull. - A .. , .,I - ,..... ..., t I rl..., I ., r .. ... .... i ... r li 91. r .n I, .;, r.1 n I 1.., . I .. G.r. .. .I 1 I• I I I ,. IL 1.1r, .1 1J r H ..� ___ 11 . ,. .r -: I ,L:.... ,1 - r I r. r I. 1 1, � L . r.. 1 I r.. . 1 ... J1. ,. ih ... .11 I . 1J_. a r- I I. r. ., r • ' I I, I l I L .., 1d�.. r._L: ,.. -,.• � .rr -11 l.r r r .r. .. ..- .. .1 I I', -..., 1 r. tl. .I ,. J 11 rJr 1 I I r r r 1 I I I I 1 r r1..r..1 I ,6 rill. r 51,6._1 hr P 1.. I Irr rr,r.. .,1: rr LLB r1..6 1r,,1h,,. r111Yr, 1 f L 1 . I- .. . 1..1 1.....11 -r.,. I .. r1 . .. 1 �I �.r1. 1 ,.Ar. r 1 J •J... I m., ..r.. -.L.- 1. .. :. ,...I .r L... ..I..... r,r1r- Irr :r.. r r ._ rl r F 1 ._ I r r 1 ., k ..,a 1.,.,.r ,. -.•. 1 11 F... 1I :, ..I. ....I. I.,., !: 1r. .: I 1 r I,I I 1 r I r� � L .rr r., .:• .,..1..., 11 - _..1N, . .1.1... 1 1 I r r I .. •: .. r r r r ...r ..5,.. .. •. .r .. r:: �. 1 . .. I, I. 16.1 :r,6 r.- L II :..r .... _ ,....... .A. r.. .,..rrr -, 4=1.__ .r I � r�, .r. -.r.. , r- .rl.rl L'- LH ,. 1 1 .1.1 � 1A n 1.lr!.,.. r,. a.1..16r r..rr -.Irl. :LLr._., 11ra •. _5.. ., r.. It. , ..,.., _...,...•_. 1._ _J.. arl...,l � ¢ Ilr,r -L. �� 1 lo-.. .. ... -�� 1.,1r .r..,r .. :1.. ,.a - .� -,.r1 ;: 1.r1 rI ., 1 1,1:1. I :. ,1.,rrr r. ,I. .1 1.I , ..r...r. .J:. , ..a.:161•:!- ..,16. .1, rJ,::, I -, ,.r1....1r ....1.. ,..i ..r:_....,.. .. 1........ 11....11, .... I.lr, _ 1.. fir ,_. 1, �- ... .,. I L..- .. -... ...:..L.. -:::,r .. ..,.r,r� I. u:::a• r..,... I. n- r.,I ,. .I.r 16• , „ Jd_.1 1. .,. ,'- „ ,a.. 111 .... .,. r. r: Jr_..LI I ..1 1 :l n. i[ 1n " ,... _I. .. .�r.xl Ile, ,._. - ,I , _.,, -. :.1•.'I - I .:. -, -. ., r y 1 r -. r -1':. r � _,._ I , - .. , L. 1 . 1 ,i G r 11 . ,.. .. II •,Ir -'L,. ...,11 - ,..I. .. r. I.. F e a ee.. I- ..L „•. ' , ,: .:,, I :. r::.r I .. r.. 1 •: ” I. rl. : r .... ... ,:,1 I J ,.. Eli ,Il:..... Lr rr I� 1r €' -J ,:,..:r l 1 :I:.. 1... ..- ::_.• -u- �., ..:• .; I - .;;1.,,. •1 e '.. fr 1. _, -., i, -. 1 r t I •J:.r 'i'r -:�. i:::: I i ,L:., � -, ,. IJ 1 :Il, . I I -_{ - •r.l -.. I r:�'�'' I 1: �rH .d „: 4 J, ;; :.•1 , I . ,,... I -:{ _. 1 -:! ,, €..' ...I .. ,. 1,.' 1 -., , , I.:i I -, __.,. ” :.,.::f :, , :., -: .':..;.r1 1 -.. a•. r � I I . E, r hrl! il..r� f.1 „llr 'JI'.n. y ..L 1 ', w .t t,Jr- I'r ,�.•'' .. 7i';� •• ;.,,,, I .,. II 1 + -I. .� ::�n1 I. � n.�,•:ry r11 J.: r.! 1 III L 1 _ -.r 1 II ,I rr.. ..._._ .:Ir,r r I §, ,..'ii' .•. ., _,. ,._., 1... -•. -, .- ..:, 11t,1" rf Iii Ajlj "I, fh ji'pc�':2 y"PrI. 1[ p." jpp ON. imous.: I I. I 1� Bil ;MzqF a _ � !1,7 Mil Mir ilLEN M, ri TRIP 1! Ile Ag M Z.101 0,11 oil lips., 1 :I kji Vill hill H WAS ITT; rr - U.1 Iwo - . Rh, Otis 4. -AMER all. SIR it 1. .......... �21 11-11 Sloane! 1 NUMBER p i a [it I r io V, N 2.y ", MEM. - �T r IRE i. II' a II �iw`IItN l f 1 -v a Ir!�y l 1 d I'rfd 1d :jLlt; !1; V; ,II III vi t8�lte r I l,; k =,rt _ list r k1 I 'll"! 111 JI' L�hr';I LI: 1l,ea I- IN�II,'I`i e 1Il 1111!- 'kIl'I frkllllll II!Ir.. nl''Vllii;!IIIIJ• - ,jgvg .i.'- �f 4 4 - III 11 ' Maps: .1� y °€ ts5!'Isu�I ' @''- ,'��,.�:I�.� '�'5y1�£t, _.._ �'J�r �'I�.iati! !J11�II� tl I'IN179;:tl ,.,:11. - 1 lg,ll +(, '��I� f fro" li '�!':jli RIr1 '�I:1 , ' 1 ' h 1 JL !I'I ^111 €p t� a,l: a1�1 t llla'I! ;;illlin 1'Ii lllii'llliiil,llll l!tll:l.. ' Ii�i,::�Ip 119u11 „ IIII . �L;�I Ijll dWl Ir IftGI 11FII III !aI 1 p� II ' III 'I luI IP�IIII II II'I!�: ICI' � t 1�� sll l 1� p I• 1 , I p 1 I k1 -Ij�k II vh� h! �PI 111 II 1,:11111. : � � III 1' � I 1':1t II I�I. II,1 v ! I � i 41 � °!� I1111 I k 1. I I IlI1 :LII!II'1 II�I " {JA .111 II III II VIII ''fV ��111vtd II1' N ,� III1�:' Ill' - - I 1 u I I I III ,IIJ 1 hull': F 1 I,I � I aye t� r ah, n 1rg iltal9'aII��N�,r II ItI�1 , i .. � a °1 {1�It� NI €111111. N1 IIII I - I III'1 ��h1111�k�l l 'II ��II'. ! 7Ff a�f 11 s I1 IIGsINiI,- �,,� �.!�h dI .. � I �fl1. I f 41h1j11•, nlrs 9' € 51h I a 11hlla u ? n ':11y1d 4 7t 131 Is ry Ir 11�1�p II 11' I. rr � �t� €1 1t�1 (1 �I�AJI �� Ig614 In1r, rlw 71� nl 1 1 -`P.I 4 Ih LLil, R I L Irj,:m 113�j � r I 51111E lap t� r h I� J`�N I i, IL �!rii FI111g1111i111j ' ?fd ai411 a f ::..__ € IP17 N jll ! II: •4r d � L.nv bl rl€€ Il li!A' ,, ': ,,111 , �;1xIi � `:��1 '�;',� .I, ; r a`I:.I N'!!; al r' Ip l� i,! 1x1,1 i4111_II iu l lllf ! �II P 11 I€ :,Illf ... �1 l '!,611 E I ; .' �h ct IJI '16 1!j11 1 I I�,II I 11!11 , 1 I .1 IhIACI' f€ I 1 :1:�, 11 a .; '.....W �!„ Ialg III 11 , ;" • :.111,1 111 I! 1 .III III :: 9'�" X11 ;: k''9 i 111111I I ".: jaia r, - "i'i IL ,,Jv n`4 1 E511, I, 1:11 ,: ..� ., ,: .. . ,.. •.II Ih,INII III " "� '. I8L:,:::, I :N::. !'; ', _. ' A -'° ':: � . Id,:l f 1 1 111111.:1,; lNo lIIlI I! 9 1 , I III 111 l!q 1 °'1111; h d tall{ ih � Plp ''111 •I 11 = U � 1;111 ,•, I ,,. I'11 1,111:1r ,::Iii;;: 1 111r r; I 11111 1 I !9w: III :II, .o h�IIII •II ..'. 11! n ;I, .!! =a 111 ) .1,11. I� I 1 1'�'i:Ilj1 : IIIp�l.1 I:I: '� if "r ;r'.� ' : �- ,L.lu111,.�.'vlla!" �� I: ,�:,I 11, SIId.. 11,111 p ; t91Ip 1� 1 ;11Th Ili .: � �III,'lj - s..� ' I fl ,: h Iii I I'! • 1 �k x!641 ,+,Ilr 1a I:'' 1111 III I111111'!:ilrl:l hIl�ti;l1.411 "I II; ;!119 8Ith1I I€ Slyld'" iV A l 111111 11 I•;!, 1 k,,a ;, .,y;�1111II 11. I!1� ' �d�t` ' AaE!I �I h!pI LI I{ I'lv h 11'1111I1i "I fll 'v�, h44�11I1: 11'11 1 i; I jj i 1 I III' I�!ll',j iii 1 111 III A1F1;iil'l''Iil -. ''� i. �� :'` , !•. ' Ih11 j' _� 111 11111 -.i: ill. � I _ � f111111j1 1 �I, _ 1!N111II 111; I ,:tll !1'111 � 'I j;.6 S 111 -,i1 ° I!I 1 '11' I !;I �I pl ll11�III'1r11 1 li 111 Ii1 Mw y�P.i�J IA�ltllll'.IIiN ,��f - I€ NI 111 'III;J11 �.Il :6? smogs � `. � - � 1•ILI:IIIiI.. ! II I �4 .I, �!I Il11' `f'ISar- Iry 11� 1:- I ' r `1'41 , 111'111 I II II ;1 1 1 I t rj9,,,�!�:1 -,III 1 I (IIII I I ai 41x111 i I 3; €N� ��1 a l' Iq ... •': V i �I ! 11 I' , I' II Ill •.,1�1i �u1� 1yl l .I I'll X11' t,''l 'CI ! i'1'i 1,.,. .... _ I: 1,.,::: I .. is lah:l'I' � 11111 I I Nk.ki r 1 1 �IM � A 14111�'1p1 IiI II III!III111 1' it 111 II it A 9' i :I a ''P'� II ! 11;11 I Ij 1;1, t OF lyrt II'I'' Iglgl 1 ;. Ila II�!lvilllpd Ia3 1, !: ,� ,.''ll li I11�'l1 III I II .'1 1 I�IL!II191a�aI'�II sI!Ilk�'711ha.�h��!'�1111�'I €VIII 1 111111 ll�:112111 ili I �ia11 +J�a�1, r I Lti;i ��1�I��I�II21 :1�tI�Il;1l!�1Ir�I�1j1 1 I I I I h.1 I -''I: 1111111'1! 111 :Ill I' Jill! H I � II ryl' la luIdl!loy Ul' l p l%,l9l !11i1 lIIlIlI 1111'111''11•1'Il1 lr"1i1': 11>111 : if , I` Ip If'1!;!, 1161 11 11-': r''' Il;l lfl I III pl,. I!IIII!,r'Ial�11!I ! 17 k I+ II , f ,I - 11! n l l III! I !Ili Ial I P p - IIII IIII' l�l ll ❑ . 11 C I y ! ' I. -III I I ''I rII III 111111 1�'111 arl1i ff ll I1 ` '' � J.V e 1�I1 N d�t , 1l 11111 Jl �'I !F. -�, ,� � ii plpll'I h,l`IIJ ,� II I'll 1 I 15 -r _. �r,'i 1'11'1111 II ,:.1111 Iil 11,11111!1 "�Y;illllilllr4IulhrJl'Iw -.P II I, ICI 111,: I 1 :�ll, it �IN''II' I�II,I, I ! y;l!:1511 I I I I yi 1 11411 I :jl I r I I I ,u I! I l ll�l,ll '� (I -J i f5: OlgaIIjl4 I I II!!II I911Llhl�p�lalll I -. a ,.-u 1,:�IP II II III IJ,If 1 :,!, 111 ! 114,.; !k gip- I! lr1 � � � I Ilk 11k1?! ' ! 1511 !dkyll I�UI d1,ll I IIII I! IIII IpM1L I' .I II..� .alIh11F; Ilia! LIII ry;'pll':�I I'iil G9!lip� k'h�a h� IlltlaaiiFll 11heN'IL� �lll :, fl lil I, ii I� III,! III! Illi II Ify`Ihl I it ,�i i,ll 111 '.' I 4I1!�, L�I II aW'rl,l I : -� 14p1 III,,, � IIII IIII, f9 I I h l;l rj'�n II' ;i I I � �1 I hl 14hJ111G III III III IIIIII F! I� -21 J k I yI r 1;1 I !III I' I I I III II IIII 111111111, III II 111 n1 k4 II IIN,I Ilhll ll�l � i I � �! l� II��!'1I�F�� I -� ' ' I I IIIIIIII 111 II III CAul ld I' '.I �, h`�l ufE 1 L �_lI 11 ��1j I} 1 I p III 111 IIIIII a 6'F I, 4 hI !I eia F ""NJJH33 1 It I , �I 1'' 1, 1'41111 I :1! "I I !IILM�f,; ,1 p1 III' Li11r4 if I!�Fh51 @I� Ila 1 Ix1I e�IJ': I i,lq!pl�,� 1 ' 1'111 III ;tjl Illllll 1!rti �II 11x1!111 §' �uhtl lull al r I � III I1 [fFilif i ME II I I � 1111 I ��lql 1`111 Fli >i�,1�1 � I 1111 II I, 111; Ili l d ; s! !i!TI ;! IF1IIllh�.�xlt�!P .j ,Iili�llll�i'I IIII �Illx rt I I�� 1 - ' J! �11�1�1ll II iI�IG i 111 IIII I �IIMI:: !IP III Ill 1G lld 111 I f 17r I IgI!I k II r �' 1 I I III ! I I'J 4 I I h1J y i I h� I I IINI� 'ILI.I L'I'!I!hIIIa14l�llilll!!:IIN� Iltliildlllll:IHll�l;: 6illll! FI1611Ip�VIllil llh !l 1r FI7 d`� s 1` ra 4ilfk ' 1111111s1j!'rllll !�,. d9y41lirsl €xhphl � l �r-. , :, i 4111 lyI'�y 1I1,111 'I!I1 I 'I F�h;ill III I ? �rl If l ��'�k' , I�klJ fell I ��!' l "Iiu1Nl� F I':7�f�6'l !?p% LJ� 114 _ lil'� IM I, 1,11 11::.1111 hull 'I'pl''IIHI 11'4!11 Ilri III ad !I 911 "'Ili ill 1, l 111 1x11,111!1 IIII' l!I 1111 1 �� l i'L jl '.l i'I 1 :q, IIII Iu: IIIIIIII '.111;11 1..jl';J41 III IHn'I j!I!p, 111p.Ia 11'.•. LL I11�1'll!L✓1:�1 h I = =.,S�,! �, �: N,IIP ,F�Ill4 -:' II I I i, j 111111 �. :1'1111! VI lilt :•p 1, l;r!.n a�IIIIhIJ�I., 'Id ,I lIx . I. IIII�I '!�I III:. I1�11I IIF i ,.:FI'hf III -, :!��ill l'. I I 111,11 IIIIIiI'. III ! kI 11.,1. i! .' � 141 (IIII I rtlf III 111111 ',IIIII II'F fl I. 1!li - I !ili!.'�L I, I U � Fp 1111 I III Iy 1111'11 l: 11!111. !d I IIIn, II�I;4II .,. III l ', III 111 illli 1�1 I Iii .:111; I. '9 .. 1I! 11111 111, l; ill 1, r ll l -J4 I I I 1 d I, I I !IIII d #I 11 I : If I lh �!! I � h fx I�I� I� � u111 p� 1 I II'I ! 111411 I1 II I I I i 1 1 1 111 'I1IIIII 111 i�IG � Ih4,I � I' I f 111 �' 11'1 1! I 'EI�I r!�l 11� II pl I I � 11 1 I ;:Illlllll: �1LIIILI I N IIIhIII!Ib'II� rpI11';; I I�I,IyI l.��h:!y. I I�I�141j11LI 1!If r j 411 IL I {x 111 ;'11111 jp 1' of III 11111 4jllf fI�1i6 xj1 Ix III �iJll hY- II,,: M1f IA Ix 7 II j I' :.I II 11114I1 �1'I; 11 IIII h °:lj ., nflkl�I4 :LIJ JkJiiil..r 1I 'Itl!II ,iIIIIl1111 ih.) ...:i •�,. r, a�!.. _...:'III I II'I ;,. �rn Pr:l I I II �i�� III, k: lil4l,lk III IL I i; I,II 1111 111: .,._ .., .:,1 III 11., 117;, v' .INII I I • .- � I;'� :I':' IIuJ!111 ,'�. ,IJ'�Ikd�Idulrl rN�11;' Ii1rl11'�! I I tlf � 11 I!i!. - � � I I �.• 1.1'� I Idi hl•- � FI FtiY;'`��i � I'II I F I I I' f ', 4. m ' (IIII i I IIkP try' I lik NIaT �, i pl !I l'v '�l II, h 1 1 x I • �Ihs 1 L' NII�"i, l7 111'11;,' I; I'1.•" u41'I;F `Ih 11 kI N!Vi a,l 4:h N1h51Ri ,:f,1 i.'' lrlal!gII'lril „;IJILIII LjI 111 i1j 1I;llx. I - flulhl IIII :Id . °I 1 r f k TT: all!,{ 1 1114'IihI1 a '11' . d I'I Ij ,1 I I, I;, IIIIIIII' '? 1 II' jrJl jIf IIII1111 1111{ I!Ilh 1 !II 111 ,' 11u III III I'll I I' Ills 111111, I I:'l hIr IF �IjIII.. Ixl i147xn.. ,... IJ � ' 1!Il11l11 IiII!I{III;IIII�1lI r� { pl;l I �. :,. I � � � ,. .. IIII III � •I I 9II Ill II�:IIJI, 1 . AI;' III 1 III (IIII 1 1 1!11:11 I h L jI l!I jiir i t 111 � f � r I lr I II'I :�I. � 1'I: '�. I 'I �' 1'111 IIII (IIIIIIII', VIII �. �� I i, it IJ All '1'. i I I I hylll 1111 I � III I IIIIII ! IIIIII I1�!''` ^.n •1 -': (LII :;: ' ..:q,': I a,,Jl, ((LII 11' ' , ,., 11111¢^1''�111, � �1111� IL I!1 I'ii I' ryl I:." I 1 I II;alllll 1111 Illllll) If! 111 I F L.. ''��. I ! .II Ilurll' 1 1'IIIII1,11 III; §hII14'�11,,illYr!I I�F 41p�,�xk I {hlay� I!r II II dll4ifll fiI - Ik!'I';'�° rI! ;If I i IIII�j1 111111��igp I511e11� - ;� xl�:,la�! rsIS II IrH11 , IL u1111 _I 1 .� ' :JI � � ,161411 �:•1. I Ihi�1 1!11111 a'lljrlP jlx• _ III Jlf :i? al. IIIF I, �l IF1 - �''yr'A'ei rh- {fYI�I' q,1 I�iI �i` lly'l, �.a� ' Ii11 � -ia' r1 '_ ' .,� I! 1.1;'II,IIyyIIII 11i1d�l1 �u111!y,1 i l III r 1 !I Iilr, 1 fell €I'h Ili I,1i4'I "f1 6 [1 If n, 1 I I jl r 1 I1 1r�1 IJ�[ I' - IIl1 1vh11� � IYI� 111.119 F I Lse� II Ill I . ! i k . 11 I 1 I 1 I EI -11 ' I Ili I I Il11! I'f" 16 P �I �I 5 :, 1 ,a :. 11l� � 11'rl #I x1 uy111j, rya ik1 F 1 allll�l P �7 11! kEe k III I x;11411' rip, e�ff�f,;I�Il i1�IIInII ^1�4j,dla 1flpY��^ lu f 11114nhY16d11i1:Ii�Ilh�1 l�lx,,', IIII ( ;hfl 11.1 :J I:I J IJ LI I�II'lI ll�J1 II JI rhJnit II I f 1 J111 IIII I Ii, I 1 r I kl f f 1 lI a l a 11 f -1111 IIIIII b: 111 I ,� F 111!1111 I�IL. II I xi'PII�!p !6 Ifipl ili,� III Ii4I11�l! IIIh1d 1,1111 II 1.Iu�II�4�lklfl! L' III �!I,r1 M'I �I +111!1 14111:111 h Ill II'IjlI�1 h�,I II IIII' Ip II{14Ink " IIJ i'L I! III IIIIII :'llinf B hI�ll!.IIE41r.f, , Lhr! III d I.,, li 41111;11 all d,. � IIIIII l!IIN IIII IIII I rII II 1111111 I I1H ii11!l1 1� :„ .avU5'A7!:,aY" nl ,�1,. d t n. IS a'l'mf 41 tY "1'ta q 7 b € - l h tI tg !u,t p 1.. II:.... .: I:' "; ,!; : ._ -4 I�i!..Irl „« 1 t liIII11Y�41�II a� 1� 7'a51 �l u Y+'t, 114h� -o-+• ,..,,I. II. ... ...:.,., .,., II,' . ,.:_. "i-,.. II .L, I In &f.: 11 ( 1 UII n:.., III I,..:,, L.. •...I 111 .. h., .;::. .:: q;11, �: _ ,,: I ,;;_ ,,,:, 11,:,. 1 allE:: ;.,u.::, 1 •:,:: 1 111 I- slgr� �,_. i x «I': cld;l: L. I: .1,:,: IIihL I111 IIIIIII t!:. :..,pl �Ir, ,,:, ' �::, I .:: ,; II I 1,,11 „I 11 III; :;., -, 1 ; N I'tl:::. J .L.:1:: ra,,, VIII . �..:: :, cl III:. L : C,�.�� d u ,t, � I ' ; • I n: "II' l v:: ; ;; il�'Idll I s„ n1:.; •, IIII II h.4ifl I '11u:I �� .' it l:, ;1111' a .::. 1411 .111 ^' 1 .,..,.. Ivhll,:,, I :,:; �.lil!I,ll 1 !. vfy 95.: ,Y�I,J: � llfl' qla .. , 1 6111.1 I III IIIIII:. I III ;I I?;!�, 1111 1 i: Irl III I�Iti 1111 IIII';!, I JII - :,'1 IIII 'lll::ll'IIIn I i 1111111 1 11111111 II'II� 111 11�': III �.I � 11, iriC�� II IRII Y,_L1h . ' N "II' III I d l'III � :Illp 7 l 111 I IIIIIII 11 1 IIIIIIII I " h i 11� , eI t) fk �t,, L. rI ril IIII 1, III 11 II Iii 1 IF ti ,11 9Hv ,I Ih: : I I Ilp 1u'' i III I 1 a I' h I 1 t iK t ::,r 1111 III "i IIIIIII � ;p1 IJ III G II •; , f, !f vry , . IP11 _ ... iP iallll' II'I III III 131 �e f t l��l�i i�a�p k - t 1 u141 i 1'1111 III :' 1 191 1d iq 11111 liu Ala ll l.0 l', i 1 jI� I;I ll i�llltll I!, a € 3 E i { iI ;1 1 1k it II I,, "yl IIII,,;; 11hlll4!�IIlll'I1�1 a ".,Il,i,...... I grv:iJI41�U;p o '111 -IIy 11111 1 aq� '..: 'NI 111 c 1: 1, 81,.rlE,l' 1�4�tLf�ll�t�'I��J�Ilbn�'I'�� r,g - rSI I� 1 bf ,I�11S R I, 1 I1 III �I 1 II Id1 it 1 }r, �"�SjIitl44�1'h'Y I' 4A1. tl' 71 1 �t� : �JI 11 I i111 ! IIIIII 11 !;. ;III II11t:,: .,,,!Ill IIIIII IIF 1 ., E t rl ley; �i111 IGmI 'T la 111 kI 1 1 IIII ". � IIIIIII IIIIIIII:, n III 1 .;i III IIIIIII d :;.jl .. 'if 11 � 1�1I . IIII IIIIII 1tl<IjIIII 1 '::lAI !I IIII kIk13�1111�I� ��'�II III I� IyIF Ii III IIII �y�Ipul IhI�IItllalll� 1 61 iill r1: :.,I:, IIp11I :}IkII �lh�l;lt II :I;�ry;ryhh�PPII1111RRIIIIIIeIUhll Ii',_:III III IIII l ',,' III h I�JIII4�1114,exu��•l�:- 11�11F1 II'11J:- ;_ '.,1 IIIIIIII 1. II I111� IIII P I1IiI!I' 111 :. 111 ; I. .. LirialRl II r 1111'1 k��tisl .1j1 it'q III I II III I a LII .: III IIIIIII ;.IIII1111 ': .. I III I I : III II ��'1o1�tiIIj11I1IIlIIAi�ll �Ii�l41jlllllll;, ,I 1 I1 , IIIH ql IIIIIIII 1111111 111', � 1 II VIII I,a y h 1 II IL. III' I° I If Il Ill Id 1111 I 11'iry ll'I n l I I I IIll 14I�fIl III 111 I III P II,IIII'1111iIII IFFIIVI� '1191IIILIILfI I i i�fI j.1 II 11�. 111 1 41IIIlij IIII ll <III 1 1 III IIIIII �` - i1 111 " 11116, II 'I'iyl' III II klly hLIII _ 1 �I II uI 11'1111 III II I .PI I I 1 I IIII .. I IIII allii ' 111 'IIIIIII ui 111 -� ,x kI r II h1 1I i! II Ii IIIIIII : IW {�- 191111 I_ i:i �44l I1a I1 1 ol : Wl WIN- WOW - v - - = WIN- WOW - - = WIN- WOW Mill' ih'I I.' 15 11I� I I dhll IJFIIrI t lli r11 III a ,III.' :rJfl � .iJ JI ::1 -.II . -., .,..:.- -II. :� i..r.... P.�.Ai.I.I. 9...�, ,_..:. _.t 7 L7^�....1.: L.I �q1 . . � . .. .: : IIL1I1 , It:,::. :: . . :I :. . . : , � 6 I .. ..1 I .�. :I1 :F . LI I . I , k1 r, : , .,",F 1 , . 1 , I:..,: . - ': ., :q . -::I d ,_ .:I_ ILI_ ,. :F : .-:. ... : J.1. .� ,..4 : : :.,I, _.II II :: , IL: . _.n, .,I .. _° I�L:.:, _r. . I 1I: ., .I . . J : t. II.. :(I1 1 _.. J . _ . rr1 . 4 - .�9 I.0 1: 1 J F .P 1 :. .I� 1 :. L I^:, 1 1 I: :i. N !! I:,_17 . : . ,..7. ,. ,' _1 , . � , . fI I:-1I _ I I .. 1 � .I: ...:. : I ..I I .Aq1 I: dLJI L L: I..i I 1 :'. �I. .A . 1 I ,I . I II _.I. 11 I .1 :::i . : . . �... :w �.I.1d �. 1 . . : :N I'� ( � 11 I 1 f! i k r-111 � 1 l d.f I 1 1I l 11 . ...1 J : 1 J.. !lL : '1. 4 �..... ..rx.x _ . :1 I :, .., .:r._ :.1._.,_..,_.F .:' � . ,_.„ . . : lmI: :t! -!. . Rl ..L. :. . •...: ::L: .: 1 ..a . .:.+; i . . 1 .. _. . , 1 I. „tnp ... :I . 1.1f 1.,, L 1 1I . -1 .,_.., ]J C. I. . r . I , . �' '.%:9 ,II.1 I 1- J : I. II r..:I1r . :. I1.I F ..5� I. .P I -:1::: :.. .,.,. rI:r,..I5. ., .. . . . • l l I. .. :. }...,1- ..,..:., ', .. . l, . .. r . I Il ,lx . . . s LL . ,t 1 l � fill 11m , , :I J 1 1 2 M1: I ,n 1 .. I . 4 .LI, . I�I !::I .:I I 1 , , :I . . : 4I - : , I(,... .r 1 : I rI 1, .,+-i i.1.,1 .. 1:.,, : •.1.1,.; .. .L.. :, . _.. :LI .1 � „, 1. .�. : ::.1Id . . :� II .: . . . .II• 1 1i1 : I 1. N.I . 1 I J I:, I i . ...- 1 . _ �1I :I., . r1 I j r1..L::i . .� ,: I . r .L:. - -,, :L. .. I ...- s,..111..F....-, J._:..L__ ... :L_. ; ...., ..r r. _. I I i . , . F.I:...l_:�,� .I :�� . ; ..... . S: . a 1 � .. I .. - .. J . . , I . :I � r • I 1 ..:. . . I I I I .Ir11 II-; ,_.I . I I . , IbYI l '. 1 ” r 4: . 1 ..: l r 1Ir . 1II- i}.1ul : 1 JI :� fI lI . 1 . l l . . 'I : _ I I'G 1 1 fli Gov - =11 1111 ill I, I 1', :till PI 11 I Y�P 11 irl A. '¢fJ. —: ..p r' I.i. 1.. II , II II „A .I A I�.�1 4.:,,; j.1., 1111 s: ; �'l'il, C.. ,Itpl,rir�l�l a;F� ,�� t24� I -,e 1 i'" r _ I I ,, _ I'•' 1 • II i'f11LI 1!y:l : , I' "1 1 I '' :I ! , 11 1,,,11._ 111 : • . II y F,,. a '�Nf " ,,:- it 1 �l�jt•:I: � 1 @1:11 r1 �' r L '` v11'llr43 4:; tj1i F 7 ill ; j1 I1' jj;I11 3h�ll? I si& I5�•I -'i I� 1 I'd 'Id I 1 1.1 � 1 1 II 1 '? ,' -p_ �r l�� I�'1 � ' 10:i' i I 1.. ; ! ell ' - 1: K" ' �? III ;;11 � ;; I is 1 I r�� I �_ !.:Y�1 1 Iii �' �MRd�'I;1!16p4 . �;xu`Iy' •. ' I ,�i;' II I d I,.Jq pI II 1 1,l 1 ' r!: 1, '. I. I nIII �Ih I3 �r:r "�I 1: fll'1{11 :..It �I�' I I'; `I 'I � ..:; J,'1 1': -4 �9'nd.1 °• I ;�II''t 1: ,? !1 1 I' Fj II I� I.,I I IL;L::I!r pI .II II 1 nill;ll�lu ,^ ,'r -I .I I ' f Ills � !il' 11 l I q 1 ! �.., ' MIN III ,I IiI I I I , II I n: I' J r9 I I'li 1 Il 111 f I:� 41 I 1 I_ I� I �i4 11f it a 1 I I. :y el "k �, h"N51 7"elh{p, "-.�I I ryr ij113jy1 i I+ top g ' ! '', 1j1 I: I tal tI hlllll111 ' rlt-I�xl� ��i�il III I r 1 I I` A Jk� I t 1 •, R. 1 L. ly JS r' 1 4 FIP 1 3 f 1 1 I _ q a: IIppY�pn I I I!I i1 11 4 i 1 - 11 1 I II x f 1x1 Ir f -I Y11 �rirl ll II �y J I {I, i 11j I{ '' :.rI�I I AINI rlf u,,MI� 71 �' II�Iti; n I kdllgl,�� .;I;,.Ifl I�xlltiiJ., III �'l ' II,Ijjil a rl.y ;`,III lfdll,;�jlryapl rI I�- i�jlfr j1 III',,,' , � � I �I !ili 1 �` � p , I' .!; -1 I ildJ 11 till i� I' r � IJ C11 I I I.III hl 111 'I'll III I!J �'I 11� I .I r h h If .I I I. I 1 I. I 1:16. r1 I 1:: I I rl' I :: � ,1111 I �,y 11111 IIr +NI 11_;4h ii 111�II,y��fi� I 11r �I,:Ue�N ll�IJl Ili i itI '.. 1 I �I "11111 r'L,. ,, -Irlf l 11111 I 151'1 , ':I 11 '!III III �, �! if 1 �I 1 r 1•I a1� ,rjl'NC 1 fk e s I I71�11 1 r I� F It ,� 1 1 1 I I' I ':i I ' II ,'- 1 1 1 1 i 4 1 A' '• I 1 :F t -_. -f , 11,11 'i 1. ' ll � 1 1 1 �� I 1 1111iii� 1 III J 111 1 I U I Ir N, � f I I I :111 I I I 111 11 I If ` lij fi�4�9,y I iltp ;q1' ��1'': e� 1 fatal 111hf�i 1_r r II 11r',�1i11 IiI :Ih�d� 1 .?ILL mPI II II@19,NNI L J11 III '1 tl �1-JCJ j ; w,:1111 III IIa r ! 3 ,lint �) 1lr itl� §� y11 :I 1, :I TkI 1 1,12 ,'ll WNW Nrl I:;.h Al L- I l 4, •;] I'1 =1 III 1 I r I. III, Ivy ?,1 I,. �III;llkyl II ,111: II I;lflarl�r.Illllhhppl�!, IIJIIII 1:. -I,I „I .1.,..17, :;,:I,111,IiI.N,a:f�NI�:II 17111,1 ;lul {i ,I.II ±1 Il:lnli!II':t,:'.,.I,...III: I,:'• ail.: Its .,...r :1 I:i',ICII ,I "I:I.. II tJ, II: !lip Js;?III If �li; I' s,- i1,:1, pN I;: 116, I�Hi fY1i�'III 1111 �:I:'F 141dIr1�l�� L� iRl ±�!6�bI1l r61Clhr�t „.I11'!!H4vl .� IIP'd eFd Poled�iLIL �III�YLLdIi'LI!1 tr,Vl €d1 Jirll ll�Jc�t;; IISI J�!Ift j7,l ;I,ilL�wll aJ'I�-{I �Ir'�17.1iM1 I, i! I'`II -A �h r: _.:� :t 1'11: 1_-.` 1 �t 1 -?— , . l .nI l l 1 i �,fy��l II� Y 4 I� 1175 I ,L� Ij r � li I II , I 'I 1 111111 hl IIII : III I}r, �Iiv�V'lljk� @Fy�INI1x IIII L�L li 1 u' ';� 4 j I �' IllL,ff 'I' IIII I IIII'! i �.r' ,I � 4. I 1f'I I� I ,NI f� Ihl I�illl tI l91 u I I qII: I I it I I 'd 4 �, rl II ,115 II III II I' l � I II Ih' �' a1 ii 1',I r1I t Iltl[ J IIIII IIlillglglPlI�II fa�ka' l•. f.,i i, IIIII 1 �'NI II rv, 1'311] jll Ir ally II.IIIhr I! I 11il cl' , 1 l rl 1115 r I �I „!' I!II p r II !' I:r::.6 I 1.., -., lal •I,- ��°F,�y�s :��Iy�ll.,,1,.,1, I.. I:.,.,J:� .I::4:.,fhIIkIIEI:a 1:,::4�, cP,i I;;I ,I, I I hti;I:Ily rll l III 4d4ll;dhl.d, -I, 31 .I• I :I :Il : x d l r h:ll: I �, ::!: I k, ::l hlrc 1 ::g., IIII, Ili.- plr:l:.! 1.��1'r�I� II :,:II�II,IeI- .1'I��I 111 ',� -I 31,,,:1 -N.: 111 111 „I :k li ,FI11. .l,llyl�l 4c,lj I II�1!I:.I II 11:1,.;lifll Ntlkl,, i;�:u,, 11 I hl!I ��lil.0 I II }JI,I) I! I �hlll�llll'hII�II _, �I I '��', a,.51�4;,51�IINI1i�IIl Ir l , ' i l IL III14'Lll,ill,l:, n, . I'Ilei , IKIiG A .I JI : I }t l'�'!;, 'IIYiIll h1!'�5IIIIIi I,IIaI'lIh Ia: L ij111: 1IIIk r- IIIII :I �I,1 :.111I,I1t1Ix!II (IIIII III 11:6` I qqly 5yy) later l j11tif i of I l a i - (I h1 r l k II ! � IIII eEl:lllulllNllll� I II' �!'' :'41 I�I IIII h1�Rl�IiI CI PI'i I� IRI t] 4 &1 nl� fli 151''1! ll .�fJ PI �III'hIGIII ,L .alhl,: sr I. 1 IE �r�1�I13'ti�lil,Nlt7 I, yc ^�sF nk,Il '11I'hr I�e1 'Iti 4I�1 pIPhII'mip1I111i I� rpi; t 1 ^% I IIi:H l l� .;4 'r mlt'��gL,'NI I�rlgkl�y � %a1111hIII�lik I'II }fd F�I�III'R11 1Ir I- F' 1k Ill'( ' h tl 11 I . If G 5 I hI; r1 II _ 1 1 1 II I P NML NFL. h 1 IIIIfh �I.T1 I 1f1 ldli `�''I x r,. IIIII I1 e '� III�kt "r h L y !111 r I1� �rIS , � 1 lk I, III aL 11 `, 1� •N IIII 111!11`11 dI �' �,I III Mali r 1 I Iml NI rr III, d r �. ,lIySny No a tldN : k l Ia 1, IIIII I r. '_�e.N._ ,1�t4NIGGII:�illl1r111':Gi I} ll�p�ll Jrirlls�'4��! hI� lYlll� Il;d: I,I''I' IIIII�IIIIIIIIkII ',IIIrI 'I I : 'Ilirlfpll'I]Ik�1 11�" liII'a %: III iI1 j =�i4i,: ''IRRIII-hill��t`IIF��I II. IIII IIII @I I; II 'Ippu�yppIpI!k Ily hlfIIIp! h!I 1tl 1 I GI rll I'd �II�� INS �t1�f m G III!�I� L�pl!.III�III;,1 1'111 1 I:,� Ili 1 ialAIF116�1''}I!:Ildhet II III ..16}1 PP, il,lff'I !1 , I! Ii;i IIIII I�1,'III: III 11F I i��l yrld'6�II lfi - - -1, I�d�Ni�Ikl I h111 Vaal I II 1§41111 Ila f�Il�' r'IIt;'I{ I�ky NlI. ', yri 1,, rt ttjliti I� 1�34II il' '�Ir u1 I�r�l� I "e �� i jri5le Vii' li iI� I Ii11i9iIl L r''! NFFI Igel tk 11 J Sr l Ili Ir I ,I IiIF 1111,41 --,11...-- I } 1 !! ICI aa R9 iy, 1'!i j 11,1 15 t ,4 I p II II r Pil I ti� III I I! IIII 1 1 1 :,: IIFrc N,a � 'I 4 1, IIII I I I I I I li h�yl � I ,I IIII IIII ,, III I' ' Iili I ' T!” 11 1 t,1 � LI11A-11 'Iall I I l l” A I r 111 I'l : I I I III �I III II L I I , x NIJ� r 4 r l J Nj'J ,I I l 1. Ili II : � I 'I I� I IIIE131 II I. kll I 1 ' I Iw '' III} ,I I' I. III 1,i, IIII�lI11�11li i�11kNi I 1; I I II II J,IIII x'SIVI 111 II III lL.', I IN' 1 4 I I'., I I IIII 1111111 I III' hI114 INN:: yI III p 1h I 'L IIns l 'I' I IIIII, IIII III 1i.1 IIII II LII Ar � I r I:I ti II � IIIII IIIII 1 Irl l tAL � r Ir .: I•I ' I,Iwi�,l Al A- t l _ F } r'7J 3r 41 1 1 3 '1 iI R 1 1 h:r ,x �II Grp — �IIf x,31 Iii II, 4 I} Its Il x u 1 N x _�h N, 1111. f7'' 1 Ifrq 'b I�111�1�ay1 x '�1lfl lu I II YIN ;, l4 +�P:r p rI VI I�' h I i� I r MF P�I r Q II 1 1 I a lil' IYI h'F I k I �, IIII 4 � 'q IIII I pI N ' I�Ih li I � III r 1 I I 'I IIt�]I a 41�,� I� n I �I`r ' - � Y 4 I F t AI j l III 11 fll }1 1 Ilul kI i �p 11 111 1 I I I I I I s.J I I I t� tl II rrF 1 IIIII I„ �yp 1F I II ,III I III ] , I u l % � I � I Ill I I IIII II} 11I� }1 p �,: IIIII tell I I IIII Il a IgklN,d IIIII I xpp pp I .tk flh�l N �Ir f :�..: v 1.. .:. ::: .. :1 . r,i:: !'III!!: 1. r;:.. : :,rv;. ir:fil 1 1,1 x :.I.I :, r . !.:... _... .,. -: .: y x•: 1. .I Ir :. I.:, .I. .: .. :, 1 r 1.:. .. r. .41. .._ I... � __._..L r.. . ':.IJ� ..,. ,I. f Ii -i:;.r :. I I, _ _. .. . I I l.i IL.:_:._. ..1.. L.:. .I ...1.1..., 1 . ,. , :1:1 ..... -,_ _J...... I -, I .. . ..:... ., :..:.... .I. :. , {.: ,,:- :.._.L..I I. .::. �.. .: _... 1.. ., „.._ , r.... . ,I L. .r.. ._. I.._f. 1p' 4 .111..1, y1b 1 I I .,, .. ,., . ... .. I. ..�.. ... ,., ... Itil.l r _ :: .:_ :.II: �! � .❑ ., .I .' III , : I ...:, : ... ..I .:... �. i v .... .: .1.. .. L. L... L.. .,.: I. • 1 � : . - . �.. :. -1 :. L, rl :xJ :...: i. III ! I� I I1 :. 1 :.... L. :.. 1 -lr. :..,..: .. tlr .: ... 1 Ir I 1 L.r � I1 1. I. I. 1 L.... :: I t 1. _. .: I:. :I :: :.. 1 -..:. 1 s1 :....:: 1 I -„ ...: 1 I 1 I 1.. 1 1 I :, �,: 1. 1111 :.: ..._ I 1 x.1..1,._ .:r I, 1,.:,1, :.I a' I : � r 1 4 1 i 1.. .L. 1_ .....I ILI.1 I:k.l:....:,:, _:...I ,. _ .1.:...:11.... :,...:. ...I ...LI:. 1. .. ..I �... ,1...1.,111 : I 1 II i � .1 I.,..,:. I .11,1.1........1:. 1.., L 111.111..11. r.. I I',L.,.I�I...l.....n_.ld. 1.111. 111 •:. II x; I.:. 11 ,,IL I � f I.:,. h,ldl. I, I 1 ' -:! 1 Y L_i1N �. ' : '_ ` I1 - -.'4 '' I. �:. � _- � k rep p v_.x... r, J I I :: 1'r INI 6 1 e � �II I., ,.: L� � r I I::il I ;r.;��V 1L�.� - ':� r,.,,. .. �.. ��.I 1 I::a . µ_ -:. IJ ::,- ,:_:_:: :..�; - :::a ., _ I,. II:. :41'. • 1 e'i. .:c E'IIhr, -J, s .'11 .,.,., 11.. _,::�: �.�.,__ �'`.Ia. .: -: X1:1.4 .... :!....,._.. .v :....... :,Ir:.r= I 1..'f r ...xs,71 1:. q.•.,., ', � 11 11 v.4: !. J I, r , Ic,1- : :. 1 �,,.II._ .,_:_. _,1. 1_...__ ....r ...r : r., _, _,:, .:: 11,. IJ,..r k ..,...1... II 1 1 I J1 „1 ... ;• , Ls._.r h 4Y�Ifiu. �N , ',,, 1'I afl L. I-_: .. - 1. a.116 : 1 11 I 11 ,� I: 11t 11 1 I I I 1 I 1.1 IIII � i�; [!41C1 r.�l 1 x.� I, I J, 11 1x 1 111 I 1 1• 1 1 :: _:11.1.1 1 .I 1 �: I r L ,1. �__. kla I II 1. I I1 •1111 1 :. -t ,.�) 1F u. n ,: ..I : 111 1111 L. I, 11 .4 ,I .: J :: L 11 ., 1:P':, .! .,,, I p 1 I `f Pk I'1 Jy.. — _ 1 :.. ..__.. 1.141...::_- ik d� �9' �, �k- I .al.�I�II' L , 11:,� 'g -•1: .. .,,::: '::; Ja1 :” � I 1 III :� L:.J. I ,I 'I� 1 !,:Qh YII ^ ar: ,'eel, �� - .k:.. �r - II_. I :..., . 1`y,.,,.. - 1 �Ga}u: -�',�I I I 145',x, '„ N;9;; Phl�,.� F .: il�'.'ti I� 'ia, :' - a,c ;1. 1 r 1 Jl'.11 1 ar.�fgq xil I � "..:,. •i� .I.. ,.LI ,.11.:14:31!. 1� I J a, :, ', _. �1 _I,_ 1`f ,,.1'L.�rll,hdi I ,..a:,_, r l :r:lxaa. ,rx„rP , ;_:,- l f L 11.� -: :_.. . -. >.. I ,1.Ir.:. , 3s,f.Jp. .r 1 I4 ��:-_ .1•x1 111. 1 '�:r9 :; x,11- .;Yn�' '�.''Ir,G�1,11 I, �'�'. ,.: ,,,�., : 1, ':,:r N r"F.Nrr.,� .�1. - -1, •,. 1:r � �i I I : x..,, 4: ,11 L.. = h, rr.: LI:.Ifi'' a 1'� f ,1 11xIrI,L,L�,, _.13. I;P' h � 1 f. 1f, _t Lfi Irlr_ I IIIJ::: EI .(;,: III 1, L., I r 1.IAIr: I I1 rF1 . ' .INi I' �1i1;1 Ill �4E1RIad'1 III,II; �1. it X41- :�I 41 -:�I ..�.i'47 I.rl,x N:i10.11tlY�;11I f _'Ifl�1 rJJi; 1 : =,1r'1�1;11 di Ilbl” 1. Mill. ,. ..un I I ,..L.... -.ly I:h:,::.1 k:- :r..1... ,,.,1.11. .:,,•:,,,.11'.11 ,1111..4 ,1.81:r.n � I :r:..1- :1,..,,. ,.I I:. :::9'1'1. 11.'1.y!1114' I:,Io-�L. I. �- Ill.I ",fx1E :11,1 Ih : rFJ: 1�J1 11 I • 11. ;fi I'I: I 1 L.t �rs, �"�!.' I� I '. _!- r �....,_ .;. I €I:: " I I II :: 1 .I. ,.; I•, - 1:1: I: .11 {,I �4k,=- 5' "_ 1 ll;i ,I '�I.1 1 �.:! 1;.11. !i'I. II ;'III 11'' 1 �,•'I.1 4h Il!f 1, . 1i. _11'. !e- kmiR'.:= b,n'.' =1!3 Ana ,1; u II��.�'':v '1 : ';� i !.!: %s'r F -1. "I I 1 111 I 1 I I.I I r, .. -cJ I .L,;.II ,I', !- 11;1 - "li III I!..,,• .rlr I. I..y!31 r 1 r - llpi 1, u� �!h 1 1 ,ill C r L5R III; 4111 P, IIJ. ' 1y 1 i I IiLL11.i'I' lJ,iIGII:� I ,.Ir rv':' 11 Il',I� ill IN'J PI, ',0" I�',', I 1IJ �.I... 11�11pIj''I , I;til4!I'h141L. 'lix _ I I.IIII'!IIL111!(!al 14IIhaI,.Ja I1,Ilillllhll II II IIII u1�111 III -1,y,a I6Jh1p !! el P :x:,.f .i1,1',: Ir'.1',,11I" ti uIIP111111 - 0nllhlll PI 4.:11 a '1 ,�,r L.: I'I`:'jjlf 1 1 i1111llllln 1,di.1.I111lIltl I LIaI_,illl IL, � 111 I a�11 I� 111'-1.I 1 1.111 b.�l r:'. '�:: I I 1 111 a : n.,, � ''I =� 4 I 1 ,I I III III (I 11' 11 (• {111 �I 14' IPI tl I nI 1.1 i 1 r1f ry Il tF 11 I1 rl F' HI I4 'li p LFU I�If F I f 1 •• lii'14i '.' I•. .: :'. .11 �,.:• ' 1111'II L:p 1111i 11111 ;F,Il l,.: Iril gJ',Irrl ��9111r 1.II11 I'1� Or, 111'i1'l' III 11!11 YIII 1� 1I lI ,� IIII III VIII Jul I ',',1 1 14.811 rxyl IIIIIII�illll illllill,'11IF IYiy 1�I1111;1 ,'�I lil ;I 11611 I lik IIIIIIa11 :Ili 1 1 I�!.1 Ill; j 14vI1Y_I l I,eh Ill I �,;N IFI 111j4"p�M 1yI��In � I ply", 1 I d f 11'111. 11111111 •i d 1 IN ' '�" 1 11n, ✓,', 1�; 11 111 1 „ 1 p,ill,1IIx' 1 I 3 141 111 4 p [y . �. 1'1 , 1 .111 1 111111 1 .^ 4 IIII Ix11iilil �� 11111I�1' Irl I I 1 ^n I I all J1. it 1 . Ir : 11 ', 1j cF Kl 1 alk..�.: a., 1 1 ii,:. ':'dii ll Ihl 1 i.. klr•II111 III La IIII 1 ll II' - ! 1 1 rr x 1 I r l I I 1 I I f I I I I 1 i I I !1I�I1!1 II 1mill, . J , 11 1VI 1I1I1 ! I I IB I I I I I II1IL;1:,'1.I I xx ° 1 I I I 11-1 ; ;1h 1 4,11, , I , 1 : . :' •1 i ' 'x 1 I I1: ! ;, Ix4II1i ;"'1N ; II ' , � , x''I,�� JI ; �.rt � 3�: , d �"9L' 'r I4 p „ ,• / ' 4 1 1'' �tl.1, : ?,1.'.: ...r , " "� , � 11•. I r :v :. I 1 � �ii1l J ' 1 p r, -,1 - ' :. 1 xu'111Y ,� L E 1 � I" l 'I d�J I�l" la64 1 lfrILrlIV l f l } ,�lr : , i J ' 14 I Y Nl11 ILlIp [ l�1 I l;,il, 1n�h ra1 ll lx4?1"a r _ . y lr 1 ,I 11111r 1 1 I1l I 1II1II'l1 II II i II l 1i Ip 1 1 J� . f I4;1 I,r; 1l 1 IRd IlIiI�I 1 �1 ��liif;11 1 1l 11l1 l l l 1i'Ii I1 I I'I! I r I lj' u 11r I4 . l 1I'{'l I l:1!1!N1i'1j4 I L:- 11I, 1 F 0I4IIIhI1 11�Ll 1 : I 71. i ,11 J � r I. .f M lI I ll i l hl 111111. 17111,,x;;1 1:11 p;, 1111.1 li WIT 1 .11�a, 1 I .1111 111:1 ,.w4 114,4. IIII g1i,IIN Ilxl�. :.: ,1. 1,1;';r; 1 p., '�I ::�a: .''ray •1. ',',.. !'� :' e- .d 11 I1.4'aa,: 11.1 I :r.;Il qI 1 ,.1111111 :- 11g1!II! rr'.7ala, �Ial 11I�Ik IIII,I�... � -�!; II" IIIIIfI Alp � t I 1 f r' ;fl I 11IIhe �.e.lal,!,i' .. 9.. EtIF ":!4' •.1 nir4!IV- :,IIM1 =�Js_.:Ilul... 1IFI:J6:1.� :t1._I:V111.1. tIV,�'��ill7 L I,R: !IIr' ___. -�' F fl!Si ^1 �1 I FI'lij r�� 111 Rely , t j II t� III �I�J�fl�i�trt ! I �ilel�a ��j�ji " "�I��1 @71 �I �1 lyvl'r.M' : "IBC JI �ifl 11l�h�llij, Nil �I��IJ 11111 ��II GI.11 111 IL.��Ip��,�I�I�ji I�LPI,I:�iIiI'h�l II �I�� ,� !•� l pl�� II', �JI III I ��I I �II t!I IJ!�I!II I,.1;1 II�aII _p: 1 y� IIII' 1 ._ _ liri I'l,.11 III I .I II 'it hilj l!' 1I10111,l 111111 .LI �I 4 °. :!Ii U Ililj i 1.1111 114, � � ' II I II� 1 1 bill j I• I ,:,11jj1 h I I II � 111 III IIN I'4�1111 I r �' i11�'n'" I n i 1111111111 111 � Ii1 I I II lllh 11 e1 II 1111I� �� I It I I '1�MIII I e x111 111 r F l r l l 1 Ill _ II Ill jl43I 111'1 ¢ r9hls _ I� HIQ�L I r .l i Ii 511 011,11 3 e I 11 a Illlll IIII ;1j . INI II 1;11 �I II E.I g��lktlal�lllpiri-1�4k�:el l it nl;ll III IIII 1 tF4 �I,I ,IaE ,Iii y. , rl l'IGI cr1 `' 111 1 1 11 I l .III II I III 11 � I IY I' i I J 1 aL u 4 0 1 t' 111 II li I!IIIi!I l'ilII f' lil 11041'11 �ll' III II �I IIII! IG4' IyL I IN II1 l; ILLP "Idm ,ll� 111111111 I'Il Fjh�N� d I III Iul� �I� 111 �- T,IIIII II:II�fll�ll {I '411 I�yllrlfl� 1 111 tr II f' i LEI Alf li, �I . �i llll ,J t �l ra l ik 116IIE E? �f A 11"1=PI1T N?` �jpTl '!,,j I ' .I.. i III I lily l!lml1OH1111 u n 11111 yF Nj jl ! Irl 7 I 1 I 11 F_ 1'I III I !LI:gli,•I�i1 I; 111 I I , 11 II I- ° -. I IIII 1 II tl I ..II I i ly (i I I �I I ' "� III I!.I'�II Ill �I 111 all 11:111 S dP" I IN;, r' II Ial t II f 1411 " I 1 1Ii I IF • lily l!lml1OH1111 u n 11111 yF Nj jl ! Irl 7 I 1 I 11 F_ 1'I III I !LI:gli,•I�i1 I; 111 I I , 11 II I- ° -. I IIII 1 II tl I ..II I i ly (i I I �I I ' "� III I!.I'�II Ill �I 111 all 11:111 'I 1'�ly 111111 114 yl �'Vkd� y!I III I III��1 i! I' I I� I IrIIII I I�h.� N Illll,lii�J�Slg§l!,j II oyililggll I'R -1 . I� ilEi I r ' 161 s ral!1 !Ili j11 l nN9N19Sw1aAt �I 4 I t ....- � I I IrV: la rdl�ltw!Ij !, � N, 1 :II q §hI nk ........... J 7'YW� Illsil' �II i.l I a II III, I Ij;al 1ri 1 .1611' I 1' 'I 9 4'11'111' I I �I I�aA1' I €'I_I I d' '? I � It Iilk',,I Ig014 IItVI� y Igl • I 1 : +I I' I . �I Ham �' :y y$Ilra �II .9 li,x4 , it @t,- �r;1�,1; i; " "'11 'll III I'I 11- 1. IIII III I IIj,;j1IIlI II�II�IIIh ll I 1! 11;1,111 IIII I II . I':f ,i ''qIL III I Iltill I'IIiI I II -n li I° I 1 t r ,I I Ji' llyf, � I IIIII� ' '?tr 1,,�"L 1, ',II II 4F1'1;" Lyrs 2 gl D II Ih i RE IY GI w �[im "� '�+!�, Ipk i!i I i� d IIrJ,I l 111I!11y Ip!I�jIII Gil11 {� IIII 111II11I1111 i!. �,Illi,ll I II!n� il�lti: i,ai {.II � ' -, i iy,= ..';V'r� a{I III !il�'�Il .I� lam�p.�,"E` 1rI i, u' II III IiiI:.Jl1�l ,� � Illll�j °IIII, I I it lilt I iVl I� �I4 �1�111i�;ll!�I �! jll III I�'i � � I 41'11 I � I I II,, J�11'111111I111 ayl,lill I uI I I'IIIII :•Il,hl I Ii'Ii It�!Iti.: "1� Ili i I ��Illai 1111i!!II n� aI II I;�IIy' d I1Ir�1 I II;JyI � 111 ��IIt � I 'Ill Ililla!IIII III 1ifll�liiIllt III �. III. (hI I III1 I�II��I�I��_i i I !41 fll 111 I�IJp 1p II!� � i111 I I,.II�� ". I rl IIII II�Ir I I.4 1,6 f III IEi 1 I ! q II!yl I!� I� y kl lu!19! �:I) ,yla t I::. ' I I I I, 4 I I Ilf�j�l�l 1 a1y 1�I�t� 'I I II I��Ih 1311111 I k�I� I I If'I 111 I � I „IIII, = II JI'I I!I IIIV � 1 ,1 I! i6 �`I�y�I 1! ! t ! I � I! 1 Illhtt III iRl "iil4r I q vl �- Ia lq rl II I I I,f JJ II' Ih, ''"qq' .. �. III' N7,1I I' k Iqg III!, J I ,h?tib �!II 111 hgt IIII III ICI I l t 6 y 41..1 l I I- I I It f dl !1f�1 � �411fllI�lli9'. i) I C I I I I I � I d Ppt�_I!I rli rh I I m,�9:!IN a�yYt611 Ili r . IIII II,� , ,I. l�l j I I 1 I ', I r I j r rIIIII ' l 6: I �r � � ICI I.. I ' I' 'rl i IIII IIII I'I I -I Ili rill, III , I 1 ,2: ',IIII 1 III I'�' IIII I 1 !1I N ,IIII L III II • ,..III I ,! 1111 e ° 1 l j I 1' I I! I �° I d' II 'I��Illlf III, III ,IIII III I qP ,, ' ''I I I I'�I IIII I I I'.. " Itl IjIII� III �!� I I d I II�II�I ll j f ,L. III �61I I. I I I :. ism ., ! i l 1 I t Iljdi y1 II I ! 1' ii a I �1i -• I 1 lF� � �''t,lll 91719Iwil11 111 M '_ :I +v. 5H� a ita,l111lllal�i9111;,��1F 1p 1 I� I;Ir' I I 11111 �I,I IIII'I a IJ I l I IIII N� ]] I h i. I,.__,:a.1..�.._ "rm,,•,t I � ! I,Ird11111V!Iwli' I 1't ,tt ':''L Irll pa 4i: III II , I III II : ; 6' 1111;f!!, it ' �l� � ^.!Gp -- r I� tL111��11i�i � ._ r� .�::�':•, _,.�:.:� ,:,II I ��I fI� fil�z, II l'gll��j4ll @hall I &��:'N! €rl la �Ir�' . °� e�y eil4 iu �1.�191jip i}a1!i it � _Y -r � 1� ii: i 11.1. I�IItiI� a I<I.I .:iV I�I`€411 Adl '� - 5 I Ina A Hd F,Ndr'r.l� I Ir1 6t , 3 , , t ' I �� ! 1kl III e, Ir VIII I I I rII t IjI ,II! i�I 'i!'�I��III�II!�II lid trill a,f;I,11F1j, II,!l -I' 111111 'IL,.',I, .., �I'I II II�SII ir'I 11 � 1 7 fit IL °1I IIII Oil hP1�19�'1 I -t I 'I ;I I Ilal it Il��if II'i I 11 4111 11 tl' l! I I I II IIII !I 14 I I I I !1J I''', IIII' fl1 VIII II�I�III I 71 '�14 !�!�111�iIIP!��Ij �IiaL II t I 4 IJ III 111'!11111 I �' 11'll�l ii: ,1 1 i E .I -':: r 1 (.IIII,., I 11, :! I :III: ,III : I .1,:.1.1 L•1, .� I. !L 1 1 h I' d- IIII I L.II � LIB i II III:;i!: 1� r'1� • 11 r � I I I jJ:: 11� I! i !:1111 i � 1..1 I 1 ! I I . I , :: '1” •:1 I'1' l �'I '.+ , � I. , � I I ;,11 , I 1 a�tl : Itll it II '! 1 I I I, I I , • • 1 j L'. 1 ;j1 I n I 11.1' IIII I:I'. III f ':; I -'III III :,! -I j; � .'• I I I" , ' �' , i I II f L. I 1j 1 II a "1I 1 ! I I Alit '11 .CI 1 11004 �" ' III II 'III III 1 �Ii I; I II , ,111 II �III1' 1 IIIIIII ,' III I , :11q IIII i II I �lui�! � � d ! IIII ! I I I I ilij i11;I�jI'I ��p j�l�1!l IIII IIII IIII 111 ri r IIHHI� ! "1111'1 1'1111 ill�l'IIk 1 I I I�; III �LLIril X11 I III, IIi;•III'!IhbillFlllldl'.' I lilll'IIIi I!III!hIfII' IIII III' I'll ffIIi' I I:� I II i l l 111 11411 IIII I I! I Ii 11 I,I III 'jl1 IN T!1 111'111 1 hllllll ��jlhl I I'lI III IIII III ,� III IIII I,! 1I I�� II�A. I III III I!lli' I IIII r..r ' I 1 !IIII 1161 dIIJII fl IIIIII :nlo 4i I I �!II' N I I I t pI 1 II y 111' IiIII U II I I h ' III I��I � w.yy� II IIII I�'I I!IIh Il l'INIII VIII IIJ II 1 1 it V,IIII I4F,� i! 1 I IIII 1 I IIII I111i� IIII Illrl I I!IIIII'lll i1r11 I p lall 11 VIII I!I'I'!�I�I'il °Ilfli4111 ' I ' III'li'glfllll!III!I�'I Iril' r I I ' I � I I I ;VIII I IIIilll (IIII xIlF,llpl�l I � lk ''IIIh I! IIII , III -I M1� Ip5 f �f�li 1 IIII II II I I�,IIiN l l IIII YII�III I, I! IIII I '., IIII "hl IIII! IIIIII u' 1 '' II IIIIII I' II N ail ,I 111 I ! !111111 11111,11 IIII Eli. 1 I 1 I Illl�liaJ1 II t'I ._xl! II! I I I I, Illi III I I II I II II II II I I , 'I'I I'f�rlll :I� I salt I I j1'1 IIj11 ! VIII !I lrl �7 .1 1 -111 I 1 III fll IF it r d rl IIF3, 11 6f III VIII a iltl l 111111 011 III pp ° 1 '' 1 111,1,1 IIIIIII � ' : i'I 1 d tl 11 .I! I 11 I VIII r I ��Eyvrl �,,:�1111' I II 'II I I it d II F I I r 11Iha � I � � I I I IFII II�IN Olp x1111 ,liw 3 1 I` 1 yF'�� '11F111;1'1 I I�t?i „II, Ir i1ilkblul�,IryIIlI1Fl bllh � 19 .,.; II I; kl` I F h!k kl ,u II Ij1 11 I 'I 4 11 �I91I !p - e, 111 Ilflll ! 'J N1 I I d 1 IIyrI I IIIIII h IIII I. l I I II... Intl lhr: ! I dlll� I, I 1� I: - IIII Ix IIII! I;IIjq r. I I I II IIII I 1.� rll r r,I. .� I 1 I r.l I I I I 1 N L. I I1IIj��II'`�1' r. L .II I I Irr 1, I II11. : 1 1 r� ., :- 9 I I I ":,.:. illl 111: 1J! �III'�!illlj II, I I:1'''I�'�Ir IIII 1 �I II r I , ',ry I'I III II 'I' "P' 1I11'ill�t 11111 I II ':o;'! rl ' 1 1111:111 II:!nll III, I II Ilr: ;!,. •, I,I ��I III , j I uII I I I;, I I� I I I' I ll I I I -,:r I!plN lI 1r irIII1 1 1!I III , I,r. (IIII jr I Lit I !! ilu I - .. {III. I III I` I II N li III it II III 11111! ',! I JII .. i1 ! L .1I,l1, 1111 1111'1 IY.J;I � i 'I j; 11111! 1'11;!:; ,'! II i!I,Ir =llr I ,III I =! I UI,�I;IIIIII�1IIII ' IIII IIII 111! �I �i !IIIIIII ;IIII :11111 Illy °:illl III ,1Ir N A 111111 114.1 ry !i!'1 Ii'I�'J�'ll!1;lullll Illbllll,,Ill t (� r I I�j 11�11,:1111111111'II:I!illll, III-'I Ii IIII IIIIII I'llr!I IIII I hI ,11,11.11, h(III III I, III. 111 III' I II 1,1111:!!1 II�11!l ll- II:,.. _,IIII I1I.II If., IIIIIII 1II' II IIII! I IIIh I II 1.11 Ijlll 'IflJll III'rI a 1,�6I II 1 I II I , YI I I 11111 11!1111I, III! III '. I '1!I I I IIIIII " I 'I VIII 1 III III lr I II III , -I III !I,!1 'I 111 LI,I I IV I IL , III I IIII' (IIII 111141111 III III ( ' ',1� III III i if ,iJI jjI IIIIII Ir ,5 II. III ”; Iq if XII 1111'1111 111 '1 1111 I i.1 IIII 'l�l IFI,I:'IIII., 1111111 IIIIli1�11 II'I1111�. 1,11 1' 111111 FIII . -11111 'I 'II.''l IIII L.i I �ll;pl��ll�l, ul It 511;11 !, ! i I�In!h' 1 1 „1!, I IIIL'Ir.l 111 I I I �I III 11r I;I 4�I, III 1I:III 1111,1111 II I :IIII Ali Illi III I I:!.,' I'I ' I liuul is , I ...I r. 4r. !IILIiI 111 III,IJr I I !ill .., I•D,IIr p^rla J I h I II. I !1 11 I r- r II I V,. "I P a I I II 1 I I I I I II II N r I I I.. 11:11. I �� '!l''.,II,II Iil,ll IJIIIIII';�..IIII II,'!I :yr - I I I ....III. I 1. .r .... I I I.. I: I I I. I Il:�:lln�I� IIIIII IrI�IILILIm:, _. LIIL.ILIIIIIh11.IlN I llflllllill!h Ci, . I_�. 1 "T! �,,J- 6 . . tj 1 11 him 619 llrll- !1 �1,11 I I N 1 1 1 O k I II ""AR j iib� 2L�;, IL lk PT; nI H -ii t I CIE.. E R l- i; n 1�II M i �jqjrl, IHO Mullklilii:k J-1. J��! r 'ki A 'ING R, .01i 1, �R VI HE A Rl,.? -, g-! tiu Plil—it M -I Rbl ld Li H �,llll A P 51PIL J sr F �ff E T1 uViii RIF '! i 1! !. I I - 1, - 1 1, " '.-, "" I I � !1E 14 11! WFNIII�fll I 1"11u 1, 11* A.M.-I'l, "I . . nl€ RE - i.. G. 11 z. Q 17 - I -11vi; WON II ill ILI Hgpl Wl . 4"lu , H Ill All NIEL, `17 st 13 r n�cd 'ally •� 4vIrye�. 1�5; -At rdop Bank Swallow l Edina Fire Department 6250 Tracy Avenue Edina, Minnesota 55436-2580 (952) 826.0330 fax (952) 8260393 December 9, 2013 Karen Brundin 4100 Parklawn Avenue South Unit 109 Edina, MN 55435 Ms. Brundin, City of Edina 4801 West 50th &-cet o e 1 Edina, M'mnesota 55424-1394 - J (992) 927.8861 fax (952) 8260390 `'s• This letter is a follow up to a fire and life safety inspection that occurred at your residence on Friday, September 13, 2013. It -is imperative that the storage Inside your residence not be excessive and be neat and orderly. This is for your safety as well as the safety of other occupants in the building and the safety of the firefighters that may respond to a fire emergency in your unit. Further, Minnesota State Fire Code (MSFC) requires access and two exits from the room you sleep in. As you know, on September 13, 2013, the City of Edina entered your residence with a search warrant as allowed under MSFC 104.3.1. This inspection conducted per MSFC 106.2 revealed critical fire and life safety deficiencies and you were served notice. of those deficiencies (MSFC 109.2). Please contact the fire department at 952- 826 -0339 by noon December 17 to schedule a follow -up inspection. If you fail to schedule a follow -up inspection, we will begin legal proceedings to mitigate the identified hazards. You have the right to appeal pursuant to Minnesota State Fire Code and Edina City Code. Best regards, Jeff Slems, Fire Marshal Edina Fire Department 6250 Tracy Avenue South Edina, MN 55436 9S2- 826 -0337 3Siems @EdinaMN.gov Past Code Violations February 4, 2008 Karen Brandin 4100 Parklawn Ave Unit 109 Edina Mn 55435 Dear Ms. Brandin: This letter is a follow up to the inspection that occurred at your residence on January 28, 2008. It is imperative that storage inside your residence be neat and orderly and not excessive. This is for your safety and the safety of other occupants in the building and Edina firefighters. In addition, the Minnesota State Fire Code requires access to two exits from the room you sleep in. As you know, on September 21, 2004, the City of Edina entered your residence on a search warrant for unsanitary conditions. During the week of September 26, 2005, the unsanitary conditions and the excessive storage were removed from your residence. Now the storage problem that the City of Edina addressed over three years ago has returned. The storage of combustible materials that you have accumulated in two years and 4 months creates a fire danger for you, other occupants of your building and for Edina firefighters. The excessive storage of combustible materials in all rooms of your residence needs to be reduced within the next 30 days. A'follow up inspection will occur during the week of March 10, 2008. If there is no change on this date, a citation will be issued and legal action may take place per the 2007 Minnesota State Fire Code Section � 110 for unsafe buildings. In addition to the storage, you shall maintain access to two exits at all times from rooms that you sleep in. This includes full access to the front door and to an emergency escape and rescue window per the 2007 Minnesota State Fire Code Section 1026. If you have any questions regarding these orders please contact me at 952.826.0337 or tiensonOci.edina.mn.us. Thank you, Thomas Jenson Fire Marshal PC. Solvei Wilmot, Edina Health Department Tony Rocheford, Rockford Management October 18, 2010 Karen Brundin 4100 Parklawn Ave Unit 109 Edina Mn 55435 Dear Ms. Brundin: This letter is a follow up to the inspection that occurred at your residence on January 28, 2008 by Solvei Wilmot, City of Edina Health Department. It is imperative that storage inside your residence be neat and orderly and not excessive. This is for your safety and the ,safety of other occupants in the building and emergency responders. In addition, the Minnesota State Fire Code requires access to two exits from the room you sleep in. As. you know, on September 21, 2004, the City of Edina entered your residence on a search warrant for unsanitary conditions. During the week of September 26, 2005, the unsanitary conditions and the excessive storage were removed from your residence. Now the storage problem that the City of Edina addressed over five years ago has returned. The excessive storage of combustible materials in all rooms of your residence shall be reduced within the next 30 days. A follow up inspection will occur during the week of November 8, 2010. If there is no change on this date, a citation will be issued andlegal action may take place per the 2007 Minnesota State Fire Code Section 110 for unsafe buildings. In addition to the storage, you shall maintain access to two exits at all times from rooms that you sleep in. This includes full access to the front door and to an emergency escape and:rescue window per the 2007 Minnesota State Fire Code Section 1026. If you have any questions regarding these orders please contact me at 952.826.0337 or tjensonQci.edina.mn.us. Thank you, Thomas Jenson Fire Marshal PC. Solvei Wilmot, Edina Health Department Tony Rocheford, Rockford Management EEO 3 law -. rfi 11111010 SIMON, EEO 3 law -. rfi I II Ify �,I I,4IILII 'IFahe I I I I,If, -, III I I I� II11 I I 1 Ij�Iy s I �II I,111 I�PI II I' I�,I 1 Ill II',tll Iu1111� II II 1.I l � Ill �IN111�1 "�all9i �'il II�p11 Il III I "y i j �1�1I �: I1 'j III dc'��II�999,a1^ I II I ) J II I I "nit, u �I I '� I I p �Llryd�' ti ,� � { 1 I�� I I � I �� ` ae � I { . I � j I :11 I I I I 1111 ICI II F 11� 1 I. 1111 :I �, il I Il fill �"I lr�l' I�� I Ilr �u, j L,I�I III 111 ::'III I� I�lll��'l Illl�h �I'�II I l,nl 1 _';j. 1 IIII ,!,I III 11111 I YtI� � Ilu� �� j'1.� �r j Ili il,llljkl li I I �IIIIIIII IIII N Iih.I� aI��II�II��l1�11IIy�I I� �LII � II I f � IIG III I I II,GPIiI w I a,�P, k�".'' . :I'I I I I r.I I I I I�jI III 1 1 I III 1 I it l l It I:II 11 (III�5i111 I � i >II I' I 111 Il�ll�l� I I�I F" III II I�1 I I' 11: I I II I` I lJ ''.. WAMER i I k a,h.111, _I,:.::: 1 I 1 .i al I L I I I ., I I A� I 1• I I, 1.1.11 I ;ly,, ilyM_ 1110 j 1 ,1 LI .. tixlkf jl1I11�I1IA�� "Ir tI1 "^ dliuur4 a: ": ., + h,l 1134ii'l illl .':I Ili X111 lJ, III IIi 1�1c1i I lilt �cll IILI q1: 1. I I1 ,� rjil',111�11�Y'I I. Aklh l''lIIa11 71��F 'Y 4dY�'I IiI ill '�I i , j l �,:I I III 1111 III 1` il!�'1 III LL,I' I�f blt IILI { L Ill 1 W,I {,IFI 6 411 qq I ('MII Y I 1 '111 l { „'III I IIl 111 x :'I 'I� ti:f ( r �' y r� k�1.11�1� �: '. li Ii ,I 117y y r 1 I �I I' I ': , 9 i' 1 II I it I I'.I':I a 1 I 11 "�II 1 II' ':1 I 1 II I I Ii I I I I l' FahIJ Ila uA ll , kl"�d { { v! "Cy4-119!IIIIIIdIIilp��II a�lA 1-111 Y I141jI:I III 11' I" giIIGI - Ilf y IA31,1 �IIII'II�IIrI�I xll�lrll CI�II OI'I FI �IIf jIhY 4 IaI'7Ii Y)II I {. i . r � r9 ;�1 ryi .: /L<,3reG,R. fill , 1 lil la4t 1111 I I : I � jl I � I' is 1111 k S” I I' „I II ill Ill, � I jl� Y I� II l 1 :1,1 11111,I�Iilp�li1 � 1 1 t 11 I l II III I I II I ' :� r: III II : 1 I � I 1: 1 li I I 1111 j: ga, i II ( l 1.,� 1 I 11A n.al l; Ij I� ll III I i III I I h I I I' I III I' A J I I I I i 11 111�� 'I Ik I li III ICI 1111 II III III I�q 11A I 1 1111 11I11�11111111{11IF�I� I11111��ill l� it {III {i .Il Il lillll�ll i;l;�l�' III it il!dI II11,�j1 (4h1411L- X1111 �� 4j'II I'�I r II 11',11 h�llu In li'. dl A11111 IIS 9 IE d 11 11r �� , II: �I 1111, IJ1 14,11rAj.� A tl {� Y y 11: I I 1 15. Ilyl L PI ,'III ""NOT! Ilkl�d4 �f� _ � {�lhyyel,� a ,Iv�IrlA�ii�i�nl{ {A 1 �A 1�i1 H l I � ar n {IV 1 I n RM EMPIM 7;7E ---------- -- - - - - - - -- - --------------------- - - - -- - -- ------------- - TM o RM EMPIM Type: ❑ Garbage/Refuse ❑ Recycling • Public Nuisance • Public Health Nuisance ❑ Freedom to Breathe Complaint Location: Owner: Owners Address: Complainant: COMPLAINT RECORD Edina Health Department Date: 5/13/13 ❑ Housing ❑ Food ❑. Pools ❑ Other: FIRE 4100 Parklawn Ave. Unit # 109 Laural.Spande. Complainant Address: 4100 Parklawn Ave. Unit #110 Complainant Telephone (H) _651- 775 -2935 (W) Received by: _Brown — Forwarded to Jeff Siems (Fire Dept.) Nature of Complaint: Resident (Karen) is sleeping in common areas of condo complex, and using laundry room for hygiene purposes, as her unit is full of belongings. Complainant states that management is investigating and has taken pictures.inside "the unit. She indicated that the door to the unit can barely open because of the accumulation of items in front of the door. This unit has a history of accumulating items, but not of unsanitary conditions. Complainant said she spoke with resident, who indicated her heating /cooling system was not working. Egress from the unit may be an issue. Report of Investigation:. Comments: Inspection Date: Compliance Date: Date of Referral: 5/13%13 Refer to: ❑ Planning 11 Building ❑ Animal Control 11 Park/Weeds 11 Other STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN IN RE: The Matter of a Hazardous Building Located at 4100 Parklawn Avenue South Unit #109, City of Edina, Hennepin County, Minnesota DISTRICT COURT FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT CASE TYPE: Other Civil Court File No TO: Owners and lienholders of the above real estate: ORDER FOR REPAIR AND REMOVAL OF HAZARDOUS CONDITIONS Karen Lynn Brundin, 4100 Parklawn Avenue, Apt. 109, Edina, Minnesota 55435; Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7t' Street, SW, Washington, D.C. 20410; and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., P.O. Box 17339, Baltimore, Maryland 21297. PLEASE BE ADVISED that pursuant to order of the Edina City Council and by authority of Minnesota Statutes § 463.15 et seq., you have twenty (20) days from the date of service of this Order upon you, to remedy the health and safety hazards and the hazardous condition of the property at 4100 Parklawn Avenue, Apt. 109, Edina, Minnesota 55435, located in the County of Hennepin, and legally described as follows: Apartment Number 109, and 1.13013 percent of undivided interest in the common areas and facilities, Apartment Ownership No. 88, Heatherton of Edina Condominiums, Hennepin County, Minnesota. The Fire Marshal for the City of Edina has inspected the property at 4100 Parklawn Avenue South Unit #109, Edina, Minnesota 55435 [hereinafter: Subject Property]. The inspections revealed that the Subject Property constitutes a health, safety, and fire hazard to the residents of the City of Edina. The City of Edina has notified you of the following conditions and demanded that you remedy all health and safety hazards and hazardous conditions of the Subject Property. On September 5, 2013, the City of Edina applied for and obtained an administrative 174175A search warrant at the Subject Property due to the existence of health, safety, and fire hazards. The search warrant dated September 5, 2013, notified you of the health and safety violations. On October 14, 2013, you wrote a letter requesting an extension to remedy the code violations by November 18, 2013. The City granted you the extension to remedy the code violations. On December 9, 2013,. the City sent you a letter requesting that you schedule a follow -up inspection by noon on December 17, 2013. You failed to contact the City by that date. You have not made any corrections to remedy the hazardous conditions at the Subject Property. The following conditions must be remedied and inspected within twenty (20) days from the date of service of this Order: I . Piles of rubbish, combustibles, cardboard boxes, and other storage items must be removed to restore the interior of the Subject Property to a safe and sanitary condition. All storage of combustible materials must be orderly and'separated from heaters or heating devices by distance or shielding so that ignition cannot occur. Edina City Code § 605.01,`subdiv. 1; Minn. State Fire Code § 315.2. 2. Storage must be maintained 2 feet (610 mm) or more below the ceiling in non - sprinklered areas of the Subject Property or a minimum of 18 inches (457 mm) below sprinkler head deflectors in'sprinklered areas of buildings. Edina City Code § 60.5.01, subdiv. 1, 2; Minn. State Fire Code § 315.2.1. 3. Combustible materials shall not be stored in exits or exit enclosures. Edina City Code § 605.01, subdiv. 1; Minn. State Fire Code § 315.2.2. .4. Exit accesses, exits, or exit.discharges shall be continuously maintained free from obstructions or irnpediments to full instant use in the case of fire or other emergency. Edina -City Code § 605.01, subdiv. 2, 3; Minn. Admin. R. 7511.1028.2; International Property Maintenance Code (IPMC) § 702.1. Means of egress must be free from obstructions that would prevent its use; any obstruction which prevents the means of egress constitutes a hazardous condition. Edina City Code § 605.01, subdiv. 3; Minn. Admin. R. 7511.1028.3. If you fail to remedy the code violations, the City will seek permission from the'District Court for the City to do so. The City will move the District Court for summary enforcement of this Order pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 463.19 unless you remedy the situation within said twenty 174175.v1 (20) day period or unless an answer is filed within twenty (20) days of service of this Order upon you pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 463.18. Upon enforcement of the Order by the City, all costs expended by the City will be assessed against the real property and collected as other taxes as provided in Minn. Stat. § 463.21. Dated: March , 2014 CAMPBELL KNUTSON Professional Association By: Soren M. Mattick #27785X Edina City Attorney 317 Eagandale Office Center 1380 Corporate Center Curve Eagan, Minnesota 55121 Telephone: (651) 452 -5000 ACKNOWLEDGMENT The City of Edina, by and through its undersigned attorney, acknowledges that costs, . disbursements, and reasonable attorney and witness fees may be awarded to the opposing party or parties pursuant to Minnesota Statutes § 549.2 1, subdiv. 2. Dated: March , 2014 Soren M. Mattick #27785X 174175.v1 3 �q�r1A,11?l� >4�i O loan To: MAYOR & COUNCIL Agenda Item #: IV. K. From: Scott Neal Action M City Manager Discussion ❑ Date: March 18, 2014 Information ❑ Subject: Resolution No. 2014 - 2014 -32 Stating Appreciation To Metropolitan Airport Commission for Recent Work Regarding Airport Noise Action Requested: Adopt Resolution. Information / Background: At their last meeting the Council directed staff to prepare a resolution thanking the Metropolitan Airport Commission for their recent work engaging affected residents around the issue of aviation noise and for working diligently to aid in the preservation of the high quality of life enjoyed by resident of Edina. Attachments: Resolution No. 2014 -32 City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 RESOLUTION NO. 2014 -32 OF APPRECIATION WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) was created in 1943 by the State of Minnesota to providing coordinated aviation services throughout the Twin Cities metropolitan area; and WHEREAS, the MAC plays a critical role in the administration and oversight of the Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport; and WHEREAS, aviation noise resulting from the arrival and departure of flights from the Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport has an impact on the quality of life of Edina residents; and WHEREAS, the September 2012 proposal by the Federal Airports Administration (FAA) to implement Area Navigation (RNAV) on all runways at the Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport would restrict departure flight tracks of runways 30L and 30R to the heavily populated areas north and west of the airport, including Edina; and WHEREAS, in February 2013 the MAC requested that the FAA only implement a partial RNAV program at MSP, excluding RNAV from departures of runways 30L and 30R; and WHEREAS, on February 19, 2014, the MAC received a letter from the FAA that the FAA will not implement any RNAV departure routes at Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport (MSP) at this time; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Edina City Council and the citizens of Edina, hereby extend sincere appreciation and gratitude to the Board of Directors and Staff of the Metropolitan Airports Commission for their work to engage affected residents around the issue of aviation noise and for working diligently to ensure the preservation of the high quality of life enjoyed by the residents of Edina. Dated: March 18, 2014 Attest: Debra A. Mangen, City Clerk STATE OF MINNESOTA) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) SS CITY OF EDINA ) CERTIFICATE OF CITY CLERK James B. Hovland, Mayor 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 March 18, 2014, 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 and Council From: Jordan Gilgenbach, Communications Coordinator Date: March 18, 2013 Subject: February "Speak Up, Edina" Report ■ �g1NA. �l o e 0, � Val ia �Ve� Agenda Item #: V. A. Action ❑ Discussion ❑ Information Action Requested: Receive report on March 2014 "Speak Up, Edina" discussion about the food -to- liquor sales ratio. Information / Background: Since June 2012, the City of Edina has used the online engagement website, www.SpeakUpEdina.org, to collect ideas and opinions from residents. One of the City Council's six strategic priorities for 2014 -2015 is Communication and Engagement: "To clearly understand community needs, expectations and opinions, the City will consistently seek the input of a broad range of stakeholders in meaningful and interactive communication." A goal of that is to host a monthly discussion on www.SpeakUp.Edina.org. City Manager Scott Neal has selected topics for monthly discussions for the first half of the year. In February 2014, the discussion topic centered on the food -to- liquor sales ratio for restaurants with a liquor license. In this online discussion, the City posed the following questions: • Should the City revise its intoxicating liquor license ratios? Why or why not? • What do you think the. food -to- liquor sales ratio for intoxicating liquor license holders be? • If an establishment violates the current 60 -40 rule, it could be fined and, if the entity has multiple violations, its liquor license could be in jeopardy. Should the City keep the ratio, but revise the penalty structure? Why or why not> The discussion was open for comments between Feb. I and March 2. During that time, 32 comments were made. Additionally, 673 people visited the site 884 times, garnering 3,528 page views. Of all the visitors to the site during that period, 41 percent were from Edina (according to their internet provider). The discussion was promoted through various means, including a press release, Facebook and Twitter posts and City Extra messages. In addition, the Communications & Technology Services Department reached out to organizations that might be interested in the topic, such as the Edina Chamber of Commerce, 50th & France Professional & Business Association, Minnesota Restaurant Association and individual restaurants. Attached are the comments made on Speak Up, Ediria! City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St • Edina, MN 55424 Speak Up. Edina! Eq Hone Discussions Sign Uum • Ideas • surveys Email ---• !emall address... Passwordo _Add 1password... Sign In o Myprofde Lilce 6 Tweet] cl Io inn omd Share 1 \t This Discussion channel is currently closed. 0 •�i • AnaI yg Speak Up, Edina! We're always looking for feedback and ideas for how we can make Edina an even better place for living, learning, raising families and doing business. Take a moment to provide your feedback and ideas on any of the forums you see here or start your own discussion. It's your chance to speak up, Edinal ► SHARE your feedbacks ► POST your ideas! ► JOIN the discussion! Discussion: Food -to- Liquor Ratio The City is interested to find out how the conin mity feels about the food -to- liquor ratio restaurants holding intoxicating liquor licenses much comply with, otherwise known as the 60 -40 Rule. Note: The City is not proposing a change at this tone. By using this online discussion, feedback on topics will be compiled and given to the City Council as informational only. 3 Toplcs 32 Answers Closed 2014 -03 02 View Discussion 0 Attachments 0 • Delete Topic: Cane h ? Edina's restaurants with intoxicating liquor licenses are required to maintain a food -to- liquor sales ratio of 60 -40 percent (Edina City Code Cliapter 4. Article lll. Sec. 4- 77(3) 1. Restaurants with wine and beer licenses must abide to the 60 -40 ratio per state law (340A.404 Subd. 5). Many cities around Edina have more relaxed ratios. However, only once has a single restaurant not complied with the rule in the last 15 years. Should the City revise its intoxicating liquor license ratios? Why or wiry not? 27 Responses 27 Responses r o • Delete Dan Atkins about month ago Yes. Change d. Seriously, why all the rules? Two things that drive me crazy. Intellectual arrogance and Moral arrogance. Rules Ike this are created by people that think they are smarter than others or people that think others are amoral Example: Beer isn't evil and I am smart enough to decide whether I want to buy it on a Sunday. Same logic applies to to 'The premises shall not have more than 15 percent of its seating capacity located at a bar or service counter." Really? There must be some compelling reason behind that. 8 Supports Jordan(Aleenbach dmin !comment... Reply to Dan Atkins 0 • Dekte Rnrhara Ut Volieur about 1 month ago Yes, relax thr -rule. 5 Supports Jordan Qleenbach othnin comment... L -- --------- --- -- ..----- ..._._..._ _.__..___ _._ . -. ._._ .._..__._..__----- _....._..__ .. ... ..........__.__.!- Reply to Barbara LaValleur t i 0 F'" Joel Stegner about 1 month ago I believe the real issue hers how to deal with the brew pubs that are popping up over the metro area. As i understand it, they normally offer food, but since beer is their drawing point, they tend to sell more alcohol than food. (fwe were to generally relax the Wile, it is Likely that we would see a lot more bar - restaurants in Edina, not a development I favor, because it also means more incentive to sell customers more alcohol than they can safely drive away with as a way to maintain profitability. On die other hand, laving 1 -2 brew pubs in Edina would be a pus - helping to create a more active social life for young adults. I recarronend that you consider brew pubs a separate category frnm restaurant and license them with difr'erent recpviemeerds. 1 also *eel that there might be a rationale to loose the ratio not on a routine, but an exception basis, with anyone that say maintains as 50/50 rate paying an additional fee 1br all sales that go beyond the 40% ratio. If establishments have too marry customers stopped after leaving their premises driving drunk, that becnues a general law enforcement issue. The liquor license is a privilege, and if it is abused, it should be suspended. 6 Supports 0 • Delete matt anderson 26 days ago Joel makes a great point that should definitely be taken into consideration. 0 Supports r Jordan Cileenbach admin ,comment... - - - - -.2 1 Reply to matt anderson 0 • Delete Pete WeInre at February 28, 2014 at 9:1 Spm CST Ditto. An exclusion or relaxation of the rule for brew pubs or brewery taprooms (which, in many cases sell no food at all) should be considered. 0 Supports 9& Jordan GlIgenbach admin jcomment... _ - - -- - -- -- - - -- -- - - -1 Reply to Pete Lefetwe El Jordan Oleenbach a"n jcomment ... C=3 • Delete Laurel nschb ch about 1 month ago I agree completely with what Dan Atkins had to say. Relax the rule. 2 Supports Jordan 01genbach a"n: (comment... I C=) Delete IYnnk 7honuis about I month ago Why fx,sometbing thifs not broken. I Support All jor&n b1genbach admin comment... 0 Reply.to,Joel Stegner Reply to Laurel Fischbach Reply to Frank Thomas • Delete Russ Rubin 26 days ago It's doubtfid that the 60/40 rule would have a major effect on drunkenness. So why have a rule that doesn't have a desired outcome. Secondly, there are costs associated with regulations of this type - costs to the business and costs to the city for enforcement. If we do find a problem caused by this, we need to work with the establishments to identify patrons whose behavior on leaving the premises could put themselves or others at risk. 2 Supports Jordan Olgenhich adndn comment... Delete Lois Ring 26 days ago Change or drop the rule would be fine with me. 2 Supports M& Jordan Gileenbach adman !comment... to • DrIet e Reply to Russ Rubin o- • -_ --- ___......_____.._% I Reply to Lois Ring Dale Bosch 26 days ago Drop the rules or at least be consistent with surrounding comnumities. Pm guessing that Edina has lost significant tax revenue opportunities under the former and current rules. 2 Supports f011 Jordan Gn•enhach adndn 'comment... o. Delete Ken Hanson 26 days ago Drop the rule 2 Supports Jordan Olvenbach adnfin Comment... • Dele matt nndersph 24 days np [ Reply to Dale Bosch I. I Reply to Ken Hanson My issue with the rule is I think it does hiffiefice where restaurants decide to reside and where I go for entertainment. Being a younger individual who still enjoys going out, I tire ofhaving to pay an extra $60 in taxi rides. There is so much effort and money spent to keep anything local but these blue laws do nothing to curb over intoxication. I find iflidfficiAt to spend an entire evening at an establishment that charges $8 for a beer anyway. It will help make it easier to have a few drinks with ffiends/f1mily while easily arrange for proper transportation. My point being is I dolt see how an arbitrary ratio really influences how much alcohol a person consumes; only where they choose to go. If anything a lower ratio may encourage lower food prices and more business because food prices arerft artificially inflated to comply with the ratio. Seems Ike a decent amount of revenue that goes to other surrounding cities. 5 Supp6ft tall Jordan CAI-enhich n*Wn -ommen t ... C=3 • Delete Reply to matt anderson Randy Olinger U days ago Dan Atkins states it will. We supposedly live in a free society and as such we do not need local government rules such as this. I believe that the current situation has created an environment where people end up driving fi>rther than should be necessary. Go green, drink local. ISupport Jordan Gllg ne bnch wfiiln !comment... i r i I 0 ' ..Delete Mike Cal 25 days ago Reply to Randy Olinger I agree with Dan Atkins and Randy Ol nger. Allow more business, more growth, more adult choices. I strongly favor removing this law as well as the Wile requiring Edina to rtut the liquor stores. While were at it, let's get rid of other antiquated laws based on puritanical ideas Ike no liquor sales on Sunday and no beer or wine sales at grocery stores. The special interest groups have had their way long enough 0 Supports ,&I Jordan Gilgentmeh adndn :comment... Reply to Mike Calm z 0 • Delete Kitty Otlea 25 days ago Don't change the law. It sotmds like its working fine the way its now. There should be a strategic reason to change. 0 Supports i 0 a Delete Sandy Radeke at February 28, 21114 at 2:21pm CST Kitty, I don't think the law is working fine the way it is -- unless by'Yme" you mean it makes restaurants artificially inflate their food prices to meet the ratio and draws business away from Edina establishments and sends people to Bloomington or '9t Louis Pia& O.Supports 0& Jordan Gilgenbach admin comment ... Reply to Sandy Radeke A Jordan Gileenb ach adndn - - -- .- ---- - -- — - - -- 4 lcomment ... I j I -- - - - - - -- -• - - - - -- --- -� - --� Reply to Kitty O'Dea I 0 • Delete Gabriel Mrstad21 days ago If it produces revenue and creates jobs but also doesdt create alcohol related crams then it needs to be dropped or changed for the better. 0 Supports Jordan Gilrenbach admin comment... Reply..to Gabriel Harstad 1 0 • Delete MAdFrenkel 21 days ago. Is the city of Edam taking to Mhmapolis.on,issues Ike this that effect both cities? 'there is the ongoing parking ramp issue with Minneapolis. The management of the issues at 50th and France'seems to be disjointed with no short or long term planning which seems to be a general weakness in Edina. The commercial area of 50th/France seems to be growing more on the Minneapolis side which still effects Edina and would be a prime area for brew pubs. 0 Supports t &, Jordan Gieenhach ndrmdn comment... I 0 a Delete Reply to David Frenkel Doug idrick 21 days ago . rll go with a di erent line of thought Heretofore Edina hasn't had problems with establishments going under the 60/40 ratio, and Edina didn't allow happy hours. Now happy hours are allowed. Should probably look at adjusting ratios accordingly now. Tinmgs everything. 0 Supports VU-1 Jordan .m1 enhach admin ;comment... I 0 • Delete Cindy Slanton 19 days ago Reply to Doug llddck I agree with, 'Why all of the rules ?" Why can't people take accotntabildy for their own actions? Do we really need a nde to restricts from having a cocktail walking distance from our homes? And ifwe have too many cocktails and not enough food, isn't is safer that we are closer to home than making that mistake of getting in our car and attempting to drive home. My God people, we are all adnhtc. More options around the neighborhood keeps people in the neighborhood and keeps money flowing in our neighborhood. 1 Support ,a Jordan GilQenhach adndn comment... Reply to Cindy Stanton, t� • Delete Tony Schenk at February 27, 2014 at 433pm CST DROP THE RILE. If it results in problem establishments - which it won't - use the power of liquor license regulation to address. Gen Y and the MiTennials demand a more urban feel with local entertainment and dining. As they look for places to settle and raise families, they will avoid Edna which eventually will affect property values. It's not the-80s anymore. People want things in their neighborhoods they can walk and bke to. 1 Support. d& - Jordan 01frentmeh adrnin comment.. . Reply to Tony Schenk 0 • Delete Alga Porter at February 27, 2014 at 5:48pm CST I generally agree with Joel Stegner and Matt Anderson. The current ratio does seem too restrictive and it is probable that menu prices are inflated in order to achieve the current ratio. I live near downtown Edina and want it to stay safe for everyone (patrons, pedestrians, residents, vehicles) but I don't think mandating a ratio wil guarantee safety. Ifthe ratio is lowered or removed, just increase the fines levied against problem establishments and have a police presence near the concentrations of restaurants at closing times. Not a complete solution but a step in a progressive direction. One of my favorite restaurants in Mpls is Rmcon38 and they are currently petitioning Mps to lower their ratio from 70 -30! They are a Spanish tapas restaurant which sells lots of small plates to share so it is hard for them to survive. We want diversity in eating establishments and this is one example of the rule hindering prognass. 0 Supports ,all Jordan Cilpenlmch adndn I I Reply to Mary Porter 0 • Delete Douglas tinder nt February 28, 2014 at 1:1I pm CST agree with Frank Thomas 0 Supports di Jordan C Nenlnch adadn ;comment... 0 • _Delete Sandy Radeke at February 28, 2014 at 2:18pm CST Reply to Douglas linden The current rile has the result ofkeeping customers from Edna restaurants. I was regularly meeting with a group of friends once a month after work just to keep in contact Typically we would have one beer or glass of wine each, maybe a shared appetizer for the table, chat for a bit to catch up, and then leave. We very rarely met at Edna restaurants because ofthe 60/40 policy. Instead we went to establishments in Bloomington and St. Louis Park. The 60/40 policy also penalized restaurants that have nicer wane or beer lists. if everyone in a group orders a $6B glass of wine (which is not expensive wane) or a craft beer /ale, you need to order more than a $6/8 appetizer /food item or the restaurant is in violation -- over a sip& glass of wine or beer per person that is not going to make anyone impaired. Going for a better quality glass ofwine or a should not make a customer order more expensive food just to keep the restaurant in compliance with the ratio. That's just silly. i also thank the rule forces restaurants to attficially inflate the food pries so they can stay within the ratio and that affects my budget and makes them less affordable. 0 Supports ,a Jordan GilBenbach admtn comment... I - -- -- - - - - -- - - - - - -- -- - - - - - -- Reply to Sandy Radeke 0 • Delete Bob NWAeen at February 28, 2014 at 2:2Ipm CST Bring the Edina rule in line with those of surrounding communities. If there is not one uniform policy among surrounding communities, then target the Edina rule to represent something close to an average of the ratios and penalties of surrounding communities. Such a change would put our businesses on par with those nearby, while not eliminating the rule and its intended benefits to the City. 0 Supports 4L Jordan Glaenbach adman comment.. . / - - - — Reply to Bob McKl%een 0 • Dele Sandy Radeke at February 28, 2014 at 2:24pm CST The current rule has the result ofkeepmg customers from Edina restaurants. I was regularly meeting with a group of friends once a month after work just to keep in contact Typically we would have one beer or glass of wine each, maybe a shared appetizer for the table, chat for a bit to catchup, and then leave. We very rarely met at Edna restaurants because of the 60/40 policy. Instead we went to establishments in Bloomington and St Louis Park. The 60/40 policy also penalized restaurants that have nicer wine or beer lists. If everyone in a group orders a $6/8 glass of wine (which is not expensive for a glass of wine) or a craft beer /ale, you need to order more than a $6/8 appetizer /food item each or the restaurant is in violation -- over a single glass ofwme or beer per person that is runt going to make anyone impaired. If you want a better quality glass ofwine, you have to order more expensive food just to keep the restaurant in compliance with the ratio. Tbat's just silly. I also think the rule forces restaurants to artificially inflate due food prices so they can stay within the ratio and that aft'ects my budget and makes them less affordable. 0 Supports 0 Jor&n OfeenMch adndn (comment.. . -_ _ Reply U Sandy Radeke 0 • Delete Miehnel Braun at March O1, 2014 at 9:50am CST I would Ike to see a rule that is more relaxed and flexible to allow for establishments Ike brew pubs to open in Edina that don't serve any food or that can have food trucks Ike Fulton Brewery does. It would be nice to have smaller bars and restaurants in our neighborhoods that we can walk and bke to, Ike Linden Hills has. I agree with Joel Stegner, Matt Anderson, Mary Porter and Sandy Radeke 0 Supports I& Jordan 012enhach adaun Speak Up. Edna! l_J lionie • Discussions Sign pz • Snuvevs Email jemail address... Password password... Sign In Like_ fl Tweet Share o6/ Ilk enrk,�,A t' W \�rtt -0lul+ ��• t&M Speak Up, Edina! We're always looking for feedback and ideas for how we can make Edina an even better place for living, learning, raising families and doing business. Take a moment to provide your feedback and ideas on any of the forums you see here or start your own discussion. It'syour chance to speak up, Edinal ► SHARE your feedback! ► POST your ideas! ► JOIN the discussions Ibis Discussion channel's currently closed. Discussion: Food -to- Liquor Ratio The City is interested to find out how the community feels about the food -to- liquor ratio restaurants holding intoxicating liquor licenses ruuch comply with, otherwise known as the 60 -40 Rule. Note: The City is not proposing a change at this tiny. By using this online discussion, feedback on topics will be compiled and given to the City Council as infomrational only. 3 Topics 32 Answers Closed 2014-03-02 View Discussion 0 Attachments Topic: The Ratio What do you think the food -to -liquor sales ratio for intoxicating liquor license holders be? 3 1tesporses 3 Responses i ! I I l Barbara U Volleur about 1 month ago Eliminate the ratio all together. 1 Support zommen.t .. . Reply to Barbara La Valleur Joel Steeper about 1 month ago _ . ., I leave that to the experts to determine. As long as custonners are drinking responsibly and the customer isn't promoting excessive drinking - more than three standard size drinks per person per night - the ratio should be related to actual customer behavior. I Support comment.., - - -- i I Reply to Joel Stegner Geof Norkinaer at February 28, 2014 at 3:24pm CST comment -The ratio keeps customers from annoying the public outside the liquor establishments. To preterxl to know the'tigbt ratio" is a bit absurd. It the public incidences resulting from drinking "too much" are too high, then I recommend increasing the ratio. If intoxication is not a public issue then I would leave the current ratio in place. While I enjoy craft beers, I am not motivated by an argument which says we need to reduce the food portion of the ratio so more cra$ beer can be sold. Any ratio should not encourage those who want a place to drink excessively to find that place it town. 0 Supports ;comment... i Sign up Connect .email address...^ Participants r Reply to Geof WorRinger Speak Up. Edina! EHone • Discussions Sign iffm • Surveys Emmil !email address... Password - -- !password... Sign in Lllce Tweet] Share r� 0 H �f0 0) A�lilY)Tth�� • \\ Jays Speak Up, Edina! We're always looking for feedback and ideas for how we can make Edina an even better place for living, learning, raising families and doing business. Take a moment to provide your feedback and ideas on any of the forums you see here or start your own discussion. It's your chance to speak up, Edina! ► SHARE your feedbackl ► POST your ideas) ► JOIN the discussions This Discussion channel is currently closed. Discussion: Food -to- Liquor Ratio The City is interested to find out how the corimmity feels about the food -to- liquor ratio restaurants holding intoxicating liquor licenses much comply with, otherwise known as the 60 -40 Rule. Note: The City is not proposing a change at this tinu:. By using this online discussion, feedback on topics will be compiled and given to the City Council as infomrational only. 3 Topics 32 Answers Closed 2014TM2 View Discussion 0 Attachments Topic: Violations If an estabUmient violates the current 60 -40 rule, it could be fined and, if the entity has )nultiple violations, its liquor license could be in jeopardy. C c� he g to view the Citys penalties for violations. Should the City keep the ratio, but revise the penalty structure? Wiry or why not? 2 Responses 2 Responses Barbara La Volleur about 1 month ago If the rule is elmiinated, there would be no violations. 0 Supports Icomment... I J- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- -- -- -- -- - --- - -- Reply to Barbara La Valleur Joel Steeper about 1 month ago The penalty for a list of violations are $500 on a first offense up to revocation on the fnurdi offense. Here is a list of the things that are covered: Sale of alcoholic beverages to underage_person, After/before hours sale of alcoholic beverage, After hours consumption of alcoholic beveraWs, Illegal gambling or prostitution on premises, Failure to take reasonable steps to stop person fiom leaving premises with alcoholic beverage, Sale of alcoholic beverage to obviously intoxicated person Allowing a disorderly establishment, Person under 18 serving liquor. This structure makes no distinction on the severity of offense. If an establishment selling to 1 minor or 100, the penalty appears to be the same - right? The offense should be apply per infraction. If an establishment is caught selling to 20 under age customrs, it should pay a $10,000 fine, not a $500 dollar one. Allowing gambling, prostitution or serving clearly intoxicated customers is much more of a offense in my mind - and particularly if the establishments actively supporting and profiting from prostitution and gambling. Perhaps that would be an immediate felony.. What happens if a place has request reports of fighting and iolenee - does that fit the disorderly house definition?. Whatever ratios are requirements the City establishes and whether or not it has the 60/40 rule, I think that harsher standards are required if the establishment intentionally violates the requirements or violates them in a flagrant way - with lots of violations caught in one report. I also think that after violations, establishments should know they will receive more frequent compliance checks. Frankly, when one issue hlce this is considered, I would prefer to see the City do a general review of its enforcement to determine whether its system penalties are clearly stated, comprehensive (with no loopholes) and having the desired result Edina has always maintained tighter distribution networks for alcohol than many cities and doesn't have as marry problems as a result, with clearly other places having public health and safety issues because they are too lenient., 1 Support comment... - -. -._ _ _ --- _ - - -- — Reply to Joel Stegner Sign up M C ;email address... Participants A-. ' ow e , To: MAYOR AND COUNCIL Agenda Item #: VI.A. From: Cary Teague, Community Development Director Action ❑ Discussion x❑ Date: March 18; 2014 Information Subject: PUBLIC HEARING — Preliminary Rezoning from MDD -6 to PUD, and an Overall Development Plan for Pentagon Revival; Resolution No. 2014 -29. Action Requested: Approve the attached Resolution granting Preliminary Rezoning to PUD, and Overall Development Plan, as recommended by the Planning Commission. Information /Background: Pentagon Revival is proposing to redevelop Pentagon Park along 77th Street. The total site area is 43 acres in size; and would likely redevelop over the next 2 -15. years. (See the property location, applicant narrative, and proposed plans on pages A I —A47of the Planning Commission staff report.) The following is a breakdown of the anticipated land uses at this time: ➢Office — 1,420,000 square feet. ➢Retail — 40,000 square feet. > Hotel — 250,000 square feet (375 -425 rooms) ➢Parking structures — 6,400 parking stalls. ➢Housing (would likely replace some of the office if built.) The likely first phase of development of the project would be the Pentagon Tower site, which would include office buildings, a hotel, limited retail and parking structures. Future redevelopment phases of the "Pentagon Quad" site north of 77th Street would likely occur from the west side to the east. Future housing would then likely occur on the east end of the Quad sites. To accommodate redevelopment of this property, the following is requested: ➢ Preliminary. Rezoning from MDD -6, Mixed Development District to PUD, Planned Unit Development; and ➢ An Overall Development Plan. This "preliminary" review is the first step of a multi -step process of City review. Should these "preliminary" requests be approved. by the City Council; the next step would be a Final Development City of Edina • 4801 W. 501" St • Edina, MN 55424 Plan for Phase 1, Final Rezoning, and formal adoption of a Zoning Ordinance Amendment, rezoning the entire site to PUD, Planned Unit Development, including zoning regulations and land use requirements. Prior to final approval of any future phase, the applicant would bring forward a sketch plan review to both the Planning Commission and City Council to seek direction and guidance prior to a formal application. The PUD, Planned Unit Development District is being requested to allow greater flexibility of land uses and setbacks in exchange for enhanced amenities; greater pedestrian connections; high quality architecture, and greater connection and integration of public space. As shown on page A29 of the Planning Commission Staff Report, there are six primary principles requested to achieve the PUD: 1. Green Streets. 2. Integrated storm water as a project amenity. 3. Pedestrian Connections. 4. Connections to all the parcels. 5. Multimodal Connections; transit, bike, pedestrian. 6. Shared parking. The applicant is pledging high quality architecture for all buildings, including the parking structures, and sustainable design principles. In 2008, this site was rezoned to the current MDD -6 Zoning designation. The site was approved for 1,881,134 square feet of total development; 50% was to be residential and 50% was to be non- residential. The applicant is essentially requesting the same amount of square footage, 1,777,560 square feet, but requests that the uses not be restricted by percentage. Planning Commission Recommendation: On February 26, 2014, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Preliminary Rezoning and Overall Development Plan. Vote: 8 Ayes; 0 Nays and I abstention. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution No. 2014 -29 Draft minutes from the February 26, 2014 Edina Planning Commission meeting Planning Commission Staff Report, February 26, 2013 RESOLUTION NO. 2014-29 APPROVING PRELIMINARY REZONING FROM MDD -6, MIXED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT TO PUD, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, & OVERALL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR PENTAGON PARK BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edina, Minnesota, as follows: Section 1. BACKGROUND. 1.01 Pentagon Revival is requesting a Preliminary Rezoning from MDD -6 to PUD, Planned Unit and an Overall Development Plan for Pentagon Park. 1.02 The property is legally described as follows: - See attached Legal Descriptions 1.03 On February 26, 2014, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Preliminary Rezoning to PUD and Overall Development Plan. Vote 8 Ayes, 0 Nays and 1 abstention. Section 2. FINDINGS 2.01 Approval is based on the following findings: 1. The proposed land uses are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. '2. The proposal would meet the purpose and intent of the PUD. The site is guided in the Comprehensive Plan as "Office Residential," which is seen as a transitional area between higher intensity districts and residential districts. Primary uses include :'offices,housing, limited service uses, limited industrial, parks and open space. Vertical mixed uses are encouraged. 3. The proposal would create a more efficient and creative use of the property. Better vehicle and pedestrian connections would be created; enhanced green space and ponding would be created; a mixture of land use is envisioned; there would be improved architecture and sustainability; shared parking would be created, including with the public use to the north. 4. The proposed project would meet the following goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan: a. Design public open and green linkages that bring both amenity and positive image to neighborhoods, corridors, and business precincts. b. Design public streets to serve not only vehicles but also pedestrians, people with mobility aids, and bicycles, balancing the spatial needs of existing and future users CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street o Edina, Minnesota 55424 wwwEdinaMN.gov o 952- 927 -8861 o Fax 952- 826 -0390 RESOLUTION NO. 2014-29 Page Two within the right -of -way. Address both mobility and recreational needs and opportunities. c. Create walkable streets that foster an active public life; streets that are energized by their proximity to a vibrant mix of activity - generating uses. d. Preserve and make accessible natural areas and features as part of a comprehensive open space network. e. Within larger redevelopment sites, promote a fine - grained and interconnected network of local streets and paths, encouraging pedestrian circulation and providing a choice of access points. f. Encourage infill/redevelopment opportunities that optimize use of city infrastructure and that complement area, neighborhood, and /or corridor context and character. g. Podium Height. Where it is appropriate, the applicant has committed to the podium height concept, defined in the Edina Comprehensive Plan as follows: The "podium' is that part of the building that abuts the street, or that provides the required transition to residential neighborhoods, parks, and other sensitive uses. The podium height concept is intended to create a consistent street wall envelope and a comfortable pedestrian environment. Section 3. APPROVAL NOW THEREFORE, it is hereby resolved by the City Council of the City of Edina, approves the Preliminary Rezoning to PUD, Planned Unit Development & an Overall Development Plan for Pentagon Park, subject to the following conditions: 1. Final Development Plans must be generally consistent with the Preliminary/ Overall Development Plans dated January 22, 2014. 2. The Final Landscape Plan must meet all minimum landscaping requirements per Section 850.04 of the Zoning Ordinance. 3. The Final Lighting Plan must meet all minimum landscaping requirements per Section 850.04 of the Zoning Ordinance. 4. Submittal of a sign plan with Final Development Plan application for each phase of the overall development. Each signage plan submittal should include monument sign locations and size, way finding signage, and wall signage. Signage shall be consistent throughout the 'PUD. 5. The 77th Street Improvements must be completed by the applicant /land owner when 100,000 square feet of development has been constructed. The 77th Street improvements must be consistent with the plans date stamped January 22, 2014, and are subject to review and approval of city staff before construction. RESOLUTION NO. 2014 -29 Page Two 6. The Parkway and Living Streets, as shown on the Preliminary /Overall Development Plan, date stamped January 22, 2014, must be built. 7. Final Develop Plans must create a recreational system that promotes walking, health and wellness. 8. Connections shall be made from the property south of 77th'Street to the property north of 77th Street through or. adjacent to the "Walsh Title" site and Fred Richards golf course. 9. Pedestrian connections must also be made between buildings, along 77th Street, to Burgundy Place, to the anticipated Regional Trail, and to the new Living Streets; the design of which is conditioned on factors, including without limitation, the future use of Fred Richards. 10. All crosswalks shall be marked with "duraprint" type stamping, or whatever is the city standard at the time of installation, to clearly identify the pedestrian crossing. 11. Where applicable and required.pursuant to the Final Development Plan, all public utility, public roadway and public sidewalk easements shall be granted or dedicated to the City upon Final Development Plan approval for each phase. 12. Bike storage and bike shower facilities shall be provided within the development. Bike racks shall be provided throughout the development. 13. A majority of the storm water retention shall be developed as an amenity and integrated into the overall development. 14. Overall, the development must include at least a 20% of green space/ storm water retention in the aggregate. 15. Any Park Dedication fees due under Section 32 of the City code shall be collected at the time of the issuance of a building permit for any portion of the property that is re- platted. 16. New buildings shall utilize the podium height concept, as defined in the Edina Comprehensive Plan, where appropriate.. 17. Attempts shall be made to meet an energy savings goal of 15% overstate energy code guidelines. Building designs shall be similar to and reasonably consistent with LEED standards. 18. All buildings must be constructed of high quality materials and architecture. Building materials shall be of, but not limited to high quality brick, stone, precast concrete, and glass building. No building shall contain aluminum or metal siding as the primary finish material. 19. All parking structures shall be designed to be integrated into and complement the architecture of newly constructed buildings. Shared parking strategies shall be employed, where applicable. RESOLUTION NO. 2014-29 Page Two . 20. Public art shall be incorporated within each phase of development. 21. Final Rezoning is subject to a Zoning Ordinance Amendment creating the PUD, Planned Unit Development for this site. Final PUD Zoning must meet the criteria required for a PUD. 22. Compliance with the issues/ conditions outlined in the director of engineering's memo dated January 22, 2014. Adopted by the city council of the City of Edina, Minnesota, on March 18, 2014. ATTEST: Debra A. Mangen, City Clerk STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN CITY OF EDINA )SS James B. Hovland, Mayor 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 March 18, 2014, and as recorded in the Minutes of said Regular Meeting. WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this day of _ 2014. City Clerk Exhibit A 13 nijUg of 2 --.po rj �o a�gqo�t�on �h� North line of said Tract B distant �1!%i1feet=VVest offfle. NOitleast cornerahereoF,� Eherice' run b ................ . . . . . . . . . . . . iL IS6 t4O thb-S qt.��e&V.corner: -b 4 -4r L(. e-r.Ej.. Ing. Tract'.Gi Tracts-5 and Fj- e_XCept.those parts thereof lying NortMr of the f0116Wihg.described'lJ`Mej; Beginning: at a point on 'th e fast . Ifnei .o. r.TF& AI�6,4 40 -f�ef North, of the Sop qqs t corner thereof; th e OtQ run No Ajeasjerfyto a point distant 120' eet.West an 132 feet Sou h of the Norffeast corner of f sa-Id !Tra-&b- th- e 99.,WD.-Ua tiMy parallel wjKb] the kWh ljpe of Tract..., thence deflect f for 30,feet, ' ta the left U, M- rd [0- .A.09 -f- qO d�—grqQ5.. minutes Q0;.S-EF6Oj!d$. f -9( 1,- parallel "Ith!th # Northerly and: Northeasterly lines ofi-!581Fd Tracts E.1.9nd Fito.ks infers acti0 wit t4 ' f6froWnd ddsqflbed! lihe, : Beginning at a point ;.bn.the Sddthweste:17 libe L6FTr.a.ct5- dNr nt. 10 f e et Sota easter y of the West'lifie of.'s'ald Ti;dgg (When m the easured along, said UnO) me run 8buthw6sterly at tip't angles to said Southwesterly line: the East' 8 feet f6r 1001 feet and there terminating, Watt d, except 5 -9t. Otbip Southerly, 300 feet thereof, ThK V South 300 W tjt4 r art bf TO I -H�.lYj.ffg Ndr.W f. the All in Registered Land Survey No. 1050. Hennepin County, Minnesota. PARCEL 2- Tracts F, G-, H and 1, Registered Land—Survey. L?lq tnn ,-. .ep ,H jn Cou l.,- n 0 U� " d: NJ - n Legal Description; TW EW 58 fkO t 5oqt terly 30,p, The South X300 lfbet of Tract H, I g. .. , r b MOP _--jL& L 'e Commissioner Grabiel stated that he has no problem with the proposed lot division or variance. Grabiel said in his opinion a number of the lots on this block are out of character with the neighborhood. Grabiel said if one looks at an aerial they can certainly see how the /bors out. Continuing, Grabiel said if the Commission was to approve the lot division with varavoid a teardown situation. rabiel said allowing the construction of a 2 -stall garage (requiance) to be built, in his opinion ouldn't compromise the neighborhood character and the ne indicated their support the project. Commissioner Forrest said h r concern was with practical difficulties pointing t the subject owners are choosing to do this. Conti ing, Forrest said the recent changes to the o dinance were done to ensure adequate spacing between omes. Forrest added that livability is i , �ortant and the increase in garage space is important; however, hanging a lot line to accomplish this/ as its own issues. Forrest concluded that she agrees that the fro . and setback situation is difficu with the adjoining houses forcing. deep setback requirements. Commissioner Platteter questioned the lot sp adding he under nds the front yard setback situation. Commissioner Fischer said this is an unusual situat , ackno edging the recent change in the Code. Fischer said in this instance neighbors got together t esol an issue. Although the lot division may not be standard; it works and is supported by both pro owners. Fischer further noted that the front yard setback situation is what it is, the lots to the oth• create a situation whereby, nothing could be done to this house without a front yard setback v ianc�\ Commissioner Forrest wondered if the Com "ss. n was ,comfo ble allowing for the creation of two unusual lot line configurations._ Commissioners greed that the jogti different; however, as previously mentioned by the applicant the rear yard situ .ion on this block is uni l�p with deep lots and ample rear yard area. A discussion ensued with Commissioner agreeing that this situation was uniq`e and that they can support the request as submitted by t applicant. Motion' Commissioner Grabiel moved ri and, lot division approval based on the fol I. The lot division cre es lots that are consistent with the size of lots in the neigh 2. The unusual place ent of homes to the south created the need for a front yard variance. The v lance was not self - imposed; and 3. The City of Edi a requires two stall garages; Commissioner Scherer seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. B. Preliminary Rezoning. Pentagon Revival. Pentagon Office Park, Edina, MN Planner Presentation Planner Teague informed the Commission the Pentagon Revival is proposing to redevelop Pentagon Park along 77th Street. The total site area is 43 acres in size; and would likely redevelop over the next 2 -15 Page 4 of 13 __ M+ years. Teague explained the proposed uses of the site include office, medical, retail, restaurants, a hotel and potentially housing. No housing is anticipated at this time, however, that use is currently allowed on the property, and should remain as a potential future land use. Teague delivered a power point presentation highlight the project. Planner Teague concluded his presentation that staff recommends the City Council approve the Preliminary Rezoning from MDD -6, Mixed Development to PUD, Planned Unit Development District and an Overall Development Plan for the subject property based on the following findings:. . The proposed land uses are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The proposal would meet the purpose and intent of the PUD. The site is guided in the Comprehensive Plan as "Office Residential,". which is seen as a transitional area between higher intensity districts and residential districts. Primary uses include: offices, housing, limited service uses, limited industrial, parks and open space. Vertical mixed uses are encouraged. 3. The proposal would create a more efficient and creative, use of the property. Better vehicle and pedestrian connections would be created; enhanced green space and ponding would be created; a mixture of land use is envisioned; there would be improved architecture and sustainability; shared parking would be created, including with the public use to the north. 4. The proposed project would meet the following goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan: a. Design public open and green linkages that bring both amenity and positive image to neighborhoods, corridors, and business precincts. b. Design public streets to serve not only vehicles but also pedestrians, people with mobility aids, and bicycles, balancing the spatial needs of existing and future users within the right -of -way. Address both mobility, and recreational needs and opportunities. C. Create walkable streets that foster an active public life; streets that are energized by their proximity to a vibrant mix of activity- generating uses. d. Preserve and make accessible natural areas and features as part of a comprehensive open space network. e. Within larger redevelopment sites, promote a fine- grained and interconnected network of local streets and paths, encouraging pedestrian circulation and providing a choice of access points. f. Encourage infill /redevelopment opportunities that optimize use of city infrastructure and that complement area, neighborhood, and /or corridor context and character. g. Podium Height. Where it is appropriate, the applicant has committed to the podium height concept, defined in the Edina Comprehensive Plan as follows: The "podium" is that part of the building that abuts the street, or that provides the required transition to residential neighborhoods, parks, and other sensitive uses. The podium height concept is intended to create a consistent street wall envelope and a comfortable pedestrian environment. Page 5 of 13 Approval is also subject to the following Conditions: I . Final Development Plans must be generally consistent with the Preliminary/ Overall Development Plans dated January 22, 2014. 2. The Final Landscape Plan must meet all minimum landscaping requirements per Section 850.04 of the Zoning Ordinance. 3. The Final Lighting Plan must meet all minimum landscaping requirements per Section 850.04 of the Zoning Ordinance. 4. Submittal of a sign plan with Final Development Plan application for each phase of the overall development. Each signage plan submittal should include monument sign locations and size, way finding signage, and wall signage. Signage shall be consistent throughout the PUD. 5. The 77th Street Improvements must be completed by the applicant/land owner when 100,000 square feet of development has been constructed. The 77th Street improvements must be consistent with the plans date stamped January22, 2014, and are subject to review and approval of city staff before construction. 6. The Parkway and Green Streets, as shown, on the Preliminary/Overall Development Plan, date stamped January 22, 2014, must be built by the applicant/land owner upon 80 -85% build - out of the overall development. 7. Final, Develop Plans must create a recreational system that promotes walking, health and wellness. 8. Connections shall be made from the property south of :77th.,Street to the property north of 77th Street through or adjacent to the "Walsh Title" site and` Fred Richards's golf course. 9. Pedestrian connections must also be made between. buildings; along 77th Street, to Burgundy Place, to the anticipated Regional Trail, and to the new Green Streets, the installation of which are conditioned on factors, including without limitation, the future use of Fred Richards. 10. All crosswalks shall be marked with duraprint stamping to clearly identify the pedestrian crossing. 11. Where applicable and required, pursuant to the Final Development Plan, all public utility, public roadway and public sidewalk easements shall be granted or dedicated to the City upon Final Development Plan approval for each phase. 12. Bike storage and bike shower facilities shall be provided within the development. Bike racks will be provided throughout the development. 13. A majority of the storm water retention will be developed as an amenity and integrated into the overall development. 14. Overall, the development must include at least a 20% of green space /storm water retention in the aggregate. 15.. Any Park Dedication fees due under Section 32 of the City code shall be collected at the time of the issuance of a building permit for any portion of the property that is re- platted. 16. New buildings shall utilize the podium height concept, as defined in the Edina Comprehensive Plan, if and where appropriate. 17. Attempts shall be made to meet an energy savings goal of 15% over state energy code guidelines. Building designs shall be similar to and reasonably consistent with LEED standards. Page 6 of 13 18. All buildings must be constructed of high quality materials and architecture. Building materials shall be of, but not limited to high quality brick, stone, precast concrete, -and glass building. No building shall contain. aluminum or metal siding as the primary finisK: material. 19. All parking structures shall be designed to be integrated into and complement the architecture of newly constructed buildings. Shared parking strategies.wilI be employed, where applicable. 20. Public art shall be incorporated into the development.. 21. Final Rezoning is subject to a Zoning Ordinance Amendment creating the PUD, Planned Unit Development for this site. Final PUD Zoning must meet the criteria required for a PUD. 22. Compliance with the issues /conditions outlined in the director of engineering's memo dated January 22, 2014. Appearing for the Applicant Scott Takenoff, manager Hillcrest Partners, Tom Whitlock, Damon Farber and Bob Close of Bob Close Studio Discussion Commissioner Platteter noted the references to green streets and pointed out the City now uses the term Living Streets. Continuing, Platteter said he observed in the preliminary plans there was no mention of housing and questioned if preliminary plans were approved would that negate housing in the future. Planner Teague responded the request is for commercial with'the applicant expressing the intent to add housing if appropriate; however, if the Commission is uncomfortable with any aspect of the application; such as no housing the Commission can recommend denial of requested preliminary rezoning and development plan. Platteter also commented that the plans presented aren't very detailed. Planner Teague and Commissioners agreed with that statement. Commissioner Grabiel said in his opinion approval of this phase of the development would allow the applicant to begin the process but with flexibility to detail. He noted the applicant has indicated the build -out of this project would take years and if the Commission approves preliminary with conditions it allows flexibility during the phasing process. Grabiel pointed out much is market driven, reiterating the Commission should provide some flexibility. Applicant Presentation Scott Takenoff said in the request for preliminary rezoning from MDD -6 to PUD and development plan approval he believes this proposal would be the largest redevelopment project since Centennial Lakes. Takenoff said this unique 42 acre property and its redevelopment doesn't happen often. Takenoff acknowledged the Commissions desire for housing; however, added that at this time he can't promise housing would be built. Takenoff pointed out the redevelopment of this area will occur in phases over a number of years and with each new phase of the redevelopment Hillcrest would come before both the Commission and Council with sketch plans before final phase approvals. Takenoff also acknowledged that this project is a complex project that requires certainty before proceeding. Continuing, Takenoff stressed that Hillcrest is very good at figuring out what to do with decaying properties. Takenoff further stressed that their redevelopment has'no bearing on the City's decision on what happens with Fred Richards. Takenoff Page 7 of 13 said Hillcrest does not control the destiny of Fred Richards and regardless of what the City determines appropriate for Fred Richards Hillcrest will proceed with redevelopment plans. Takenoff continued his presentation and concluded that Hillcrest Partners needs to appear before the City Council at their March 18th meeting for preliminary approval before they can begin the process. Takenoff said this date is critical because of tenant considerations. Takenoff reiterated their need for certainty. Takenoff introduced Tom Whitlock and Bob Close to further explain the project. Tom Whitlock and Bob Close presented a slide show highlighting the multi -phase Pentagon Revival PUD project: • AUAR updated September 2013. • TIF approved February 2014 • Be a better neighbor • Increase in greenspace • Storm water management to be an amenity. • Storm water retention and treatment to current standards • Flexible framework • Living streets • Connectivity. Provide key connections • Promote Multimodality • Commitment to high quality architecture . • Design consistent with LEED standards • Sustainability • Economically viable. The proposal will improve property values • Podium height — this redevelopment will honor the 'work done by the City establishing podium heights Takenoff, Whitlock and Close thanked the Commission for their time. Discussion Chair Staunton asked Mr. Takenoff the reason behind his "hurried" need for "certainty"; and "certainty" about what. Takenoff said certainty provides Hillcrest with time and money getting to the second step of the process. He explained in order to attract users and get them to commit to the site the site needs to be shovel ready:. Takenoff explained that many users don't have the time for overly long approval processes. He said they want to see a site readied for the next phase. Continuing, Takenoff said what Hillcrest needs from the Commission at this time are the allowed uses, building height and density. Product design would come after. the site has been approved for use, height and density in the aggregate. Takenoff reiterated this is a unique one owner site; unlike Grandview. Concluding, Takenoff said at this point Hillcrest is at a critical juncture to either more forward with the vision or pivot back. Takenoff explained Hillcrest has leases that need to be honored and there are time constraints. Takenoff did note that the other road is renovation which continues to be acceptable and has worked thus far. Chair Staunton commented that it occurs to him that the Commission is being asked to approve the "container" indicating how high, how dense and the extent of the use. Staunton said it is difficult to get ones head around the staging and phasing of this project in final terms when the details the Commission usually sees aren't provided. Mr. Takenoff agreed that the final stages will be done a piece at a time, adding some can be tied together but for the most part it will be parcel by parcel. Page 8 of 13 Commissioner Carr stated she understands the "vision" piece of this project; however, wondered if the PUD. could remain open ended with regard to use. She noted the schematic development plan options show no housing. Teague agreed. Chair Staunton opened the public hearing. Public 'T'estimony Lori Severson, Chamber of Commerce informed the Commission the Chamber has issued a Resolution of support for the proposed project. Ms. Severson said drafting a Resolution of support wasn't done lightly, adding the Chamber put much thought into the Resolution'. Severson concluded that the Chamber has received a number of calls in support of the revitalization of the Pentagon Park area. John Marker addressed the Commission and stated that he fully supports the revitalization of this area. Marker stated in his opinion this area has become an eyesore and doesn't live up to Edina standards. Market said he is excited about this project, concluding it would be a shame to miss this opportunity. Peter Fitzgerald, 5217 Kellogg told the Commission in his opinion the City needs to support this project, adding this area has been neglected for far too long. Chair Staunton asked if anyone else would like to speak to the issue; being none, Commissioner Grabiel moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Potts seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion to close the public hearing approved. Continuing Discussion Chair Staunton said in his opinion what continues as a threshold question is the procedural weirdness of ' this project. He said the'question is if the Commission.is OK deviating from our original stance of requiring more detailed plans and stated conditions of approval. Staunton said he wants assurances that with approval of this request the City' is afforded balance and protection. Commissioner. Grabiel stated he support this process. He pointed out flexibility is needed in a project of this magnitude especially when the redevelopment is proposed to take place over years not months. Grabiel further stated that although the plans are less detailed than previous plans the Commission has approved this request is different because it is a one owner project being redeveloped over many years. Concluding, Grabiel said.in this instance he believes flexibility and certainty is required in order for the applicant to proceed; noting he can't think of another way to do this. Grabiel did acknowledge the housing element isn't firm in this submission; however, the developer has indicated if the market is favorable housing would be constructed. Commissioner Schroeder said.the Planning Commission recommended that the City adopt a PUD process, adding the reason was to create abetter site specific development process and through that process the City also attains its vision. Chair Staunton acknowledged the unusual size of this project and its proximity to public property and the future trail development proposed by Three Rivers. He also added he recognizes with a project of this magnitude there is an advantage for the applicant not having every detail cast in stone; however this raises concerns for the City. Staunton reiterated the unknown future of Fred Richards plays a part in the process and the length of the build out (it will be years) is also part of the equation. Concluding Page 9 of 13 Staunton pointed out the underlying MDD -6 zoning in a sense was adopted because at that time there was no PUD option and the City wanted to ensure flexibility with these parcels. Commissioner Forrest said her concern is with what's binding and what isn't binding noting that the City needs assurances that whatever is stipulated is binding. Forrest stated in her opinion the City needs a commitment to building height, density, FAR, and land use; and by land use she means housing. Mr. Takenoff reiterated that housing in this redevelopment project may not happen; however they are committed to it. Takenoff said he believes there will be opportunity for housing -he just doesn't know where and when. Takenoff commented that he speaks with many Edina residents that have expressed to him the desire for differing housing options within the City. Takenoff said one aspect he is pretty sure of is if there is housing it won't be for -sale senior housing. Takenoff acknowledged the process can appear to be risky and challenging for both the City and Hillcrest. . Commissioner Platteter stated he understands completely that it is difficult to commit to housing; however he believes there may be another way to craft the PUD because now it appears like housing is a "no" in the preliminary. Commissioner Grabiel said in his opinion if approved the City isn't saying "no" to housing. What the City is approving is a starting point. Grabiel reiterated that the Commission doesn't know what the market will look like five or ten years from now so to condition. approval on a specific percentage or number of housing units would be difficult-. Commissioner Forrest said what's important to keep in mind is if this proposal is in line with the land use guide. Chair Staunton stated that's a good point and asked Planner Teague if a preliminary rezoning to commercial would comply with the Comprehensive Plan designation.. Planner Teague responded in the affirmative, adding this property is guided as office/residential and the use of the property today is strictly office; not residential. It's not guided mixed use Mr. Takenoff reiterated that at this time he would be uncomfortable in agreeing to housing. He said at this point he is just being, honest and, at this time housing is not viable. Takenoff stated he won't promise the City something he may not be able to deliver. A discussion ensued with Commissioners expressing their hesitancy in approving a preliminary rezoning and development plan that doesn't include housing and without more detailed plans. It was further noted that there is the option to vote against the proposal as submitted. Commissioners reiterated their desire for housing and acknowledged that in the'end because of the scope of this project the City will be entering into a long term relationship and partnership with the applicant. Commissioners did suggest that a statement be added indicating where appropriate housing would be included; however it was acknowledged that statement may be too general. Commissioners did state with a PUD rezoning the applicant needs to be aware that the City expects things in return. Approval should not create missed opportunities to ensure that the site has measureable metrics during the process. Commissioner Grabiel moved to recommend preliminary rezoning from MDD -6, Mixed Development District to PUD, Planned Unit Development; and an Overall Development Plan subject to staff findings and subject to staff conditions. Commissioner Fischer seconded a motion. A discussion ensued on how the City can ensure that the conditions for approval are met. Of concern were the recommendations of creating a recreational system that promotes walking, health and wellness Page 10 of 13 i 1 and the incorporation of public art. It was noted that these measures could be completed through alignment with the approved'TIF. Further discussion also noted that the City continues to reserve the right to "drill .down" plans at final approval to achieve the goals outlined in the findings and conditions. Commissioner Schroeder offered an amendment recommending that a recreational system that- promotes walking, health and wellness be implemented in alignment with the TIIF Plan through a:development agreement between the City and the Developer. Chair. Grabiel and Commissioner Fischer accepted that amendment. Chair Staunton called for the vote; Ayes, Scherer, Schroeder, Fischer, Potts,.Carr, :Forrest, Grabiel, Staunton. Abstain, Platteter. Motion to. appo-ove carried. C. Tree Preservation Ordinance Presentation Planner Teague reminded the Commission--th`ey bled this issue at thel last meeting requesting minor revisions to the Ordinance. Teague` ad te the rev ions were made. Al a also noted that at the last - meeting the Commissiop, quested that additional i rmation on s offing be supplied for the enforcement of the proposed Ordinance. Commissioner Scherer asked Planner Teague if he knows` e,cost of a:eerflfied tree inventory and who the enforcement officer would be. Planner Teague said at this time he doesn't know what-1 l a cos would be for a certified tree inventory and discussions continue on who would enforce the'o 'dinance. \` Chair Staunton opened the public h6aring.,,el Public Testimonv G John Crabtree, 5408, Oaklawn Avenue said that while he understands the `(pposed ordinance he wonders- if the City is requiring more trees than can be sustained on one lot\\Crabtree also questioned how far the City is willing to go if someo doesn't comply with the new ordi ance. Concluding, Crabtree.said one must always be carefu of unintended consequences. Chair Staunton asked if anyone else would like to speak to the issue; being none Commissioner Scherer moved to close the public hearing. ommissioner Fischer seconded the motion. AV voted aye;. motion carried. Discussion�� p A discussion ensued with Commissioners noting that the proposed ordinance could create difficulties. in areas where trees need to be removed without penalty (i.e. utilities). Commissioner Platteter said the Commission could ask the City to work with the utility companies on tree removal or preservation in utility easement areas. Page 11 of 13 o e � w �y PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Originator Meeting Date Agenda # Cary Teague February 26, 2014 VI.B. Community Development Director INFORMATION /BACKGROUND Project Description Pentagon Revival is proposing to redevelop Pentagon Park along 77t" Street. (See the Pentagon Tower & Pentagon Quad sites on page Al.) The total site area is 43 acres in size; and would likely redevelop over the next 2 -15 years. (See the applicant narrative and proposed plans on pages A6 —A47.) Proposed uses include office, medical, retail, restaurants, a hotel and potentially housing. No housing is anticipated at this time, however, that use is currently allowed on the property, and should remain as a potential future land use. The following is a breakdown of the anticipated land uses at this time: , ➢ Office — 1,420,000 square feet. ➢ Retail — 40,000 square feet. ➢ Hotel — 250,000 square feet (375 -425 rooms) ➢ Parking structures — 6,400 parking stalls. ➢ Housing (would likely replace some of the office if built.) . The likely first phase of development of the project would be the Pentagon Tower site, which would include office buildings, a hotel, limited retail and parking structures. Future redevelopment phases of the "Pentagon Quad" site north of 77th Street would likely occur from the west side to the east. Future housing would then likely occur on the east end of the Quad sites. To accommodate redevelopment of this property, the following is requested: ➢ Preliminary Rezoning from MDD -6, Mixed Development District to PUD, Planned Unit Development; and ➢ An Overall Development Plan. a This "preliminary" review is the first step of a multi -step process of City review. Should .these "preliminary" requests be approved by the City Council; the next step would be.a Final Development.Plan for Phase 1,'Final Rezoning, and formal adoption of a Zoning Ordinance Amendment rezoning this site to PUD; Planned Unit Development, including zoning regulations and land use requirements. Prior to final approval of any future phase, .the applicant would bring forward a sketch plan review to both the Planning Commission and City Council to seek direction and guidance prior to a formal application. The PUD, Planned Unit Development District is being requested to allow greater flexibility of land uses and setbacks in exchange for enhanced amenities; greater pedestrian connections; high quality architecture, and depending on the future. use of Fred Richards Golf Course, potential greater connection and integration of public space. As shown on page A29, there are six primary principles requested to achieve the PUD: 1. Green-Streets. 2. Integrated storm water as a project amenity. 3. Pedestrian Connections. 4. Connections to all the parcels. 5. Multimodal Connections, transit, bike, pedestrian. 6. Shared parking. The applicant is pledging high quality architecture for all buildings, including the,parking structures, and sustainable design principles. (See applicant narrative and plans on pages A6 -A47.) In 2008, this site was rezoned to the current MDD -6 Zoning designation. The site was approved for 1,881,134 square feet of total development; 50% was to be residential and 50% was to be non - residential. The applicant is essentially requesting the same amount of square footage, 1,777,560 square feet, but requests that the uses not be restricted by. percentage. SUPPORTING INFORMATION Surrounding Land Uses Northerly: Fred Richards golf course; zoned and guided as a park. Easterly: Office and light industrial uses; zoned and guided for industrial use. Southerly: Office and light industrial uses; zoned and guided for industrial use. Westerly: Highway 100. 2 Existing Site Features The subject property is 43 acres in size, and contains 17 office buildings that total 660,500 square feet of office space. (See pages A3 —A5.) Planning Guide Plan designation: Zoning: Site Circulation /Connection OR, Office Residential MDD -6, Mixed Development District Access to the site is off 77th Street which has direct freeway access on and off Highway 100. The applicant is proposing a re- construction of 77th Street when the total build out of the overall development reaches 80 -85 %. (See the street re- construction renderings on pages A43.) Additionally, new "Green Streets" would be built to make better connections and circulation in and around the development. Improved connections would also be made to the Fred Richards Golf Course. (See pages A44 —A47.) The applicant is proposing to provide transit shelters along 77th to promote transit ridership. Pedestrian /Bike Connections Connections would be made to the regional trail to promote alternate means of transportation to get to the development. Bicycle facilities, dedicated showers and bike lockers would be provided throughout the development. Sidewalks would be created throughout the development and along streets. Safe crosswalks across streets would be created. Traffic & Parking Study The proposed project-would generate traffic volumes that are within the parameters of the Alternative Urban Area -wide Review (AUAR) that has been done in this area. A traffic study was conducted by WSB, which concludes that the following roadway improvements are expected to be necessary into the future to accommodate the redevelopment of the Pentagon Towers and Pentagon Quads sites: 1. 2020 No- Build: a. Addition of a northbound dual right -turn lane at 77th Street and TH 100 Southbound Ramp. b. Improved signal timing at 77th Street and Computer Avenue. 4. 2030 Build: a. 2020 Build improvements. b. Addition of an eastbound and westbound third lane on 77th Street from Industrial Boulevard through Computer Drive. c. Addition of a southbound through lane at France Avenue and 76th Street. d. Addition of an eastbound and westbound dual left turn lane at France Avenue and Minnesota Street. e. Addition of a southbound left turn lane at 77th Street and Minnesota Street. f. Addition of an eastbound right turn lane at 77th Street and Parklawn Avenue. Traffic will be analyzed at each phase of development to determine when these improvements would. be required. Parking A shared parking strategy is intended to reduce large surface parking lots; additionally, parking is intended to be shared with the Fred Richards golf course site, no matter the future use of that property. 2 2. 2020 Build: a. Addition of a northbound dual right -turn lane at 77th Street and TH 100 Southbound Ramp: - b. Addition of .a westbound right -turn lane at 77th Street and TH 100 Northbound Ramp. c. Addition of a northbound dual left turn lane, southbound left turn lane and eastbound right turn lane at 77th Street and Computer Drive: d. Addition of a northbound through lane at France Avenue and Minnesota Street. e. Addition of a northbound left turn lane, eastbound right turn lane and signal timing improvements at 77th Street and Burgundy .Place. 3. 2030 No- Build: a. 2020 'No -Build Improvements. b. Addition of an eastbound and westbound right -turn lane at 77th Street and TH 100 Northbound Ramp. c. Addition of a northbound and southbound left turn" lane at 77th Street and Computer Drive. d. Addition of a northbound through lane at France Avenue and Minnesota Drive. e. Addition of a southbound through lane at France Avenue and 76th Street. 4. 2030 Build: a. 2020 Build improvements. b. Addition of an eastbound and westbound third lane on 77th Street from Industrial Boulevard through Computer Drive. c. Addition of a southbound through lane at France Avenue and 76th Street. d. Addition of an eastbound and westbound dual left turn lane at France Avenue and Minnesota Street. e. Addition of a southbound left turn lane at 77th Street and Minnesota Street. f. Addition of an eastbound right turn lane at 77th Street and Parklawn Avenue. Traffic will be analyzed at each phase of development to determine when these improvements would. be required. Parking A shared parking strategy is intended to reduce large surface parking lots; additionally, parking is intended to be shared with the Fred Richards golf course site, no matter the future use of that property. 2 Parking for a Mixed Development District is based on the square footage of the buildings. Non - residential uses require one space per 300 square feet. Therefore, the 1,777,560 square feet of non - residential uses would require 5,425 stalls. The applicant is proposing 6,400 stalls. Part of the overage of parking space anticipated is due to the sharing of use with the public property to the north. The applicant does not wish to create more parking than needed. Each phase of development would examine closely the need for parking. The parking study done by WSB concluded that the proposed uses would generate the need for 5596 parking spaces. (See page A70.) Green Space /Landscaping There is very little green space and no storm water retention areas on the site as it exists today. The applicant is pledging to significantly increase landscaping, green space and storm water retention ponding within the development. (See the proposed plans on pages A33 —A35.) As a condition of approval on a preliminary basis a minimum of a 20% should be achieved at final build out. Individual landscaping would be reviewed at the time of Final Development Plan review for each phase of development. The previously approved overall development plan for this site included a 20% increase in green space alone. Grading /Drainage /Utilities There is not specific grading, drainage or utility plan to review at this time. The city engineer has reviewed the proposed plans and found them to be generally acceptable subject to the comments and conditions outlined on the attached page A106. A developer's agreement would be required for the construction of the proposed sidewalks, public water main, sewer and any other public improvements. Any approvals of this project would be subject to review and approval of the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District, as they are the City's review authority over the grading of the site. A more detailed review would be done at Final Development Plan with each phase. The idea of integrated storm water, and using storm water as an amenity, similar to Centennial Lakes, is a good one. The soils in this area are very poor; creating on -site storm water retention areas would benefit the site and the area. The applicant is proposing to connect the north and south sites with a surface water course if possible, and re -use storm water for irrigation and other uses. 11 Building /Building Material While there are no specifics proposed at this time, the applicant is proposing to build all buildings and parking ramps to a high architectural standard. Parking ramps are to be integrated into the architecture of the development. The applicant has indicated that podium height and sustainable building practice would be used. The applicant plans to bring forward sketch plans for each phase of development to gain input on architecture as well as site planning. Staff recommends very specific requirements for future building architecture as a condition of preliminary approval of the project. The following conditions are recommended to ensure quality building and podium height: ➢ New buildings shall utilize the podium height concept, as defined in the Edina Comprehensive Plan, if and where appropriate. ➢ Attempts shall be made to meet an energy savings goal of 15% over state energy code guidelines. Building designs shall be similar to and reasonably consistent with LEED standards. ➢ All buildings must be constructed of high quality materials and architecture. Building materials shall be of, but not limited to high quality brick, stone, precast concrete, and glass building. No building shall contain aluminum or metal siding as the primary finish material. All parking structures shall be designed to be integrated into and complement the architecture of newly constructed buildings. Shared parking strategies will be employed, where applicable. Signage The underlying zoning of the property would be MDD -6, therefore, would be subject to signage requirements of that zoning district. Staff would recommend a full signage plan be submitted as part of the Final Development Plan with the first phase of development. Plans should specifically include location and size of pylon signs, and way finding signage. Specific signage regulations would be incorporated into the PUD Zoning District including way finding signage. Preliminary Rezoning — PUD (Planned Unit Development) Below are the Code requirements and considerations for PUD. The applicant has pledged to include many of the goals and standards for a PUD. Those include: sustainable design, living streets concept, improved pedestrian connections, high architectural standards, podium height, pedestrian oriented 0 design, creative storm water management, integration of public space, podium height, enhanced landscaping and green space. Per Section 36 -253, the purpose and intent of the Planned Unit Development (PUD) District is to provide comprehensive procedures and standards intended to allow more creativity and flexibility in site plan design than would be possible under a conventional zoning district. The decision to zone property to PUD is a public policy decision for the city council to make in its legislative capacity. The purpose and intent of a PUD is to include most or all of the following: a. provide for the establishment of PUD (planned unit development) zoning districts in appropriate settings and situations to create or maintain a development pattern that is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan; b. promote a more creative and efficient approach to land use within the City, while at the same time protecting and promoting the health, safety, comfort, aesthetics, economic viability, and general welfare of the City, c. provide for variations to the strict application of the land use regulations in order to improve site design and operation, while at the same time incorporate design elements that exceed the City's standards to offset the effect of any variations. Desired design elements may include: sustainable design, greater utilization of new technologies in building design, special construction materials, landscaping, lighting, storm water management, pedestrian oriented design, and podium height at a street or transition to residential neighborhoods, parks or other sensitive uses; d, ensure high quality of design and design compatible with surrounding land uses, including both existing and planned, e. maintain or improve the efficiency of public streets and utilities; f. preserve and enhance site characteristics including natural features, wetland protection, trees, open space, scenic views, and screening; g. allow for mixing of land uses within a development; h. encourage a variety of housing types including affordable housing, and i. ensure the establishment of appropriate transitions between differing land uses. The purpose of this PUD is to ensure that the principles proposed by the applicant and the goals of the City, are carried out throughout the life of the development. Those goals and principles include: Green Streets; integrated 7 storm water as a project amenity, multimodal connections including, transit, bike, and pedestrian; high quality architecture; mixed use; shared parking; podium_ height; sustainable design; enhanced landscaping & green space. Applicability /Criteria a. Uses. All permitted uses, permitted accessory uses, conditional uses, and uses allowed by administrative permit contained in the various zoning districts defined in Section 850 of this Title shall be treated as potentially allowable uses within a PUD district, provided they would be allowable on the site under the Comprehensive Plan. Property currently zoned R -1, R -2 and PRD -1 shall not be eligible for a PUD. b. Eligibility Standards. To be eligible for a PUD district, all development . should be in compliance with the following: i. where the site of a proposed PUD is designated for more than one (1) land use in the Comprehensive Plan, the City may require that the PUD include all the land uses so designated or such combination of 'the designated uses as the City Council shall.deem aapropriate to achieve the purposes of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan; ii. any PUD which involves a single land use type or housing type may be permitted provided that it is otherwise consistent with the objectives of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan; iii, permitted densities may be specifically stated in the appropriate planned development designation and shall be in general conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; and iv, the setback regulation, building coverage and floor area ratio of the most closely related conventional zoning district shall be considered presumptively appropriate, but may be departed from to accomplish.the purpose and intent described in #1 above. As highlighted above, the City may require housing to be incorporated into the development to achieve the purpose of the MDD -6 zoning and the Comprehensive Plan which calls for housing within the development. The applicant has indicated that housing may be a possibility in future, but does not anticipate it in the.short term. The following page shows a compliance table demonstrating how the proposed new building would comply with the underlying MDD 76 Zoning Ordinance, Standards. Should the City:decide to rezone this site to PUD, the proposed setbacks, height of the building and number of parking stalls would become the standards for the lots. Please note that a few City Standards are not met under conventional zoning, when reviewing the general overall site plan. However, by 8 relaxing these standards, the purpose and intent, as described above would be met. Compliance Table * Would require a variance under the current code The most significant change proposed is replacing the residential square footage with non - residential square footage. Within the context of the Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR), the proposal would shift from Scenario 2, to closer to Scenario 3. (See pages A83 & Al 03, of the attached AUAR.) Please note on page A83, the. square footage proposed, does not exceed the maximum square footage contemplated in the AUAR. City Standard (MOD 76) Proposed - PUD Setbacks - Buildings Front Setback 35 feet +'/2 foot for each foot the building *35 feet (77`h Street - 12 story height exceeds minimum setback buildings) *35 feet (Viking Drive - 12 story buildings) Rear 35 feet +'/2 foot for each foot the building 50 feet height exceeds minimum setback Side No interior side setback required No setback Setbacks - Parking Structures 20 feet or the height of the structure 35 feet Front/street Building Height 4 stories north of 77th Street *5 stories 12 stories south of 77th Street 12 stories (Heights over 12 stories would require a Comprehensive Plan amendment) Parking lot and drive aisle setback 20 feet (street) 20 feet Building Coverage 30% 30% Maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 50% - Non - residential Uses *1,777,560 s.f. total proposed 50% - Residential Uses non - residential (includes, 1,881,134 square foot site Burgundy Place, Walsh Title & a 250,000 s. f. hotel) Parking Stalls — Mixed Non Residential: 1,777,560 s.f. /300 = 5,425 6,400 spaces suggested at this Development District stalls required time Minimum Lot Size 43 acres 43 acres * Would require a variance under the current code The most significant change proposed is replacing the residential square footage with non - residential square footage. Within the context of the Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR), the proposal would shift from Scenario 2, to closer to Scenario 3. (See pages A83 & Al 03, of the attached AUAR.) Please note on page A83, the. square footage proposed, does not exceed the maximum square footage contemplated in the AUAR. PRIMARY ISSUES /STAFF RECOMMENDATION Primary Issue m Is the PUD Zoning District appropriate for the site? Yes. Staff believes the proposal meets the purpose and intent of the PUD, and therefore, would be appropriate for this development site for the following reasons: 1. The proposed uses are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the existing IVIDD -6 Zoning of the site. The only real change proposed, compared to the previously approved' development plan for the site, is replacing the residential square footage with non - residential square footage. Within the context of the Alternative Urban Areawide Review (GUAR),. the proposal would shift from Scenario 2, to closer to Scenario 3, which does not exceed the maximum square footage contemplated in the AUAR. (See pages A83 & Al 03, of the attached AUAR.) 2. The project would encourage multimodality as follows: transit shelters on 77th Street; links to the regional trail, promotion of biking through bike facilities within each new building; creation of complete streets; establishing sidewalk connections between uses and buildings; creation of a recreational system that promotes walking, health and wellness. 3. Improved transportation system. The applicant proposes to upgrade 77th Street and provide better street connections into and throughout the development including better access to the Fred Richards golf course land. (See pages A34 —A35.) "Green Streets" would be created. (See page A43—A47.) 4. Parking would be shared. The applicant proposes to construct parking ramps for the purpose of shared parking throughout the development, including, shared parking with the public land to the north. 5. Storm water management would become a project amenity. Similar to the Centennial Lakes concept, storm water retention would be incorporated into the development to become an amenity. 6. Provision of high architectural standards. The applicant has agreed to building architecture, including parking ramps that would be of very high quality. The applicant has also agreed. to achieve a goal of the Comprehensive Plan, which is to incorporate podium height into the development. Sustainable building design similar or consistent with LEED standards is also anticipated. IR 7. The proposed project would generate traffic volumes that are within the parameters of the Alternative Urban Area -wide Review (GUAR) that has been done in this area. A traffic study was conducted by WSB and Associates for the Development. (See the attached study on pages A54— A80.) The study concludes that some roadway improvements are expected to be necessary into the future to accommodate the redevelopment of the Pentagon Towers and Pentagon Quads sites. 8. The PUD Zoning would give the City of Edina greater discretion in ensuring that the above mentioned principles are incorporated into the overall development in the future. 9. The proposed project would meet the following goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan: a. Design public open and green linkages that bring both amenity and positive image to neighborhoods, corridors, and business precincts. b. Design public streets to serve not only vehicles but also pedestrians, people with mobility aids, and bicycles, balancing the spatial needs of existing and future users within the right -of -way. Address both mobility and recreational needs and opportunities. c. Create walkable streets that foster an active public life; streets that are energized by their proximity to a vibrant mix of activity - generating uses. d. Preserve and make accessible natural areas and features as part of a comprehensive open space network. e. Within larger redevelopment sites, promote a fine - grained and interconnected network of local streets and paths, encouraging pedestrian circulation and providing a choice of access points. f. Encourage infill /redevelopment opportunities that optimize use of city infrastructure and that complement area, neighborhood, and /or corridor context and character. g. Podium Height. Where it is appropriate, the applicant has committed to the podium height concept, defined in the Edina Comprehensive Plan as follows: The "podium" is that part of the building that abuts the street, or that provides the required transition to residential neighborhoods, parks, and other sensitive uses. The podium height concept is intended to create a consistent street wall envelope and a comfortable pedestrian environment. 11 Staff Recommendation Preliminary Rezoning to PUD & Overall Development Plan Recommend that the City Council approve the Preliminary Rezoning from MDD- 6, Mixed. Development to PUD, Planned Unit Development District and. an Overall Development Plan for the subject property. Approval is based :on the following findings: 1. The proposed land uses are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The proposal would meet the purpose and intent of the PUD. The site is guided in the Comprehensive Plan as "Office Residential," which is seen as a transitional area between higher intensity districts and residential - d.istricts. Primary uses include: offices, housing, limited service uses, limited industrial, parks.and open space. Vertical mixed uses are encouraged. 3. The proposal would create a more efficient and creative use of the property. Better vehicle and pedestrian connections would be created; enhanced green space and ponding would be created; a mixture of land use is envisioned; there would be improved architecture and sustainability; shared parking would be created, including with the public use to the north. 4. The proposed project would meet the following goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan: a. Design public open and green linkages that bring both amenity and positive image to neighborhoods, corridors, and business precincts. b. Design public streets to serve not only vehicles but also pedestrians, people with mobility aids, and bicycles, balancing the spatial needs of existing and future users within the right -of -way. Address both mobility and recreational needs and opportunities. c. Create walkable streets that foster an active public life; streets that are energized by their proximity to a vibrant mix of activity- generating uses. d. Preserve and make accessible natural areas and features as part of a comprehensive open space network. 12 e. Within larger redevelopment sites, promote a fine- grained and interconnected network of local streets and paths, encouraging pedestrian circulation and providing a choice of access points. Encourage infill /redevelopment opportunities that optimize use of city infrastructure and that complement area, neighborhood, and /or corridor context and character. g. Podium Height. Where it is appropriate, the applicant has committed to the podium height concept, defined in the Edina Comprehensive Plan as follows: The "podium" is that part of the building that abuts the street, or that provides the required transition to residential neighborhoods, parks, and other sensitive uses. The podium height concept is intended to create a consistent street wall envelope and a comfortable pedestrian environment. Approval is subject to the following Conditions: Final Development Plans must be generally consistent with the Preliminary/ Overall Development Plans dated January 22, 2014. 2. The Final Landscape Plan must meet all minimum landscaping requirements per Section 850.04 of the Zoning Ordinance. 3. The Final Lighting Plan must meet all minimum landscaping requirements per Section 850.04 of the Zoning Ordinance. 4. Submittal of a sign plan with Final Development Plan application for each phase of the overall development. Each signage plan submittal should include monument sign locations and size, way finding signage, and wall signage. Signage shall be consistent throughout the PUD. 5. The 77th Street Improvements must be completed by the applicant/land owner when 100,000 square feet of development has been constructed. The 77th Street improvements must be consistent with the plans date stamped January 22, 2014, and are subject to review and approval of city staff before construction. 6. The Parkway and Green Streets, as shown on the Preliminary/Overall Development Plan, date stamped January 22, 2014, must be built by the applicant/land owner upon 80 -85% build -out of the overall development. 7. Final Develop Plans must create a recreational system that promotes walking, health and wellness. 13 8. Connections shall be made from the property south of 77t" Street to the property north of 77t" Street through or adjacent to the 'Walsh Title" site. and Fred Richards golf course. 9. Pedestrian connections must also be made between buildings,,along 77th Street, to Burgundy Place, to the anticipated Regional Trail, and to the new Green Streets, the installation of which are conditioned on factors, including without limitation, the future use of Fred' Richards. 10. All crosswalks shall be marked with duraprint stamping to clearly identify the pedestrian. crossing. 11. Where applicable and required pursuant to the Final Development Plan, all public utility, public roadway and public sidewalk easements shall be granted or dedicated to the City upon Final Development Plan approval for each phase. 12. Bike' storage. and bike shower facilities shall be provided within the development. Bike racks will be provided throughout the development. 13. A;majority of the storm water retention will be developed as an amenity and integrated into the overall development. 14. Overall, the development must include at least a 20% of green space /storm water retention in the aggregate. 15. Any Park Dedication fees due under Section 32 of the City code shall be collected at the time of the issuance of a building permit for any portion of the property that is re- platted. 16. New buildings shall utilize the podium height concept, as defined in the Edina Comprehensive Plan, if and where appropriate. 17. Attempts shall be made to meet an energy savings goal of 15% over state energy code guidelines. Building designs shall be similar to and reasonably consistent with LEED. standards. 18.All buildings must be constructed of high quality materials and architecture. Building materials shall.be of, but not limited to high quality brick, stone, precast concrete, and glass building. No building shall contain aluminum or. metal siding as the primary finish material. 19. All parking structures shall be designed to be integrated into and complement the architecture of newly constructed buildings. Shared parking strategies will be employed, where applicable. 14 20. Public art shall be incorporated into the development. 21. Final Rezoning is subject to a Zoning Ordinance Amendment creating the PUD, Planned Unit Development for this site. Final PUD Zoning must meet the criteria required for a PUD. 22. Compliance with the issues /conditions outlined in the director of engineering's memo dated January 22, 2014. Deadline for a city decision: May 21, 2013 15 } • z ic' 1 . ZIt 9 .. 11. Y J N • .1 1 :j r CIWGL�Irl� 0% $F _ - . - r HAM TriN Fri 7 1T.- .� C, 711..,2 St ai rt 1A MANA 1.1, " :!Nr, T a ! ,7 S ,t s If _- _ n Ft] 30"1 RTH frl{ u I•fiv.� ?. LA GL F.i Fri qG i - z 7 U (: n 7l'1 77111 zT'.Y j ?4111 s F.FF f. L•: Z fY . 27 + ?.t t61CAN CLVV' �t'- • �' AI�fM u r Parcel A -T -B: Map Scale: 1" = 1600 ft. N ID: Print Date: 2/20/2014 Owner Market Pentagon North Llc Name: Total: Parcel Tax Address: Total: Property Commercial -Non Preferred Sale Type: Price: This map is a compilation of data from various sources and is furnished "AS IS" with no Home- Sale representation or warranty expressed or stead: Date: implied, including fitness of any particular purpose, merchantability, or the accuracy and completeness of the information shown. Parcel Sale Area: Code: COPYRIGHT ©HENNEPIN COUNTY 2014 A TarinkGreen! I� r AZ -' 0 W Ft I S:S'ORTH DR Cr - - W -- 7;Qt� _ m ; _3ai' - - : �vjVL .44 3 g — - v M- FI:HDELLLtR . Fcv Fred Richards Golf coul'A 14480 r+ _ X00 1LUX I.A. j a9 rZ3 1ta w - 611100 y: Gli 4 ..0 417,5 .z IIICNST BLVD 24 ST'py 7 400 > -4;C- l 24 HIBISCUS AVE Q G� _;r J i :. t 7401 W i r ;7.'1 4�z_ t?Q 4425 AZ �vjVL .44 3 g -.o Fcv Fred Richards Golf coul'A 14480 r+ _ 4 •� ti�•4'4C1 � ht C Gli 4 ..0 417,5 ab i IIICNST BLVD 77TH ST'py -4;C- l 4510 77.2 5 4$1!S :. - r ;7.'1 4�z_ t?Q 4425 c LU IT _i_1 _522Z, 1 -41-00 y -1 10 [: 781 -. +�. -801 ?t3� a _ W r` [' a 18TH STRFF7 Cl li •4 +i : 4 G0 4�C0 it,1 kt714 /1 IF i �I.I ' .44/0 ' Parcel _ Map Scale: 1" = 800 ft. N A T B: ID: Print Date: 2/20/2014 Owner Market Name: Total: Parcel Tax Address: Total: Property Sale Type: Price: This map is a compilation of data from various sources and is furnished "AS IS" with no Home- Sale representation or warranty expressed or Stead: Date: implied, including fitness of any particular purpose, merchantability, or the accuracy and completeness of the information shown. Parcel Sale Area: Code: COPYRIGHT ©HENNEPIN COUNTY 2014 7hirk Green! AZ Cam CQf Edccla T �� -.F-7 _ -�.- _ - \• �'-_ � :Ri � � - �- -ate/ - � _ -�l •ia r l� N..9g3 rtNfi OFLL t / `�' ' Y1 Highlighted Fe atur ' /.,e 't• � -'- ' Yy • ` :v� j' Str+rt llama Lahs. c r r � ` _ o , '•/ , ' .y , �.• r� - nl City Limits ' �- ! Creel, C, Labe Names _� -} 4•r..r '� =� -ii` .:' S 1st _ _ -YJ 'p ' i r '! - Parcels �� n - I. ,'�•; 2006 aerial Phel* Yet *'. �i. - 'f' .�_' .s.,•, v,r r .yK ='I *- _ '•ti,;��' - 4 ~ i �• .g� � ?- i .. ' _ :(mot `�sr .� doom t L T- r; p z.- = r ?a ns3-4_fir't-.I1j 4 -\ J2 OA �ti ltii.i�a _O A3 4 u�1 . OK ;i� I I r t� .` I'_. tl 1 -4 ip ,"aYr'7'�i'�Yr� t ,•� ' f f� i• I o f t ` � J .T i {� #r ' *la itlt �'I I111• ��ti ;:� `f' ._j I II Ia.L + • I f I'f f.t x,1111 - + r l i I 1 c r, 4; s ., 1411 r.4 11 „i II.'.l*5 1:14 �� 4 • �Ief frL ..,1' - 411 n I, Parcel 30- 028 -24 -11 -0036 ID: Owner J D Ellis & T C Ellis Name: Parcel 6223 Halifax Ave Address: Edina, MN 55424 Property Residential Type: Home- Homestead stead: Parcel 0.42 acres Area: 18,408 sq ft e If 'f A -T -B: Abstract Map Scale: 1" = 400 ft. /NN Print Date: 2/20/2014 -{ ), Market $447,000 Total: Tax $7,098.58 Total: (Payable: 2013) Sale $60,000 Price: A -his map is a compilation of data from various sources and is furnished "AS IS" with no epresentation or warranty expressed or nplied, including fitness of any particular )urpose, merchantability, or the accuracy and :ompleteness of the information shown. ;OPYRIGHT © HENNEPIN COUNTY 2014 `-r k x , ' * 7N M Axr S Aw 'rte x� 21FL—F (i5J � ;�• • L.i.. rr;..... . '✓• _ .:rte _ lu r � of o ({t) I .� •• ` t I ��.. Alai � I •-'- r.�. �i� i► � _ i`r' 1 1 rl 1 =icy -- -- I q� = „�`S,_.�' ,1- is _ 1 - ;� • ° ��,. •� N �•r` _ ! iI 0 125 ,251 wr Fii Z. ACTIVE PHASE PROPOSED BUILDING EXISTING BUILDING rmrr' 79 - SCALE IN FT. i,, �� A- LOFT HOTEL 150 O ROOMS ® WEST 1,200 STALL �L7 EAST 36D OOO gsf BUILDING (4 -11 STORIES' 150 ROOMS 1,200 STALLS TOWIVHOME 1 !� EAST PARKING 95 o �¢ TOWNHOME 2 6 LEVELS 7600 PARKLAWN 18 UNITS 18 UNITS 1,200 STALLS j 85,632 gsf m INDEPENDENT LIVING 1 INDEPENDENT LIVING 2 ASSISTED LIVING 2 BURGUNDY PLACE w 122 UNITS 122 UNITS 103 UNITS 36 UNITS (MIXED USE) a EIIST INC WALSH TITLE 16,560 gsf o � ASSISTED LIVING 1 � TOWNHOME 3 a 103 UNITS 26 UNITS 18 21,000 gsf (OFFICE) ® WEST BUILDING (4 -10 STORIES) INDEPENDENT LIVING 3 377,375 gsf (OFFICE) ® 122 UNITS miller dunwiddie [�:nn Kimley -Morn AwwwTuliF I _ coati, xo., NA M0612 mueixc Tmc 6ua.lxc ;:uuxan: SnCI ASSOCISfeS, Inc. ED NA GATEWAY OATL• 31 JANUARY 2006 123 North Third 54e.l Bulb 164 Pentagon Park Redevelopment PROPOSED SITE PLAN 6n1ON: dig EDINA GATEWAY- COMPLETE PROJECT S_2. P Ml.. -HL d 8 5601 -1 657 WayLaca Propercles, uc.. Re- Zoning and Overall Plan (2D1T) www.mlllvdunwiddlacom ciuc�¢a; APPL, I t buT /JARRATi�to, Pentagon Park Narrative Background When constructed in the 1960's, Pentagon Park was a state -of -the -art office complex located on approximately 42 prime acres in the northeast quadrant of Interstate I -494 and Highway 100 (Exhibit 2). It featured 8 three story buildings and one four story building surrounded by surface parking north of W. 77th Street ( "North Parcel ") and a "tower" of six stories in the southwest parcel surrounded by randomly placed one story office buildings with surface parking lots between ( "South Parcel "). The complex — like Southdale, the innovative 1950's era indoor shopping mall — was designed to accommodate the emerging car culture that was sweeping the country. Unlike Southdale, which was originally conceived to be a more complete mixed -use development, Pentagon Park was always intended to be office - focused and auto - centric. Access to the campus or getting to a restaurant for lunch was virtually impossible without a car. Today, the moribund buildings of Pentagon Park sit amidst a sea of surface parking lots, testament to changing times and tastes (Exhibit 6). Pentagon Revival, the development entity, has "stabilized" some of the buildings, attracting new tenants but the office park has outlived its useful life and the Applicant intends to completely re- imagine and rebuild on the site. The Applicant's affiliates own or control all of the property described in the Application which includes the parcels identified as the "North Parcel ", "South Parcel ", "Walsh Title" and 7710 Computer Avenue (collectively, the "Property "). Context (Exhibits 3 and 4) Immediately north of the North Parcel is Fred Richards Golf Course, an approximately 42 -acre City -owned and operated facility which is separated from Pentagon Park (Exhibit 5). The City is in the process of evaluating the use of the Fred Richards land as a golf course and determining whether it should remain a golf course or be "repurposed" to another public use. North of the golf course is the Lake Edina neighborhood, which comprises single family houses, many of which surround the small lake. To the east of Pentagon Park is a district that includes a mix of business and multi - family housing. To the south, along West 77111 Street, are a variety of businesses, the largest of which is Seagate Technology. The Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail will be constructed in 2015 and is proposed to be located along the northern property line of Pentagon Park. The exact configuration of the Regional Trail is not final. Depending on the future disposition of the golf course, the Regional Trail could shift north onto City property. The south/west portion of Pentagon Park is bounded by W. 77th to the north, Computer Avenue to the east, Viking Drive to the south and Normandale Road and Highway 100 to the west. A variety of businesses are located in the surrounding area. r January 22, 2014 The Applicant The Applicant's membership includes Hillcrest Development, LLLP ( "Hillcrest "). Hillcrest's Managing General Partner Scott Tankenoff is the face of the Applicants development team. Scott has been the Managing Partner of Hillcrest since 1990. Hillcrest was founded in 1948 and is now a third generation company specializing in commercial renovation to suit its clients' facility needs for office, hi -tech, biotechnology- medical research, light assembly, warehousing, manufacturing, and other commercial purposes. Membership in the Applicant is also owned by an affiliate of Mark Raunenhorst. Mark has decades of development and construction expertise in most sectors of real estate development, including, office, retail and multi - family residential. All of Hillcrest's projects (over eighty to date) have been fully designed, developed, built, leased, managed, and owned by Hillcrest. Hillcrest has its own internal construction, leasing, and management groups. Hillcrest has enjoyed success in its business and renovation projects due to its hands -on approach toward redevelopment. Hillcrest's in -house development team consists of experienced construction, design, leasing, management, operations, and accounting personnel. This "hands -on" approach streamlines the efficiency of the projects and provides for a quicker occupancy for Hillcrest's clients. Membership in the Applicant is also owned by an affiliate of Mark Raunenhorst. Mark has decades of development and construction expertise in multiple sectors of real estate development, including, office, retail and multi - family residential. The Application The Applicant is seeking approval of the land uses, maximum densities and maximum building heights for the project. The Exhibits that accompany the Application illustrate several aspects of the Applicant's proposal. Specifically, the Applicant requests: a. Land Use. i. Hotel, office and retail on the South Parcel. ii. Office and retail on the North Parcel, Walsh Title and 7710 Computer Avenue Parcels. iii. Potential multi - family residential on the Property. b. Densities. i. 425 room hotel. ii. 1,400,000 square feet of office. iii. 40,000 square feet of retail. 2 �� January 22, 2014 c. Height (Exhibit 15) i. 12 stories on the South Parcel and 7710 Computer Avenue Parcel. ii.In the future, the Applicant may request a Comprehensive Guide Plan amendment for a hotel of over 12 stories in the location on the west side of the South Parcel, identified on Exhibit 15. iii. 2 stories on the Walsh Title Parcel. iv. 4 and 5 stories on the North Parcel. (Exhibits 13 and 14) In response to the unknown future use of Fred Richards, the Applicant will present multiple options with respect to the configuration of stormwater and green space amenities. As discussed with the City Staff and presented at Sketch Plan review before the Planning Commission and City Council, the Property needs to be rezoned to a Planned Unit Development in order to achieve the requisite density and land. Accordingly, the Applicant has filed these applications for the Property to be rezoned to a Planned Unit Development ( "PUD ") and for Preliminary Development Plan approval. The proposed redevelopment of the Property is a unique opportunity. The redevelopment of the Property will do to the northeast quadrant of Interstate 1 -494 and Highway 100 what Centennial Lakes did for the southeastern portion of the City and what Normandale Lakes has done for the City of Bloomington. The unique opportunity and aspect of the Applicant's requests include substantial and procedural characteristics that include, with limitation: 1. The fact that the redevelopment of PUD is very different than the previous Planned Unit Development zoning districts that have been approved and adopted by the City, for several reasons, including, without limitation: a. While the current improvements are in severe blighted condition, the buildings could be stabilized if the PUD is not approved. b. Stabilization would prevent redevelopment of the Property for another generation, and would cause for a massive lost opportunity, especially with the potential change in the use of Fred Richards. c. The size of the Property and proposed multi -phased project. 3 A� January 22, 2014 d. The long term use of Fred Richards is unknown and a PUD will provide flexibilities to respond to change in use of the golf course, allowing for the integration of Pentagon Park into a repurposed Fred Richards. 2. The proposed land uses, densities and building heights are either consistent with or less intense than what the Comprehensive Guide Plan, City Code and AUAR (updated in the summer in 2013) allow or anticipate. The requested density is less than alternatives in the AUAR and is close to the total gross square footage approved in the failed Gateway Plan approved by the City in 2008. 3. Because of the unique characteristics of the PUD request including the multi - phased development and the Applicants need to terminate leases or relocate tenants in the current office tower on the North Parcel prior to March 31St; the Applications for rezoning and Preliminary Development Plan do not contain architectural renditions, landscaping plans, drainage /grading plans or the other detailed plans called for in the City's form application submittal checklist. The details will not be available until Final Development Plan approval is requested by the Applicant when each phase is ripe for development. At each final stage, the Applicant will appear before the City Council and Planning Commission at sketch plan and Final approval, in addition to the Applicant's communication with City Staff, Planning Commissioners and elected officials. 4. While at the Sketch Plan meeting before the Planning Commission, certain commissioners requested additional detail on the Applicant's plan, including the relationship between pedestrians and the buildings on the North Parcel, the Applicant is not able to present more detail because the users and market factors are unknown. This is a market driven project. Certainty and time efficiency is necessary for success in today's market: which is a different paradigm then previous market conditions. 5. As discussed in this Narrative and illustrated in the Exhibits, Pentagon Park as a PUD will satisfy the PUD requirements of the City Code, because, as the Applicant has represented, the project will: a. Create a development that is consistent with the Comprehensive Guide Plan; b. Promote creative and efficient approach to land us V 4 Al January 22, 2014 c. Provide variations to the strict compliance of the Code in order to improve design and to incorporate design elements that exceed City Standards to offset the effect of the Code deviation; d. Include sustainable design, greater utilization of new technologies in building design, special construction materials, landscaping, lighting, storm water management, pedestrian- orientated design and podium height at a street or transition to residential neighborhoods and parks; e. Ensure a high quality of design; f. Maintain or improve the efficiency of public streets; g. Preserve and enhance site characteristics; and h. Allow for mixing of land uses. 6. The Applicant requires preliminary approval of the PUD and the Preliminary Development Plan by March 18th (which is the last City Council meeting in March), so the Applicant has certainty on the uses, height and densities that will be allowed for the project. The Applicant is willing to proceed to move or terminate the existing tenants based on preliminary approvals, even though the PUD ordinance and Final Development plans will not be approved until the Applicant has submitted for Final Development approval, for each phase. 7. The risk/reward of granting preliminary approval without submittal of detailed plans (including architectural plans) are properly weighted, because the Applicant bears more risk than the City; and, notwithstanding the lack of `architectural' detail, the Applicant is willing to include items in the preliminary approval that include, without limitation, the following (which line up in large part with the 6 disciplines that the Council members, staff, Planning commission and neighbors have requested and are discussed in detail below): a. A higher % of green space (including water /ponding areas) than what is required by code. b. Storm water management (a majority) to be an amenity. 5 410 January 22, 2014 c. Storm water retention and clarification/treatment to current standards. d. Encourage bicycle and pedestrian transit; we need to provide more than an outside bike rack and one stall shower at Pentagon Park. e. Provide upgraded transit shelters (two at a minimum). f. 77th Street upgraded consistent with November 6, 2013 plans and details, once 100,000 square feet or more of new development is in process or completed. g. 76th Parkway and green streets (north/south) once 80 -85% of Pentagon Park's new development construction is in process or completed. h. Upgrade Parklawn once 80 -85% of Pentagon Park's new development construction is in process or completed. i. Design similar /consistent with LEED standards; TBD (needs more study and understanding). j. Consideration of solar, especially on buildings north of 77th Street. k. Upgrade streets; upgrade pedestrian access around south parcel once construction on the South parcel is 80 -85% in process or completed. 8. The Preliminary Approval will have more than sufficient project detail, procedural conditions, goals and standards to guide and define what is required in the Final Development Plan for each phase. Architectural details would have to be reviewed and approved under the current MDD -6 category in any event: a PUD provides commercial densities to enable -.rNeaningful redevelopment of the Property to be feasible. , �l The Vision The Applicant proposes to transform the Pentagon Park project area in phases, into a state -of- the -art development with an emphasis on office use. Other uses, including a hotel, restaurants and convenience retail, are all planned for the project. Housing will also be considered. The final mix of uses will depend on market demands. The Applicant has: (i) held two neighborhood community open houses; (ii) conducted a series of interviews, meetings and presentations with City Staff and elected officials; (iii) appeared at 6 411 January 22, 2014 numerous joint City Council and Planning Commission workshops; (iv) appeared at multiple Rotary meetings and Chamber of Commerce events; and (v) presented the project at Sketch Plan review before the Planning Commission in December 2013 and to the City Council on January 7, 2014. These were productive and informative sessions that led the Applicant to identify various issues (Exhibit 7) and to develop an overall goal of integrating green infrastructure throughout the site, resulting in improved connectivity and porosity and linking transit, open space and the broader community to Pentagon Park (Exhibit 12). An additional six primary principles (Exhibits 7 and 8) were developed through intake and discussions over many months of meetings with Council members, City Staff, neighbors and professionals, all of which will be integrated into any future plan of the site: Establish Green Streets (Exhibits 22 — 26) — The project will include a familiar pattern of streets and blocks as opposed to the current superblock design. The green streets will serve multiple needs, with the following goals: • Allow access into and out of the district, parking structures and to the City -owned property. • Provide "front door addresses" for businesses and other uses. • Integrate space for stormwater management. • Include on- street, parallel parking, to help reduce dependence on surface parking lots. • Provide continuous sidewalks for pedestrians on both sides of streets. • Include additional amenities, such as street trees, pedestrian-scale lighting, landscaping. Develop Integrated Stormwater (Exhibits 9 - 10 and Exhibits 16 — 21) — Stormwater currently sheet drains off the Pentagon Park site without clarification/treatment, or any substantive retention, burdening city infrastructure on 77th Street and negatively impacting adjacent water bodies in the Fred Richards Golf Course area. The new development proposes to properly manage all stormwater on -site or in conjunction with a change in use of the Fred Richards with the following goals: • Celebrate water creatively as an amenity (Exhibit 9), and integrate it into the overall Master Plan. • Connect the northern and southern sites with a surface water course. • Provide "urban" infiltration basins (in lieu of standard basins) and/or "treatment trains" to cleanse water and allow it to penetrate and recharge the groundwater system. • Capture and re -use stormwater for irrigation and other potential uses. • Use the stormwater system as a focus for recreation throughout the site. Create a Pedestrian Friendly 77th (Exhibit 22) — W. 77th Street is currently a five lane arterial road, with a continuous center lane used to turn both north and south into businesses at numerous locations. Currently, there is an inadequate 4' sidewalk immediately behind the curb on the south side and no sidewalk on the north side. There is a lack of access to transit 7 ��a January 22, 2014 stops along 771h and poor connections to business for pedestrians or bicyclists. The City right- of-way only extends from curb to curb. The new development proposes the following: • Work with private land owners (e.g. Pentagon Park, Seagate, and other businesses) to gain easements for gracious pedestrian sidewalks, enclosed transit shelters, street trees and pedestrian-scale lighting on both sides of 77th. • Connect to Green Streets (to the north) and consolidate and align business access roads (to the south) to allow for development of a landscaped center median with left turn lanes at new intersections. • Provide safe and clearly defined crosswalks at green streetsibusiness access roads, with pedestrian "refuge" areas in the center median. • Identify one significant intersection of the redevelopment site to potentially receive a traffic signal. • Provide two 11' through - traffic lanes in each direction to retain current street capacity for through traffic. Provide Key Connections (Exhibits 10, 14 and 16 — 21) — Presently, the south/west site — also called the "Tower Site" is an isolated island in the district and completely disconnected from the northeast site. Roads and fences further isolate Pentagon Park from its immediate and more distant neighbors. Links to transit do not meet current accessibility standards. The project will include the following: • If the golf course on Fred Richards is decommissioned and transformed to a multi - purpose public space, the Applicant will pursue connections between the Tower Site and the North Parcel with a new bridge and underpass(Exhibit 10) beneath W. 77t'', with enough clearance to allow bikes, pedestrians and a water channel to all pass beneath. • Provide one connection to the new regional trail at the 77th underpass to the south/west site and another near the east end of the site to 77th to allow safe and easy access to improved transit shelters. • Integrate the North Parcel with Fred Richards, by extending "green streets" south through the new development to 77th (Exhibit 25) . • Provide sidewalks, safe crosswalks and other pedestrian- friendly facilities within the site to promote walking within the development, to transit and to other nearby places. Promote Multimodality (Exhibits 12 and 22 — 26) — At present, Pentagon Park and the surrounding district still rely heavily on car use. With all the issues related to favoring the car — oil dependency and the cost of gas, air pollution and ensuing climate change, social equity, etc. — this development will strive to promote multimodal access to the site, promoting easy access to the public . The proposal recommends the following: • Provide safe access to transit shelters on 77th, and make them comfortable and inviting. 8 413 January 22, 2014 • Link the regional trail to and through the new development to connect with transit to promote bicycle use as a serious form of transportation as well as a recreational one. • Provide state -of -the -art bicycle facilities, including a repair facility, dedicated spots for shower and inside bike lockers. • Create "complete streets" within the new development by calming traffic and providing safe and inviting sidewalks throughout. • Establish sidewalk connections to adjacent land uses to reduce dependence on the car and encourage walking. • Develop a recreational system both that promotes walking, health and wellness. Institute Shared Parking .Strategies (Exhibit 11) — Currently, Pentagon Park is characterized by large surface parking lots, single -use facilities that consume vast amounts of land and sat empty at many times even during the heyday of the office park. This development aims to reduce surface parking lots using a multi- pronged strategy for parking. The following are recommended: • Invest in parking structures that are integrated into and serve the architecture of newly constructed buildings on the Property to the extent possible. • Locate at least one parking structure in close proximity to the Fred Richards site for events that may take place there. • Provide on -street parallel parking on all internal streets, including "bay parking" on the parkway street. • Provide one level of below -grade parking beneath buildings (one level is feasible). A number of concept diagrams were developed to illustrate how these principles could be translated onto the Pentagon park site and illustrate potential redevelopment scenarios (Exhibits 16,17,19 -21). Based upon feedback provided by Staff, Community, Planning Commission and Council a hybrid concept was developed (Exhibit 18) that reflected additional public comments. Although, the details of the redevelopment will change depending upon market forces, it reinforced the strong community interest in the site and the redevelopment process. It was clear a strategic process was needed to achieve the results all stakeholders desired. Planned Unit Development (PUD) The creation of a Planned Unit Development District is appropriate for a site of this size and potential. The Mayor, Council and Planning Commission, in addition to the Applicant and Staff, are in agreement that this project offers unique opportunities that exceed normal City standards for the current zoning classification (MDD -6). In addition, the land use, height and density requests of the Applicant are either consistent with or less intense than requirements described in the Guide Plan, Code and AUAR. t January 22, 2014 A two -step planning process is required to achieve the redevelopment goals the community has identified and the quality of development the Applicant envisions (Exhibit 1). The redevelopment of approximately 42 acres will take a number of years to achieve and flexibility is needed to capitalize on opportunities as the market forces change over time. The two -step approach envisions a preliminary PUD approval (step -one) which will set the overall land use, height and density requirements for the site and allow the Applicant to begin to market the overall concept of the Pentagon park redevelopment to potential tenants. The second -step will bring forward individual site development proposals for final PUD approval, allowing the City to review detailed project features at a sketch plan level and at a final development level. This provides the City with final approval of any projects to be constructed at Pentagon Park. As summarized above, the Preliminary PUD approval being sought in this submittal focuses on three primary aspects: land -use, density and height (Exhibits 13 -15). South Parcel and 7710 Computer Avenue The South parcel or "Tower Site" envisions approximately 500,000 gross square feet(GSF) of office use in multiple buildings that do not exceed 12 stories in height, approximately 25,000 GSF of service retail and restaurants to support proposed uses and the surrounding community and an approximately 375 -425 room hotel that may exceed 12 stories depending upon the proposed hotel operator. The Applicant seeks approval of a 12 story concept in the Preliminary PUD approval, but may seek approval for additional stories at the time of Final approval if the hotel concept warrants consideration beyond the Preliminary PUD approval. Parking ramps to accommodate approximately 1,400 vehicles to support the density and use envisioned on the South Parcel. Walsh Title Parcel Directly north of the South Parcel is the existing Walsh Title site. This is a remnant parcel from the historic Pentagon Park campus and provides a key connection point to link the South Parcel to the future regional trail and to Fred Richards. A two story of approximately 20,000 GSF Retail/Medical /Office use is envisioned for this site that supports surrounding uses and enriches the connection between the south parcel and the northern public green space. A combination of underground and surface parking is likely to support the proposed uses on this parcel. North Parcel The North Parcel situated between 77th Street and the southern edge of the Fred Richards site envisions approximately 900,000 GSF of office uses and approximately 15,000 GSF of retail. A residential component could potentially be included in the North Parcel if the market demand exists. A stepped approach to height is envisioned, transitioning from 5 stories adjacent to 77th Street to a maximum of 4 stories along Fred Richards to relate to the public open space and neighborhood to the north. Four parking ramps accommodating at total of 3,600 vehicles are proposed to support the density of use envisioned on the North Parcel. The potential to share this parking with the 10 A l s- January 22, 2014 community to support uses on red Richards is a possibility as the vision for that site crystalizes over the next year. Although, the redevelopment of Pentagon Park will be driven by market demand and the details of a final PUD plan will come at a later date, the Applicant envisions a master Preliminary Development Plan that is: Sustainable — The redevelopment will strive to promote sustainability in every sense of the word, including creating a well connected, multi -modal project that encourages other means of movement than the car, employs active and passive solar energy systems, harvests, manages and re -uses rainwater on -site, promotes energy - efficient architecture and landscape, etc. This project has the potential to be a model for mixed -use office development. Consideration will be given to creating a LEED -ND (Neighborhood Design) project. Innovative — The project will focus on innovation at all levels. The Preliminary Development Plan will propose integration of systems using district -wide strategies, including parking, management of water, circulation, heating and cooling. All systems will be addressed in concert. The synergies between systems can also extend to the adjacent City -owned property to further capture opportunities for innovation. Contextual — The project will create a new paradigm for the Pentagon Park district, establishing a more familiar pattern of streets and blocks (may be of varying sizes). In essence, this new development will set the tone for the future of the district — more porous and more transit, bicycle and pedestrian friendly. Adaptable — Cities typically consist of a framework of streets and blocks within which a variety of land uses can coexist and evolve over time. This project proposes to establish that framework and encourage all building to have adaptability as a key design criterion. Incremental — It is also important to create a place that can evolve comfortably over time. This project will take many years to complete, but it needs to feel like a welcoming place early in the process. A well crafted public realm with well - conceived green and blue infrastructure will be critical to its success. Efficient — Because this project will be designed from scratch, efficiencies in everything from road design, utilities layout, stormwater management, parking locations and synergies, to accommodations for increased transit service, can all be conceived during the final PUD planning process, resulting in a more cohesive and innovative development. Aesthetically Pleasing — It is critical that the design of all facets of Pentagon Park, from architecture, landscape and infrastructure be aesthetically pleasing while functioning seamlessly together. With top -tier amenities and aesthetics, the project 11 4(� January 22, 2014 will set itself apart from the competition, much like Centennial Lakes and 50`x' and France have in the past. Health / Safety / Comfort — The project will promote walking, bicycling and transit use that makes them attractive, safe, and viable alternatives to the car. The design will create "complete streets" that serve all users equally, calming the car and providing the necessary infrastructure for safe walking and cycling. In addition, the design will provide recreational walking trails that connect to the regional trail and nearby streets to encourage walking over the noon hour or before and after work. Economically Viable — By providing the innovative features that have been discussed in this narrative, the renewed Pentagon Park will create a buzz and attract businesses that might otherwise look elsewhere. Cool and livable environments have become requisite in today's competitive workplace; providing the perks will translate to a stronger bottom line. Podium Height — Edina has spent a great deal of time considering the impact of building height on the public realm. This redevelopment will honor that work by establishing appropriate podium heights in relation to setbacks from the street. It is important to remember that the best street envelopes are well- defined by architecture and landscape; the project guidelines need to find the sweet spot where buildings don't overwhelm pedestrians but still provide a strong and attractive edge that defines a better public realm. The Comprehensive Guide Plan challenges the City in its mission to guide the development and redevelopment of lands, all in a manner that sustains and improved the uncommonly high quality of life enjoyed by our residents and businesses. It is a once in a generation opportunity to be presented with an application for approximately 42 acres by an Applicant that not only currently owns or controls all of the Property, but understands the importance of the City's mission statement and the relationship to a potentially re- purposed Fred Richards. 12 411 f PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL KEY DISCUSSION POINTS DATED January 22, 2014 The following are some key discussion points regarding the PUD and Preliminary Development Plan Applications: 1. The redevelopment of Pentagon Park is very different than the 5 or so other PUD's that have been approved and adopted by the City, because: a. While the current improvements are in severe blighted condition, they can be stabilized if the PUD or TIF is not approved. b. Stabilization would prevent the redevelopment of Pentagon Park for another generation, and would cause for a massive lost opportunity, especially with the potential change in the use of the FRED. c. The size of the Project. d. Phased re- development over a long period of time. e. We do not know the long term use of the FRED. 2. The proposal in our Applications is a result of over a year of intake, including many meetings with Staff and elected officials and the Sketch Plan meetings before the PC and Council. 3. What we are asking for with respect to use, density and height is either consistent with or less intense than what the Guide Plan, Code and AUAR allow or anticipate. We are willing to keep residential as an alternative with office and retail. The density is less than alternatives in the AUAR and is close to the total square footage that the Kaminsky plan included. Regarding height, we are willing to build 4 and 5 story buildings on the North Parcel when the Code allows for 12. As we discussed, we need 12 stories for the South Parcel with the understanding that we also want the opportunity to discuss a hotel building of over 12 stories as per our plans we have shown. 4. Because of the unique characteristics of this PUD request as compared to others, and our need to terminate or move existing tenants prior to March 18, 2014, our Preliminary PUD and Preliminary Development Plan will not contain architectural, landscaping, drainage /grading or other details. The details will not be fleshed out until the final development plan approval is requested on each phase. At each final stage, we will appear 41� January 22, 2014 before Council at sketch plan and final approval, in addition to consistent communication with City Staff, Planning Commissioners and elected officials. S. While we understand that certain PC members asked to see more detail, especially the relationship between pedestrians and the buildings on the North Parcels, we are not prepared to present more detail because we do not know who our users are or what the market will bear. We have and can continue to refine the detail improvements on 77th and the street scape, in order to illustrate that we are committed to make the Project much more pedestrian friendly and we have shown our commitment to tie the Project into the FRED if the use of the FRED changes. 6. This Project fits into a PUD much more than the existing PUDs because, as we have represented, the City will be receiving many, if not all of the following (taken from the general PUD ordinance): a. Creates a development that is consistent with the Comprehensive Guide Plan. b. Promotes creative and efficient approach to land use. c. Provides variations to the strict compliance of the Code in order to improve design and to incorporate design elements that exceed City Standards to offset the effect of the Code deviation. The design elements include, sustainable design, greater utilization of new technologies in building design, special construction materials, landscaping, lighting, storm water management, pedestrian- orientated design and podium height at a street or transition to residential neighborhoods and parks. d. Ensures a high quality of design. e. Maintains or improves the efficiency of public streets. f. Preserves and enhances site characteristics. g. Allows for mixing of land uses. 7. We agree to (i) appear before the Council every four months for update on redevelopment activity or when requested, in addition to the appearances required as part of the Application process; (ii) appear before the Planning Commission for updates as requested; and (iii) appear for sketch plan review in front of the Planning Commission and City Council when we seek final approval for each phase of the redevelopment. 2 Am January 22, 2014 8. We need the Preliminary Approval at the March 18th City Council meeting, so we know the uses, height and densities that will be allowed for the Project. We are willing to proceed ahead with moving /terminating our tenants based on the Preliminary Approval, even though the approvals are not final, until we have submitted for final development approval and a PUD Ordinance has been adopted. 9. The risk/reward is properly weighted, because we really have more risk than the City, and, notwithstanding the lack of `architectural' detail, we are willing to include items that include, without limitation the following(which line up in large part with the 6 disciplines that the Council members, staff, Planning commission and neighbors have requested): a. A higher % of green space (including water /ponding areas) than what is required by code. b. Storm water management (a majority) to be an amenity. c. Storm water retention and clarification/treatment to current standards. d. Encourage bicycle and pedestrian transit; we need to provide more than an outside bike rack and one stall shower at Pentagon Park. e. Provide upgraded transit shelters (two at a minimum). f. 77th Street upgraded consistent with November 6, 2013 plans and details, once 100,000 square feet or more of new development is in process or completed. g. 76th Parkway and green streets (north/south) once 80 -85% of Pentagon Park's new development construction is in process or completed. h. Upgrade Parklawn once 80 -85% of Pentagon Park's new development construction is in process or completed. i. Design similar /consistent with LEED standards; TBD (needs more study and understanding). j. Consideration of solar, especially on buildings north of 77th Street. k. Upgrade streets; upgrade pedestrian access around south parcel once construction on the South parcel is 80 -85% in process or completed. 3 po January 22, 2014 10. The Preliminary Approval will have more than sufficient project detail, procedural conditions and goals and standards to guide and define what is required in the Final Development Plan for each phase. The architectural detail would have to be reviewed and approved under the current MDD -6 category in any event. 4 qa • Land Use • Densities • Building Height 9J 3u Setbacks - ap H �ar�x�n woAc:ces" K 'St reetscav:e EXHIBIT 1 DAM 0NFARBERASSOCIATES PUD PROCESS DIAGRAM TApON BOB CLOSE STUDIO, LLC EDINA, MN - DECEMBER 13, 2013 LAI -1lt51I 2 DAMONFARBERASSOCIJES AREA CONTEXT PENTAAON BOB CLOSE STUDIO, LLCM ; EDINA, MN - DECEMBER 9, 201 3 4'w W Zj J'z 4; EAKH I BIT 3 DAMON FARBERASSOCIA71 FS EXISTING CONDITIONS BOB CLOSE STUDIO, LLC EDINA, MN - DECEMBER 9, 2013 W- X EXHIBIT4 DAMC N FARBER iA.SSOCIATES EXISTING CONDITIONS BOB CLOSE STUDIO, LLC EDINA, MN - DECEMBER 9, 2013 G SE TOWARDS PENTAGON PARK FROM FRED RICHARDS GOLF COURSE Z LOOKING SOUTH TOWARDS PENTAGON PARK FROM FRED RICHARDS GOLF COURSE 3 LOOKING SW TOWARDS PENTAGON PARK FROM FRED RICHARDS GOLF COURSE, FAR EAST SIDE OF PROPERTY EXHIBIT 5 DAMONFARBERFASSOCLf"JES EXISTING CONDITIONS BOB CLOSE STUDIO, LLC EDINA, MN - DECEMBER 9, 2013 IMAGE LOCATIONS �EKTAbON WEST PROPERTY BOUNDARY EXISTING PEDESTRIAN SPACE '-XISTING SEAM - NE CORNER OF PROPERTY .. _GOr:d•:G EAST TOV,ARD PcNTAGO PARK EXISTING PARKING LOT EXISTING SEAM -NORTH SIDE Of PROPERTY M EXHIBIT 6 DAMON FARBER ASSOCIATES BOB CLOSE STUDIO, LLC EXISTING CONDITIONS EDINA, MN - DECEMBER 9, 2013 PENTAi90N PARK v a �a a • a e a `a 0 • g 8 O� ASV' BURG PLAC J 0 ®d WN pVE �� PARKIA LAKE EDINA PARK 3 p rrrr►��`��,`,,r�rrrr s° ►► ♦ QP��P FRED RICHARDS GOLF COURSE Vl '00A *= I, I as i i W 77TH ST bpi ME,� W 76TH ST W F v r� INTEGRATED STORMWATER ) - - - - -- IMPROVE PARK ACCESS PASSIVE RECREATION © ACTIVE RECREATION BUS STOPS �0-U OF M- HENNEPIN- XERXES -FRANCE - SOUTHOALE ��pp sy 578- EXPRESS - EDINA- SOUTHDALE -MPLS -- - - - - - - � 00101 REGIONALTRAIL—`�' CONNECTTO GREEN SPACE gUSTRANSIT ® 507-EXPRESS- EDINA - VALLEY VIEW RD - MPLS 540 -EXPRESS - RICHFIELD - 77(H -MOA 0' 125' 250' q ■ ■ SHARED PARKING Il ■ 1110 PEDESTRIAN FRIENDLY 77TH 'S 11111 NEW TRAIL LINK E)(HIBIT 7 DAM ONFARBER ASSOCIATE S ISSUES PEON BOB CLOSE STUDIO, LLC EDINA, MN - DECEMBER 9, 2013 ARK GREEN INTEGRATED PEDESTRIAN CONNECT MULTIMODAL SHARED STREETS STORMWATER FRIENDLY 77TH WEST TO EAST CONNECTIONS PARKING ro_ w- .r iu '4 �: - a, A. l• �� i - - I C�,'^ I .fir LAC- T EXHIBIT 8 DAMON FARBER ASSOCIATES PRINCIPLES oN BOB CLOSE STUDIO, LLC EDINA, MN - DECEMBER 9, 2013 �Pk PARK STORMWATER 7W 6m IJ 713v'm Cackside,Gregn VicLcLriqCanoo :Ham Swedenso� ata morby 5jostod _ Upper Landing, St. Paul, MN—\,- !I L 'y . �4 -lip PM �.i"�T dir L:} L I B!T 9 eden i DAM ON FARBER ASSOCIATES BOB CLOSE STUDIO, LLC -ennial Lakes Par Edit STORMWATER MANAGEMENT EDINA, MN - DECEMBER 13, 20-13' IN I V-17 he NN hbaj jldimehqhLq Centennial Lakes Park, g#ina w EXHIBIT" 10 DAMONFARBERASSOCIATES 77TH AVENUE BRIDGE PARON BOB CLOSE STUDIO, LLC EDINA, MN - DECEMBER 13, 2013 PnaK 6 W 3W THREE PRONGED APPROACH TO PARKING: �. 1. Below -grade (1 level) 2. "Embedded" deck (maintain great addresses at perimeter) r 3. Street Parking • Parallel • Diagonal • Parking Bays STREETPARKING- DIAGONAL _ EXHIBIT 11 DAMON FARBER ASSOCIATES BOB CLOSE STUDIO, LLC TUCK UNDER PARKING TUCK UNDER PARKING STREET PARKING- PARKING BAYS AT FRED RICHARDS �__1--asitiz- '—P'---- PARKING- PARALLEL .,.;,_cT PAR:(1 \3 -PAFA__ STREET PARKING - PARALLEL PARKING STRATEGIES EDINA, MN - DECEMBER 4, 2013 P�BITAfyON EXISTING wvul" EXHIBIT 12 DAMON FARBER ASSOCIATES BOB CLOSE STUDIO, LLC EXISTING RELATIONSHIP GOAL Il UNLOCKING THE POTENTIAL EDINA, MN - DECEMBER 9, 2013 MOP ZA wvul" EXHIBIT 12 DAMON FARBER ASSOCIATES BOB CLOSE STUDIO, LLC EXISTING RELATIONSHIP GOAL Il UNLOCKING THE POTENTIAL EDINA, MN - DECEMBER 9, 2013 Keo Statistics Land Use Structured Parking -" South Parcel: Hotel - 375 - 425 Rooms A 1,400 STALLS Office - 500,000 GSF B 1,400 STALLS f Retail - 25,000 GSF C 800 STALLS North Parcel: Office - 900,000 GSF D 800 STALLS ' Retail - 15,000 GSF E 800 STALLS j L� Walsh Tile: Retail/Medical/Office- 20,000GSF F 1,200 STALLS R � 11 QP i Z a FRED RICHARDS GOLF COURSE ❑ �_ �_ �___^ W76THST I o BURGUNDY . PLACE WALS I fit i r� J,Li BARR ENGINEERING PF Regional Trail !y Trail Connection > >� $ L3 Parkway yJ> M 77th ~ Supporting reefs Green Str Streets i ® Internal Streets LWEL — — — — ® Parking _...VIKIFfC, DR O Building i Water Open Space Underpass 0 250' 500' ® Transit Shelter EXHIBIT 13 O Monuments DAMON FARBER ASSOCIATES PRELIMINARY PLANNING COMMISSIONTIF DIAGRAM OPTION 1 BOB CLOSE STUDIO, LLC EDINA, MN- DECEMBER 13, 2013 _ 9 Key0 Statistics Land Use Structured Parking South Parcel: Hotel - 375 - 425 Rooms A 1,400 STALLS Office - 500,000 GSF B 1,400 STALLS Retail - 25,000 GSF C 800 STALLS North Parcel: Office- 900,000 GSF D 800 STALLS Retail - 15,000 GSF E 800 STALLS Walsh Tile: Retail /Medical /Office - 20,000 GSF F 1,200 STALLS g \ 7 BURGUNDY PLACE VIKING DR - _... .. a i p u FRED RICHARDS GOLF COURSE - - — BARR ENGINEERING /. ` /.�� ❑ f�`� - - - ---� W76THST C3 . i 1 EXHIBIT 14 DAMON FARBER ASSOCIATES PRELIMINARY PLANNING COMMISSIONTIF DIAGRAM OPTION 2 BOB CLOSE STUDIO, LLC EDINA, MN - DECEMBER 13, 2013 Regional Trail Trail Connection L-J Parkway 'S p M 77th T Supporting Streets Green Streets o Internal Streets u Parking O Building Water Open Space Underpass 0' 250' 500' ® Transit Shelter ® Monuments P RENTApON r 6 FRED RICHARDS GOLF COURSE - - — BARR ENGINEERING /. ` /.�� ❑ f�`� - - - ---� W76THST C3 . i 1 EXHIBIT 14 DAMON FARBER ASSOCIATES PRELIMINARY PLANNING COMMISSIONTIF DIAGRAM OPTION 2 BOB CLOSE STUDIO, LLC EDINA, MN - DECEMBER 13, 2013 Regional Trail Trail Connection L-J Parkway 'S p M 77th T Supporting Streets Green Streets o Internal Streets u Parking O Building Water Open Space Underpass 0' 250' 500' ® Transit Shelter ® Monuments P RENTApON W-w r Key Statistics Land Use Structured Parking South Parcel: Hotel - 375 - 425 Rooms A 1,400 STALLS Office - 500,000 GSF B 1,400 STALLS Retail - 25,000 GSF C 800 STALLS North Parcel: Office - 900,000 GSF D 800 STALLS Retail - 15,000 GSF E 800 STALLS Retail /Medical/Office - 20,000 GSF F 1,200 STALLS Building Heights "12+ Story IM 12 Story - 5 Story 4 Story 2 Story QP us �6 2 6 o. "Potential Building Height Might be Greater than 11 Stones. FRED RICHARDS GOLF COURSE o Co _ W 77TH ST i I BURGUNDY PLACE WALSH TITLE 1 Lo k BARR ENGINEERING I i, EXHIBIT 15 DAMON FARBER ASSOCIATES BOB CLOSE STUDIO, LLC L J W 77TH ST m— Regional Trail ® Parkway nth Supporting Streets Green Streets ® Internal Streets Parking (� Building Water Open Space underpass 0' 250' 500' ® Transit Shelter ® Monuments :. �rv►doN BUILDING HEIGHTS EDINA, MN - DECEMBER 13, 2013 W 76TH ST Syr a A 1 1 1 6 1 1 1 1 I AOPPr�N 1 A a a o � r BURGUNDY PLACE _... W 77TH STr - - 0' 125' 250' oe Do- 315 80 ° ° °ppRKLAWN 4 I LAKE EDINA PARK � FRED RICHARDS GOLF COURSE _ 1 r, ❑ tt— - - � ��,. _ �; � „y n',M+, � gal ". ♦ : �_�_,_°•- i I i i w --�l - 1 _ Q BAflR _ I I L❑ -� I �l C -.:> t� III ENGINEERING vlz J BIRDSEYE OF DOCKSIDE GREEN LOCATED IN VICTORIA, BRITISH COLUMBIA W V W 77TH ST W 11TH ST sy s� DOCKSIDE GREEN CONCEPT A continuous linear stormwater amenity connects the development parcels A two -way parkway with parking bays provides a loop around the development, connecting from W 77th St 'Natural vegetation' is planted adjacent to stormwater ponds and buildings A regional trail is located north of the site, with three connections from trail to W 77th St W 77th St to be pedestrian friendly with trees, stormwater management, and improved sidewalks • Multiple parking strategies - below - grade, on- street and architecturally integrated with buildings PEGIONALTRAIL PARKING ACCESS EXISTING VEGETATION %%. G��. PEDESTRIAN FRIENDLY 77TH ST ROAD. STORMWATERPONDS PROPOSED VEGETATION PEDESTRIAN PATH PARKING .Wu` .o..: STORMWATERSWALES -- -� - PROPERTY BOUNDARY DOCKSIDE GREEN STORMWATER& PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE LUSH VEGETATION AT DOCKSIDE GREEN STORMWATER AMENITY INTEGRATES BUILDINGS AND CIRCULATION EXHIBIT 16 DAMON FARBERA.SSOCIATES BOB CLOSE STUDIO, LLC CONCEPT DIAGRAMS EDINA, MN - DECEMBER 9, 2013 I � I P� .aura w a 1 e 0 0 0 9 1 9 0 t a a PovPj'W a e S �` Oy S % a` BURGUNDY PLACE s 0' 125' 250' AERIAL OF THE UPPER LANDING IN ST PAUL, MN BARR ENGWEERWG rrs- PARYyAWN AVE 7 " 0 r LAKEEDWA PARK r f i -• a k: cS 1�a •.o c _ ✓r ('�-- a --- - - -- -, . drpr ❑ f! W ISTH ST 1 ....J � z L �a W 77TH ST THE UPPER LANDING CONCEPT Two road loops off of W 77th St -providing connectivity without through traffic - Small stormwater ponds are located on the interior of the development buildings - Public parking is located between the trail and development - Flexibility in block size (market- driven) A regional trail is located north ofthe site between the park and development - W 77th Stto be pedestrian friendly with trees, stormwater management, and improved sidewalks - Multiple parking strategies - below - grade, on- street and architecturally integrated with buildings REGIONALTRAIL f PARKINGACCESS EXISTING VEGETATION PEDESTRIAN FRIENDLY 77TH ST ROAD �: STORMWATER PONDS I I PROPOSED VEGETATION PEDESTRIANPATH PARKING STORMWATERSWALES - - -•• PROPERTY BOUNDARY STORMWATER SWALE BETWEEN THE UPPER LANDING AND TRAILS ROADWAY ADJACENTTO THE UPPER LANDING LOOPSTREETS ALTERNATE WITH STORMWATER FEATURES PATHWAY BETWEEN BUILDINGS L_____ sic, EXHIBIT 17 DAMONFARgERASSOCIATES CONCEPT DIAGRAMS BOB CLOSE STUDIO, LLC EDINA, MN - DECEMBER 9, 2013 too N. a 9 1 0 1 1 1 9 1 f a e 1 1 4 a 8 BURGUNDY . \`_rq� .:+ e..- -�.� PLACE /' u6unm uuua. w uruuu AERIAL OF THE UPPER LANDING IN ST PAUL, MN I ro"NM AVE UPPER LANDING HYBRID CONCEPT Two road loops off of W 77th St - providing connectivity without through traffic Small stormwater ponds are located on the interior of the development buildings Public parking is located between the trail and development • Flexibility in block size (market- driven) • A regional trail is located north of the site between the park and development W 77th St to be pedestrian friendly with trees, stormwater management, and improved sidewalks Multiple parking strategies - below- grade, on- street parking bays on loop roads and 1 architecturally integrated with buildings ` ��•+ REGIONALTRAIL �� PARKING ACCESS EXISTING VEGETATION PEDESTRIAN FRIENDLY 77TH ST ROAD STORMWATER PONDS ® -- '^ PROPOSED VEGETATION ^°' PEDESTRIAN PATH -'a===— PARKING :cst:ars STORMWATER SWALES • -• —•• PROPERTY BOUNDARY STORMWATER SWALE BETWEENTHE UP PER LANDINGANDTRAILS ROADWAY ADJACENTTO THE UPPER LANDING LOOP STREETS ALTERNATE WITH STORMWATER FEATURES PATHWAY BETWEEN BUILDINGS I � Y EXHIBIT 18 DAMON FARBER ASSOCIATES BOB CLOSE STUDIO, LLC CONCEPT DIAGRAMS EDINA, MN — DECEMBER 9, 2013 �F�TADON 1 1 � LA1(EEDWA PANE IF I 1 1 a 5 r r 8 ---- - - - - --- C3 I� 1 BURGUNDY o0 ;�.,b o PLACE 77TH ST - ti ENGNEBIMIG Z -- - -J _ .. w77rH Sr O' 125• 250' AERIAL OF THE CHAIN OF LAKES CHAIN OF LAKES CONCEPT • Multiple shared amenities A parkway is located north ofsite, increasing connectivity Multiple water bodies are located north of the site, separating the neighborhood from the development • Small stormwater ponds are located on the interior of the development and manage water in concert with larger ponds to the north Flexibility in block size (market - driven) A regional trail is located north ofthe site between the park and development W 77th St to be pedestrian friendly with trees, stormwater management, and improved sidewalks Multiple parking strategies - below - grade, REGIONALTRAIL PARKINGACCESS EXISTING VEGETATION PEDESTRIAN FRIENDLY 77TH ST on- street and architecturally integrated with flOAD __ STORMWATERPONDS PROPOSED VEGETATION + PEDESTRIANPATH buildings PARKING STORMWATER SWALES•• -•• PROPERTY BOUNDARY WETLAND AREA ADJACENTTO LAKE CALHOUN TWO -WAY PARKWAY WITH PARKING BAYS ADJACENT OF LAKE CALHOUN STORMWATER SWALE ADJACENTTO PATH STORMWATER SWALE BETWEEN PATHS EXHIBIT 19 DAMON FARBER ASSOCIATES BOB CLOSE STUDIO, LLC CONCEPT DIAGRAMS EDINA, MN - DECEMBER 9, 2013 � gnYAtiaN 0 1 Q 1 Q 1 1 Q 1 i f 1 t ♦ ♦ 8 ♦ WRGLMOY PLACE W 77TH ST 8 0' 125• 250' AERIAL OF LAKE NOKOMIS I� LAKE MINA PARK . s i 4. NwE CENTENNIAL LAKES CONCEPT A central waterfeature is located north ofthe site separating the neighborhood fi•om the development - Storrnwater ponds are natural amenities within the development A parkway provides public access and bay parking to the park wTeTn� A flexible grid of streets (market driven) with parallel parking connects W 77th St to the parkway north ofthe site 4 5Z 4 � • A regional trail is located north ofthe site, with two connections from trail to W 77th St W 77th St to be pedestrian friendly with trees, stormwater management, and improved sidewalks Multiple parking strategies - below - grade, on- street and architecturally integrated with REGIONALTRAIL r� PARKINGACCESS EXISTING VEGETATION PEDESTRIAN FRIENDLY 77TH 5T buildings ROAD STORMWATER PONDS ® PROPOSED VEGETATION - PEDESTRIAN PATH PARKING STORMWATERSWALES • - - - -- PROPERTY BOUNDARY ONE-WAY LOOP WITH PARKING BAYS NATURAL VEGETATION CENTENNIAL LAKES STORMWATER LINKSTO DEVELOPMENT EXHIBIT 20 DAMON FARBER ASSOCIATES BOB CLOSE STUDIO, LLC CONCEPT DIAGRAMS EDINA, MN - DECEMBER 9, 2013 g@RAL10N t 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 / 1 1 E ♦ ♦ a I's 44111* 8 ♦♦ - -- BURGUNDY PLACE W 77rH sT g 4 P H \ �L__, U,- 4 0' =25' 250' ✓�,,,,. +�� AVE P.... 'wN a LAKE EDINA PARK 2,^ a Li ' co ZT BARR ENGINEERING EL I7YR-11ii - 1 - ---, w76iNSr I� z I � g I s, REGIONALTRAIL �� PARKING ACCESS EXISTING VEGETATION PEDESTRIAN FRIENDLY 77TH ST ROAD _ _ STORMWATER PONDS r -1 PROPOSED VEGETATION PEDESTRIANPATH PARKING STORMWATER SWALES -� - -)- PROPERTY BOUNDARY MINNEHAHA CREEKTHROUGH EDINA COUNTRY CLUB DISTRICT COLORPLAST US HEADQUARTERS IN MINNEAPOLIS EXHIBIT 2? DA M O N FARBER ASSOCIATES BOB CLOSE STUDIO, LLC MINNEHAHA CREEK CONCEPT A naturalized corridor with vegetation and a spine of water is located north of the site separating the neighborhood from the development �a ... �K...Irw+•d�ii PEDESTRIAN PATH OVER MINNEHAHA CREEK PARKWAY ALONG MINNEHAHA CREEK _ .. __..._.. ::_� •• I' CONCEPT DIAGRAMS EDINA, MN - DECEMBER 9, 2013 Small stormwater ponds are located on the interior of the development buildings A parkway with parking bays is located between the naturalized corridor and new development A. flexible grid of streets (market driven) with parallel parking connects W 77th St to the parkway north of the site A regional trail is located north of the site, with two connections from trail to W 77th St W 77th St to be pedestrian friendly with trees, stormwater management, and improved sidewalks Multiple parking strategies - below - grade, on- street and architecturally integrated with buildings PATH ADJACENTTO PARKWAY �ExiTA{iaN 77TH CONCEPT PLAN • Center Median 6' Sidewalk $I Transit Shelter 'r .: ILI evard Trees Light Left Turn Lane KEY ELEMENTS • Center median with small accent trees • Left turn lanes • Boulevard /sidewalks • Decorative lighting • Shade trees Transit shelters • Street lights • Pedestrian lights - Decorative Lighting 414L-- {{ i • ± 77TH CONCEPT SECTION ti r 6' 10' 12' 12' varies' 12' 12' 10' 6' sidewalk boulevard travel lane travellane median travel lane travel lane boulevard sidewalk 111 j existing R.O.W. EXHIBIT 22 DAMON FARBER ASSOCIATES BOB CLOSE STUDIO, LLC ROADWAY TYPES EDINA, MN - DECEMBER 13, 2013 AOON PARKWAY CONCEPT PLAN' :ter q tr, KEY ELEMENTS 0. , ` -mil Sk .) • L +.. - J '•rte y •Decorative lighting f := Iu . ; .1 • Street trees '`' ;, 3 *, • 6'sidewalk with 10' boulevard t Trees -- "�� ' • One lane of traffic in each direction • Parking bays for parking 10 r K PARKWAY CONCEPT SECTION d " _ -� ,� ! •— Deoof88Veflti7lQ Replonal Trai a _ I : Bpi d s e.4,s t '' -. .:�._. ••-'h yr, Fred Richards Golf Course —t t —• 10 • 10 • 10 • 12 • 12 • 10 ♦ 10 • 6 • T arkin ' k - c. . regional trail boulevard P 9 travel lane travel lane parking boulevard sidewalk i." 44 • roadway R.O.W. EXI -IIBIT 23 DAMONFARBERASSOCIATES ROADWAYTYPES P�tioN BOB CLOSE STUDIO, LLC EDINA, MN - DECEMBER 13,2013 _ SUPPORTING STREET CONCEPT PLAN' -� .. KEY ELEMENTS 1777 •Parallel parking C . _ 6' Sidewalk 1 Y` ` _ `` '° • 10' boulevards /6'sidewalks Parallel Parking-;.'` •Decorative lighting r. • r - -.� �.a..., --". 'T�� '; Street trees t 10' Boulevard ' det Trees � 42 - -- ^� L - I I' h .- SUPPORTING STREET CONCEPT SECTION IK At s 6' 10' 10' 12' 12' 10 10' 6' I• sidewalk boulevard parking travel lane travel lane parking boulevard sidewalk ka • qq • roadway 76' . -- - - -' EXHIBIT 24 R.O.W. DAMONFARBERASSOCIATES ROADWAYTYPES BOB CLOSE STUDIO, LLC EDINA, MN - DECEMBER 13,2013 g+roa GREEN STREET CONCEPT PLAN r___,______'__ 6' Sidewalk Parking Bay 6' Boulevard 7WStreet Trees GREEN STREET CONCEPT SECTION KEY ELEMENTS ^ Parallel parking ^6'bou|evands/5'sidevva|ks ' Decorative lighting ^ Street trees _ *de°~m boulevard parking travel lane travel /=" pTr =o S bouwvard sidewalk roadway EXHIBIT 25 DAM 0NFARBERASSOCIATES ROADWAYTY9B BOB CLOSE STUDIO, LLC EDINA, MN - DECEMBER 13,2013 INTERNAL STREET CONCEPT PLAN .i m4id ve Lighting INTERNAL STREET CONCEPT SECTION 1,z it, _ Fill 6' 10' 12' 12' 10' 6' 6' boulevard parking travel lane travel lane parking boulevard sidewalk r roadway 62' EXHIBIT 2- - - -- -- - - --- -_��_. R.O.W. DAMON FARBER ASSOCIATES ROADWAYTYPES %TUyolu BOB CLOSE STUDIO, LLC EDINA, MN - DECEMBER 13, 2013 KEY ELEMENTS e' Sidewalk • Boulevard ' '' • Sidewalks 6' Boulevard Decorative lighting • Shade trees '�'.* ;:� Street Trees • Parking bays ��... VII . �' �.. r,. �iy I• � a� Parking Bay ��^,;''•" t .i m4id ve Lighting INTERNAL STREET CONCEPT SECTION 1,z it, _ Fill 6' 10' 12' 12' 10' 6' 6' boulevard parking travel lane travel lane parking boulevard sidewalk r roadway 62' EXHIBIT 2- - - -- -- - - --- -_��_. R.O.W. DAMON FARBER ASSOCIATES ROADWAYTYPES %TUyolu BOB CLOSE STUDIO, LLC EDINA, MN - DECEMBER 13, 2013 I Ilk "rolled out" to help clarify the process, Platteter also suggested that the City create a map that identifies the areas where "things are going on ". This map could also be web based so residents can see where a lot of the work is going on. Planner Teague responded the map be an option to consider; possibly by year. Commissioner Potts asked Larson if she knows the percent of time she spends, on specific issues. Larson responded that varies each day, adding she also tries to spend much of her time being proactive. tts questioned if she had found neighbors reporting property damage as tie result of new construction. Larson responded to date there have been some issues; such as sprinkler heads being broken, etc. Larson further explained that she acts as a mediator betweep owner;:' neighbors and City when something goes awry; adding for the most part issues have been addressed and settled. Continuing, Potts asked Larson if she had ever "sat down" with builder("s) and neighbor(s). Larson responded that in the field she has been with the builder, owner, and neighbors',"'','. Commissioner Forrest commented that in her opinion there are re- tnodels that are soextreme they could be considered teardown /rebuilds and asked Larson if she ever intercedes for neighbors if problems arise with remodels. Larson responded in the affirmative. She clarified that although she enforces 411 she regularly receives inquiries from residents regaMing additions. 'Larson said she tries to be "one stop" and gather the proper information for the neighbor and report:back to that neighbor what she finds. Commissioner Forrest noted the discrepancy in "noise" requ�jements between City ordinances and asked Larson why there is a discrepancy. Larson explained that teardown /rebuild construction hours are more limited; thereby allowing residents to work.on`hlo�ne "projects" over the weekends and until 9 Pm Commissioner Forrest questioned lf;,i i ;iq B. Sketch Plan .Pentagon Office Park Planner Presentation Planner Teague r6 ended the Commission at their last meeting they considered a sketch plan for Pentagon Office Park, adding the development team is again before the Commission asking for their comments 1: continuation of the sketch plan. Teague explained that the total site area is roughly 43 acres in size and its redevelopment would likely occur over the next 2 -15 years. After sketch plan review by the Planning Commission and City Council, the applicant has indicated they will follow up with a formal application to rezone the site to PUD, Planned Unit Development. This request would allow greater flexibility in land uses, amenities, setbacks, pedestrian, connection, and depending on the future use of Fred Richards Golf Course, the potential for greater connection and integration in public space. Page 3 of 7 LIM, Commissioner Potts noted that a traffic study was completed in 2008 and asked Planner Teague if the City would require an updated traffic study. Teague responded in the affirmative. Teague explained that the next step would be to reexamine traffic volume and patterns in the area. He added the City would also have a traffic consultant on board to address traffic. Applicant Presentation Scott Takenoff addressed the Commission and explained they will proceed with the redevelopment of the site through the PUD rezoning process. Takenoff said that in his opinion the PUD allows for more flexibility. Takenoff said their goal is to make formal application to the City by the-end of March 2014. Takenoff introduced Tom Whitlock and Bob Close to address the plans. Continuing, Takenoff explained that the City continues to discuss options for the -Fred Richards .Golf Course, adding that in a sense this development proposal needs to be considered independently from Fred Richards. Takenoff stated the development team would prefer integra6pri betWe' en,the'public and private space but much depends on what the City envisions for the. Fred Richards Golf Course. Continuing, Takenoff said an architectural group has not been retained He added, the formal application would contain architectural details. Concluding, Takenoff stated in •his. opinion s great architecture comes from great land use. Questions /Comments Commissioner Fischer noted when they last mega •final decision hadn't been made on the rezoning and thanked the applicant for making their decision by choosing'th.e flexibility found in the PUD rezoning process. Mr. Takenoff responded the development `team Wants to make sure they are following the right protocols to achieve the best `redevelopment for'the site. Mr. Close delivered a power point. presentati6n;and Highlighted for the Commission the two different options. Close said the options are more defined from the previous multiple options and the development team plans on presenting a formal preliminary rezoning application sometime before March 2014. \ Close highlighted the options as follows: Option .'' Minimalist Concept Improve West 771h Street — project envisions a pedestrian friendly West 77th Street • 'Crate as much green space as possible — it is proven that green space slows traffic • NO''. connection through Walsh Title Option 2: • Larger vision concept • Repurpose Fred Richards with parkway on the south side • Additional overpass • Keep in mind the option of linking with the new trails Page 4 of 7 Commissioner Potts noted that in Option I there is no underpass. Mr. Takenoff responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Grabiel recalled when this proposal was before the Commission in 2008 there was much discussion on building height; especially the height on the "tower" site. Grabiel asked if there had been any discussion on building height on this specific site. Mr. Takenoff responded they have had numerous discussions on building height for the "tower" site and believe at this time height would be between eight and nine stories; and meet ordinance; however a final decision on height hasn't been reached. Commissioner Carr asked if building height meets Code. Planner Teague responded that -at this time the proposed height meets both the ordinance and comprehensive plan requirements. Carr questioned if they wanted to exceed building height would that require an amendment. Teague responde, d, that a Comprehensive Plan amendment would be required to go taller and variances folded into the PUp rezoning. Mr. Takenoff noted the difference between Option I and Option 2,;reiterating much depends on what occurs with the Fred Richards Golf Course. He added what's missing is the City's time' on what they envision for "Fred Richards" in the future. Takenoff acknowledged tl: importance of integrating the Fred Richards Golf Course; however, it's the one thing the developmentteam doesn't have control over. Chair Staunton said if he "reads" option 2 correctly that it may not work if the golf course remains as is. Takenoff responded that could be true; however alternatives are needed and there will time to integrate the infrastructure after that decision is made. Takenoff sa[d.�what they, are focusing on now is the land use. , Commissioner Forrest said in her opinion it's good to maintain flexibility; however, the options presented are so sparse it's difficult to comment. Continuing, Forrest said she would love to see more detail on how West 77th Street addresses the street. She said in her opinion it may be an area to develop neighborhood nodes. Continuing, Forrest asked the development team where their parking numbers came from. Mr. Takenoff`responded'that the parking numbers are from the current zoning ordinance. Takenoff said that as time g \son and more is found out about Fred Richards they can be more creative with building;:parking and greenspace. Commissioner Potts said he. :wouldn't be adverse to increasing commercial density, adding the traffic study supports it ;Continuing, Potts stated he wants the development team to focus on implementing green streets and creating Amore residential setting even though it may end up being a commercial/ office�streetscape. Potts acknowledged parts of the Pentagon Office Park are blighted and innovative tweaks n e d to be made; however, he continues to feel the development is "off' without a housinj''eleirient. Mr. Takenoff -said that while housing is not a viable option at present time there is the potential it could appear in the future. Takenoff noted that is the reason for the PUD rezoning request; it provides more flexibility in development. Continuing, Takenoff said with regard to the "tower site" it is very critical what the infrastructure will support, adding they want to ensure the hotel built will be high quality. Concluding, Takenoff reminded the Commission this redevelopment will have many phases stretching out over many years, adding their intent is to redevelop the south west corner first with an office /hotel use. Concluding, Takenoff acknowledged that much of this is conceptual, adding as time goes on it is very possible "things" will change. Page 5 of 7 Mr. Close commented that at his time so much is not known, adding much depends on the market. Commissioner Schroeder said the sketch plan approach is correct; however, he said he has difficulty with the limited architectural details that were provided. Schroeder said in his opinion how the site, buildings, building height, street, street scape relate to each other identifies the character of the area; framing a great development. Schroeder said he would like to see further study done on building height and uses on the first floor. Schroeder pointed out that building height is more than stories. Continuing, he added careful attention also needs to be paid to the street and the lack of sidewalks. Schroeder said that he believes the project is on the right track and he's supportive of the general concept; however, needs the next level of detail. Concluding, Schroeder said it is extremely important to see how the development is framed, the way the buildings relate to each other and to the streetscape and green ways. Mr. Takenoff responded that the development team wants to get to the next :step "; however, as mentioned by Mr. Close much is market driven. Schroeder questioned if that means the;Commission and Council can expect to go through another sketch plan review process. Planner Teague interjected that he believes the next step would be preliminary PUD rezoning approval {and if approved the development team would bring forward a sketch plan for final PUD.rezoni'ng. V Commissioner Forrest stated she wants to ensure that this area stays vibrant, add�ing the development concept should also be carefully crafted to "look into the future ". She furthe(added in her opinion that housing would be an important element in keeping this area vibrant. Chair Staunton said he understands that this process is two step §L however, the Commission needs to know the "uses" and if the "uses" are appropriate and "doable ",. ': Staunton said he wants to ensure continued flexibility; however, it is very important:-that. for.the "second step" that the "uses" and scale of the project are very clear. Planner Teague stated 'he 'ag'rees with that statement. The discussion continued on TIF funding acknowledging that the impact of what the City decides for the Fred Richards Golf Course is an important factor. Commissioners expressed the desire for this area to be interconnected keeping in mind the regiona trail system to the west and Richfield. The discussion focused on building height especially on the "tower site" with Commissioners expressing the opinion that before they act.they'need to have the specifics on building height for the hotel. The height needs to be framed to ensure compliance with both the ordinance and comprehensive plan. It was further acknowledged,that'the`PUD rezoning creates a venue to address any discrepancies. Commissioner._ Potts stated that in his opinion as previously mentioned by Commissioner Schroeder that it is very imporfantto:.know" how land use and the infrastructure relate to each other and what lies between Commissioner Carr - agreed that more detail is required and asked the development team if they plan on providing more detail. Mr. Takenoff responded in the affirmative. He explained that it is their intent to formally apply for preliminary PUD approval sometime in early 2014, adding at that time more detail would be depicted on the plans; however the detail could be site specific. The discussion ensued on the preliminary nature of the plans with Commissioners acknowledging that in order to make an educated decision they need more detailed plans. Commissioners stated they understand that "sketch plan" is "sketch plan "; however, want more detail for the next go round. Mr. Takenoff commented that their company policy is "don't over promise or under deliver ", adding he believes their formal request for preliminary PUD rezoning is consistent with a multiphase Page 6 of 7 y redevelopment project. Takenoff said their goal is to redevelop this very important site to its fullest potential. He did acknowledge that the redevelopment would be in phases over a number of years; however, he believes time is a friend. Concluding, Takenoff reiterated the importance of this site and their intent to redevelop it to its fullest potential. Chair Staunton thanked the development team for their presentation, adding he looks forward to preliminary application. ``t tip l Page 7 of 7 Minutes /Edina City Council /January 7, 2014 VII.D. RESOLUTION NO. 2014 -10 ADOPTED — RESCINDING ACQUISITION AUTHORITY FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3944 WEST 49 -112 STREET The Council discussed the resolution language and asked questions of Attorney Knutson. Council consensus was reached to revise the resolution as follows: Page 2, third WHEREAS, to indicate: "...because it has been represented to the City that the owners prefer to pursue this alternative instead of continuing negotiations with the City because the acquisition price negotiated for this alternative transaction exceeds the purchase price offered by the City to construct a public parking expansion, and;" Member Sprague introduced and moved adoption of Resolution No. 2014 -10, Rescinding Acquisition Authority for Property Located at 3944 West 49 -1/2 Street, as revised above. Member Bennett seconded the motion. Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Sprague, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. VII.E. SKETCH PLAN FOR PENTAGON PARK —REVIEWED Community Development Director Presentation Community Development Director Teague presented the sketch plan proposal and two options to redevelop Pentagon Park along 77`h Street, noting the total site was 43 acres in size and expected to redevelop over the next two to fifteen years. There would be mixed uses including office, retail, and a multi- storied hotel with housing remaining as a potential. Mr. Teague advised that an eight -story hotel was approved but not constructed so that approval had expired. He answered questions of the Council relating to the building height under PUD regulations. Proponent Presentation Scott Takenoff, Development Manager of Hillcrest Partners, presented the pending Pentagon Park PUD application, noting Hillcrest Partners would assure ample security for the City to meet all mutual expectations. He stated as part of the first PUD step, Hillcrest Partners would agree with: a higher percentage of green space than required; the majority of stormwater management being a public amenity; encouraging stormwater treatment /management at a higher standard than Code required; encouraging bicycle and pedestrian traffic; upgrading a minimum of two transit shelters; upgrading 77`h Street; creating a design consistent with LEED standards; use of solar on the buildings north of 77th Street; upgrading pedestrian infrastructure; and, upgrading of Parklawn. Mr. Takenoff indicated Hillcrest Partners does not yet know the hotel height but it might be above 12 stories and require a Comprehensive Plan change. He stated Hillcrest Partners was working with Ehlers and staff on the option of Tax Increment Financing, which would be presented to the Council on February 18, 2014. Tom Whitlock, President of Damon Farber Associates, and Bob Close of Bob Close Studio, presented a slide show and described elements of the two project options. The Council discussed the sketch plans, asked questions of the proponents and Mr. Teague, and made the following suggestions for consideration of a well- crafted PUD: developing a hybrid plan (such as using the west section of Option 2 with the east section of Option 1 to assure connectivity) that included a creative trail alignment and shape of water amenity; keeping building height to the Comprehensive Plan limit and not exceed 12- stories in the southerly section; locating buildings closer to the street; integration of step - down podium height throughout the project and especially towards the neighborhood to the north side; eleven -foot street widths with narrower side streets to allow wider sidewalks /enhanced pedestrian environment and green spaces; restaurant use open into evening hours; embracing the park and inclusion of elements to welcome foot and bicycle traffic; providing additional plan specificity; shadow studies; and, retaining a residential housing element. The Council acknowledged the enhancements beyond Code requirements offered by the proponent in consideration of making a PUD request. Mr. Takenoff thanked the Council for its comments and indicated 2014 would be a year of planning to add specificity with 2015 being a year of construction. Page 3 AT3 /�,A rY SB & Associafex, Inc. Infrastructure ■ Engineering ■ Planning ■ Construction Memorandum DATE: February 19, 2014 To: Mr. Cary Teague, Planning Director City of Edina FROM: Charles Rickart, P.E., PTOE RE: Pentagon Park Development Traffic and Parking Study City of Edina, MN WSB Project No. 1686 -50 Background 701 Xenia Avenue South Suite #300 Minneapolis, MN 55416 Tel: 763 541 -4800 Fax: 763 541 -1700 The purpose of the study is to document the impact the proposed redevelopment of the Pentagon Park area adjacent to W. 77th Street between TH 100 and Parklawn Avenue has on; the area traffic operations; site access; and, parking demand for the site. The project location is shown on the attached Figure 1. A Traffic analysis was completed in conjunction with the Gateway Area, Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) in 2007 which included the Pentagon Park area. The AUAR was updated in 2013 and it was concluded that because no Gateway Development had occurred in the area, and that the area traffic levels have not changed significantly from those assumed in the AUAR for the baseline conditions the future year analysis and recommended mitigation in the 2007 AUAR were still valid. These mitigation measures will be discussed and documented as part of the future year analysis found in this Traffic Study. The proposed full development of the Pentagon Park site includes: a 375 — 425 room hotel, 500,OOOsf of office and 25,000 sf of retail uses on the south parcel; 900,000 sf of office and 15,000 sf of retail on the north parcel, and; 21,000 sf of office on the Welsh Title parcel. It is assumed that the south parcel will be developed as the first phase. Access to the site will be from public streets and driveways off of 77th Street. The proposed site plan is shown in the attached Figure 2. The traffic impacts of the proposed site redevelopment were evaluated for the existing conditions, anticipated completion of phase 1, assumed to be 2020, and full development, assumed to be 2030, at the following locations. a France Avenue at 76th Street a France Avenue at Minnesota Drive 77th Street at Minnesota Drive a 77th Street at Parklawn Avenue A5 Pentagon Park Development City of Edina February 19, 2014 Page 2 of 19 • 77th Street at Computer Avenue • 77th Street at Burgundy Place Driveway • 77th Street at SB TH 100 Ramp • 77' Street at NB TH 100 Ramp Figure 3 shows the locations of the key intersection analyzed with this study. The following sections of this report document the analysis and anticipated impacts of the proposed redevelopment. Existing Traffic Characteristics The existing lane configuration and traffic control include: France Avenue (CSAH 17) is north/south a 6 -lane divided Arterial roadway from I -494 to TH 62. Primary access to France Avenue is by local streets and major development driveways. The posted speed limit on France Avenue in the vicinity of the site is 40 mph. Parklawn Avenue is a 4 -lane undivided Arterial roadway from France Avenue to W. 77th Street. Street access and access to adjacent developments including the existing Pentagon Office site is provided from this roadway. The speed limit posted on Parklawn is 30 mph. W. 77th Street is a 4 -lane undivided Arterial roadway with a center left turn lane from Parklawn Avenue to Industrial Boulevard, west of TH 100. Street access and access to adjacent developments including the existing Pentagon Office site is provided from this roadway. The speed limit posted on W. 77th Street is 30 mph. The existing lane configurations at each of the study area intersection are as follows: France Avenue at 76th Street — Traffic Signal Control SB France Ave approaching 76th Street — one free right, three through, one left NB France Ave approaching 76th Street — one free right, four through, one left EB 76th Street approaching France Ave — one free right, two through, two left WB 76th Street approaching France Ave — one free right, two through, two left France Avenue at Minnesota Drive — Traffic Signal Control SB France Ave approaching Minnesota Drive — one free right, four through, one left NB France Ave approaching Minnesota Drive — one free right, three through, one left EB Minnesota Drive approaching France Ave — one free right, two through, one left WB Minnesota Drive approaching France Ave — one free right, two through, one left W. 77th Street at Minnesota Drive — Traffic Signal Control SB 77th Street approaching Minnesota Drive — one right/through, one through/left NB 77th Street approaching Minnesota Drive — one free right, one through, one left EB Driveway approaching 77th Street — one right/through, one through/left WB Minnesota Drive approaching 77th Street — one free right, one through, one left AS Pentagon Park Development City of Edina February 19, 2014 Page 3 of 19 W 77th Street at Parklawn Avenue — Traffic Signal Control SB Parklawn Avenue approaching 77th Street — one right, one right/through, one left NB Driveway approaching 77th Street — one right/through/left EB 77th Street approaching Parklawn Avenue — one right/through, one through, one left WB 77th Street approaching Parklawn Avenue — one right /through, one through, one left W. 77th Street at Computer Avenue — Traffic Signal Control SB Driveway approaching 770' Street — one right, one through/left NB Computer Avenue approaching 77th Street — one right, one through/left EB 77th Street approaching Computer Avenue — one right/through, one through, one left WB 77th Street approaching Computer Avenue — one right/through, one through, one left W. 77th Street at Burgundy Place — Traffic Signal Control SB Driveway approaching 77th Street — one right/through, one left NB Driveway approaching 77th Street — one right/through, one left EB 77th Street approaching Driveway — one right/through, one through, one left WB 77th Street approaching Driveway — one right/through, one through, one left W. 77th Street at TH 100 Northbound Ramp/Frontage Road — Traffic Signal Control SB TH 100 Ramp approaching 77th Street — one free right, one through, two left NB Frontage Road approaching 77th Street — one right/through, two left EB 77th Street approaching TH 100 NB Ramp — one right/through, one through, one left WB 77th Street approaching TH 100 SB Ramp — one right, two through, one left W. 77th Street at TH 100 Southbound Ramp/Frontage Road — Traffic Signal Control SB TH 100 Ramp approaching 77th Street — one free right, one through, two left NB Frontage Road approaching 77th Street — one right, one through, one left EB 77th Street approaching TH 100 NB Ramp — one right/through, one through, one left WB 77th Street approaching TH 100 SB Ramp — one free right, two through, one left AM and PM peak hour turning movement counts were conducted in April 2013 in conjunction with the Gateway AUAR update and in January 2014. These counts were used as the existing baseline conditions for the area. The attached Figure 4 shows the existing intersections and driveways along the corridor that were analyzed as part of this traffic study, with the existing AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes. Background (Non Development) Traffic Growth Traffic growth in the vicinity of a proposed site will occur between existing conditions and any given future year due to other development within the region. This background growth must.be accounted for and included in future year traffic forecasts. Reviewing the historical traffic counts in the area, traffic has stayed somewhat constant or dropped in the past few years. The Gateway AUAR identified adjacent development projects in Edina and Bloomington that have yet to be completed. These developments for the projects in Bloomington are shown in Table 1. In order to account for these and other development background growth in traffic the Hennepin. County State Aid traffic growth projection factor of 1.1 over a 20 year period was used to project traffic to the 2020 and 2030 analysis years. S Pentagon Park Development City of Edina February 19, 2014 Page 4 of 19 Table 1- Summary of Adjacent Redevelopment Proposals Development Summary of Proposals Duke -Weeks Realty Phase 1 and 2 completed Phase 3 to add an additional Limited Partnership 312,000 sq. ft. of office in the future (Norman Pointe Ryan Companies US, phase 1 and 2 completed. Phase 3 to add an additional Inc. ( Marketpoint) 250,000 sq. ft. of office in the future. Covington Apartments 250 Apartment units — Approved, under construction. 8100 Office Tower 255,000 ftz of office - Future Hotel 100 Rooms — Future Luxembourg 282 Apartment units - Approved, under construction Apartments OATI Office/Data 100,000 f12 of office - Future Center Hotel 257 Rooms - Future Norman Pointe III 312,000 ffz Office - Future Office Tower Marketpoint III Office 250,000 f 2 Office — Future Tower In addition to the regional background traffic growth, other specific none development related traffic near the site in Edina was determined and included with the overall background traffic. These projects included: Burgundy Place Development — The Burgundy Place development site is located west of the Pentagon Park development on the north side of 776' Street. It is planned to include approximately 17,000 sf of retail space and 36 apartment units. This development is assumed to be completed for the 2020 analysis. Byerly's Redevelopment - The City has been working with Lund Food Holdings for the reconstruction of the existing Byerly's grocery store site, located in the southeast quadrant of France Avenue and Hazelton Road to include: a new 47,119 square foot Byerly's store; a six/seven -story 109 -unit apartment building; a six/seven- story, 77 -unit apartment building with a first floor 10,711 square foot retail area, and; a six - story, 48 -unit apartment building with 11,162 square feet of retail space on the first level. This project is currently under construction and will be partially completed in 2014 and assumed to be fully completed for the 2020 analysis. A� Pentagon Park Development City of Edina February 19, 2014 Page 5 of 19 Think Bank Development - The City recently approved the proposed redevelopment of the Szechuan Star site at 3655 Hazelton Road adjacent to the Byerly's site to include an 8,441 sf bank building with a four lane drive thru. The project is planned for construction in 2014 and assumed fully completed for the 2020 and 2030 analysis years. Fairview Southdale Hospital Expansion — The proposed plan includes the expansion of the emergency center, urgent care, behavioral health and observation area. The proposed expansion consists of a 77,50'0 sf (gross area), two -story building located on the north side of the existing hospital building. This project has been approved by the City Council. It is assumed that it will be completed in 2014 and included in the background traffic for the 2020 and 2030 analysis. Edina Medical Plaza (6500 France Avenue) — The City recently aproved the redevelopment of the properties in the southwest quadrant of France Avenue and 65th Street. The proposed site included redevelopment of both the 6500 France Avenue site and the 4005 65th Avenue site with a five story 96,500 sf medical office building. However, recently the City was presented a revised site plan changing the use on the site to a 209 unit senior housing and skilled care facility. It is assumed that it will be completed in 2014 and included in the background traffic for the 2020 and 2030 analysis. Southdale Residential - The City recently approved the addition of 232 apartment units with associated parking in the existing Southdale Shopping Center parking lot. The site is located in the northwest quadrant of 69th Street and York Avenue. This project is currently under construction. It is assumed that the project will be open and is included as part of the 2020 and 2030 background traffic. Additional Southdale Mall Development - Based on the information received from Southdale Center about the current vacancy rates and plans for renovations, it was determined that following the renovations, the mall would have an additional 143,880 sf of leasable space available. This figure includes leasable retail and food court space. The analysis assumes that all leasable space will be occupied and included in the background traffic for the 2020 and 2030 analysis. Future Restaurant Development — A future restaurant is anticipated in the northeast quadrant of France Avenue and 69`h Street in the Southdale Center Parking lot. The restaurant was assumed to be 8,000 sf in size with approximately 300 seats. The analysis assumes the restaurant will not be developed by 2015 but, will be open and included and included as part of the 2020 and 2030 background traffic. The estimated trip generation for the additional background traffic is shown below in Table 2. The trip generation rates used to estimate the additional development traffic is based on extensive surveys of the trip- generation rates for other similar land uses as documented in the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition. The table shows the AM and PM peak hour trip generation for the proposed uses. g4 Pentagon Park Development City of Edina February 19, 2014 Page 6 of 19 Table 2 - Estimated Additional Background Trip Generation Use Size AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Total In Out Total In Out Burgundy Place Development 17,000 sf and 36 units 54 32 22 69 35 34 Byerly's Redevelopment 73,450 sf and 234 units 369 174 195 411 231 180 Think Bank Development 8.441 sf 102 58 44 206 103 103 Hospital Expansion 77,500 sf 36 21 15 24 10 14 Senior Housing 209 units 27 18 9 40 18 22 Southdale Apartments 232 units 118 24 94 144 94 50 Shopping Center 143,880 sf 138 86 52 533 256 277 Restaurant 8000 sf 87 48 39 79 47 32 Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition Site Expansion Trip Generation The estimated trip generation from the Pentagon Park Phase 1 proposed site development is shown below in Table 3 and the full development of the site is shown in Table 4. The trip generation rates used to estimate the proposed site traffic is based on extensive surveys of the trip - generation rates for other similar land uses as documented in the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition. The tables show the total daily, AM peak hour and PM peak hour trip generation for the proposed site. Table 3 - Estimated Trip Generation — Phase I Use Size ADT AM Peak PM Peak Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Hotel 425 rooms 3791 1896 1896 285 165 120 298 146 152 Office 500 ksf 5515 2758 2758 780 686 94 745 127 618 Retail 25 ksf 1108 554 554 25 20 5 68 30 38 Subtotal New Trips 10414 5207 5207 1090 871 219 1111 303 808 Pass- by/Diverted Trips 25% Retail (277 ) 1 (139) (139) 1 (6) (5) (1) 1 (17) (8) 1 (9) Existing Office Occupancy 58.9 ksf (650) (325) (325) (92) (81) (11) (88) (43) (45) Total Phase 1 New Trips 1 1 9487 4743 1 4743 992 j 785 207 1006 1 252 754 Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition Avi Pentagon Park Development City of Edina February 19, 2014 Page 7 of 19 Table 4 - Estimated Trip Generation — Full Development Use Size ADT AM Peak PM Peak Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Office 900 ksf 9927 4963 4963 1404 1236 168 1341 228 1113 Retail 15 ksf 665 333 333 15 12 3 41 18 23 Office — Walsh Title 21 ksf 232 116 116 33 29 4 32 6 26 Subtotal New Trips 10824 5412 5412 1452 1277 175 1414 252 1162 Pass- by/Diverted Trips 25% Retail (166) (83) (83) (4) (3) (1) (11) (4) (7) Existing Office Occupancy 200.6 ksf (2212) (1106) (1106) (313) (275) (38) (299) (51) (248) Total Phase 2 New Trips 8846 4223 4223 1135 999 136 1104 197 907 Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual, 91h Edition Traffic Distribution Background and site - generated trips were distributed to the adjacent roadway system based on several factors including the existing Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT), the travel sheds for the major routes that serve the area and data provided in the Gateway AUAR. In general the Trip Distribution was assumed as shown in Table S: Table S — Development Traffic Distribution Direction AM PM In Out In Out North 27% 22% 21% 26% South 24% 13% 18% 25% East 21% 35% 22% 20% West 28% 30% 39% 29% The generated trips for the proposed Pentagon Park development were assumed to arrive or exit using the accesses on 77d' Street. The Phase 1 development will access the site via Computer Drive and the Burgundy Place driveway. These trips were assigned based on the ratio of existing traffic patterns on each respective roadway. The full development trips were assumed to access the site through driveways on 77t" Street and Parklawn Avenue. W Pentagon Park Development City of Edina February 19, 2014 Page 8 of 19 Future Year Traffic Forecasts Traffic forecasts were prepared for the year 2020 which is the year the proposed Phase 1 development would be completed and assumed to be fully occupied and for the 2030 conditions which represents the year the entire Pentagon Park development would be completed as well as the City's Comprehensive Plan development time frame. Three development scenarios were evaluated. 1. Existing Conditions — Assumes existing lane configuration and traffic control. 2. No -Build — Assumes existing lane configuration and traffic control without the proposed Pentagon Park development. 3. Build — Assumes existing lane configuration and traffic control with the proposed Pentagon Park development. The traffic forecasts were prepared by adding the projected annual background traffic growth and the projected non - development background traffic growth to the existing 2013/2014 traffic counts to determine the "No- Build" traffic conditions. The anticipated Pentagon Park traffic was then added to the no -build to determine the "Build" traffic conditions. The attached Figures S — 8 shows the projected 2020 and 2030 No -Build and Build AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes. Traffic Operations Existing and/or forecasted traffic operations were evaluated for the impacted intersections and driveway adjacent to the development. The analysis was conducted for the following scenarios. 1. Existing 2014 Conditions 2. Projected 2020 No Build 3. Projected 2020 Build 4. Projected 2030 No Build S. Projected 2030 Build This section describes the methodology used to assess the operations and provides a summary of traffic operations for each scenario. Analysis Methodology The traffic operations analysis is derived from established methodologies documented in the Highway Capacity Manual 2000 (HCM). The HCM provides a series of analysis techniques that are used to evaluate traffic operations. Intersections are given a Level of Service (LOS) grade from "A" to 'T" to describe the average amount of control delay per vehicle as defined in the HCM. The LOS is primarily a function of peak traffic hour turning movement volumes, intersection lane configuration, and the traffic controls at the intersection. LOS A is the best traffic operating condition, and drivers experience minimal delay at an intersection operating at that level. LOS E represents the condition where the intersection is at capacity, and some drivers may have to wait through more than one green phase to make it through an intersection controlled by traffic signals. 4 ( Pentagon Park Development City of Edina February 19, 2014 Page 9 of 19 LOS F represents a condition where there is more traffic than can be handled by the intersection, and many vehicle operators may have to wait through more than one green phase to make it through the intersection. At a stop sign - controlled intersection, LOS F would be characterized by exceptionally long vehicle queues on each approach at an all -way stop, or long queues and /or great difficulty in finding an acceptable gap for drivers on the minor legs at a through- street intersection. The LOS ranges for both signalized and un- signalized intersections are shown in Table 6. The threshold LOS values for un- signalized intersections are slightly less than for signalized intersections. This variance was instituted because drivers' expectations at intersections differ with the type of traffic control. A given LOS can be altered by increasing (or decreasing) the number of lanes, changing traffic control arrangements, adjusting the timing at signalized intersections, or other lesser geometric unprovernents. LOS also changes as traffic volumes increase or decrease. Table 6 - Intersection Level of Service Ranges Source: Highway Capacity Manual LOS, as described above, can also be determined for the individual legs (sometimes referred to as "approaches ") or lanes (turn lanes in particular) of an intersection. It should be noted that a LOS E or F might be acceptable or justified in those cases where a leg(s) or lane(s) has a very low traffic volume as compared to the volume on the other legs. For example, improving LOS on such low- volume legs by converting a two -way stop condition to an all -way stop, or adjusting timing at a signalized intersection, could result in a significant penalty for the many drivers on the major road while benefiting the few on the minor road. Also, geometric improvements on minor legs, such as additional lanes or longer turn lanes, could have limited positive effects and might be prohibitive in terms of benefit to cost. Although LOS A represents the best possible level of traffic flow, the cost to construct roadways and intersection to such a high standard often exceeds the benefit to the user. Funding availability might also lead to acceptance of intersection or roadway designs with a lower LOS. LOS D/E is generally accepted as the lowest acceptable level in urban areas such as Edina. LOS C is often considered to be the desirable minimum level for rural areas. LOS E/F may be acceptable in highly congested urban areas for limited durations or distances, or for low- volume legs of some intersections. M2, Control Delay (Seconds) Signalized Un- Signalized A < -10 < -10 B 10 -20 10 -15 C 20 -35 15 -25 D 35 -55 25 -35 E 55-80 35-50 F >80 >50 Source: Highway Capacity Manual LOS, as described above, can also be determined for the individual legs (sometimes referred to as "approaches ") or lanes (turn lanes in particular) of an intersection. It should be noted that a LOS E or F might be acceptable or justified in those cases where a leg(s) or lane(s) has a very low traffic volume as compared to the volume on the other legs. For example, improving LOS on such low- volume legs by converting a two -way stop condition to an all -way stop, or adjusting timing at a signalized intersection, could result in a significant penalty for the many drivers on the major road while benefiting the few on the minor road. Also, geometric improvements on minor legs, such as additional lanes or longer turn lanes, could have limited positive effects and might be prohibitive in terms of benefit to cost. Although LOS A represents the best possible level of traffic flow, the cost to construct roadways and intersection to such a high standard often exceeds the benefit to the user. Funding availability might also lead to acceptance of intersection or roadway designs with a lower LOS. LOS D/E is generally accepted as the lowest acceptable level in urban areas such as Edina. LOS C is often considered to be the desirable minimum level for rural areas. LOS E/F may be acceptable in highly congested urban areas for limited durations or distances, or for low- volume legs of some intersections. M2, Pentagon Park Development City of Edina February 19, 2014 Page 10 of 19 The LOS analysis was performed using Synchro /SimTraffic: Synchro, a software package that implements Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodologies, was used to build each signalized intersection and provide an input database for turning- movement volumes, lane geometrics, and signal design and timing characteristics. In addition, Synchro was used to optimize signal timing parameters for future conditions. Output from Synchro is transferred to SimTraffic, the traffic simulation model. • SimTraffic is a micro - simulation computer modeling software that simulates each individual vehicle's characteristics and driver behavior in response to traffic volumes, intersection configuration, and signal operations. The model simulates drivers' behaviors and responses to surrounding traffic flow as well as different vehicle types and speeds. It outputs estimated vehicle delay and queue lengths at each intersection being analyzed. Existinr Level of Service Summary Table 7, below, summarizes the existing LOS at the primary intersections in the study area based on the current lane geometry, traffic control and traffic volumes. The table shows that all intersection are operating at an overall LOS D or better during both the AM and PM peak hours with all movements operating at LOS E or better. Table 7 -Existing Level of Service Intersection AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour LOS Overall Delay (sec /veh) LOS Overall Delay (sec /veh) France Ave at 76th St C (D) 31 C (D) 38 France Ave at Minnesota St C (D) 21 D (E) 43 77th St at Minnesota St B (C) 17 C (D) 27 77th St at Parklawn Ave B (C) 16 C (C) 24 77th St at Computer Ave B (C) 13 C (E) 31 77th St at Burgundy Place A (B) 8 C (D) 21 77th St at TH 100 Northbound Ramp C (D) 24 D (E) 43 77th St at TH 100 Southbound Ramp C (C) 25 D (D) 43. C = Overall LOS, (D) = Worst movement LOS Source: WSB & Associates, Inc. Forecast Traffic Operations A capacity and LOS analysis was also completed for the study area intersections for 2020 which is the year after the proposed first phase of the Pentagon Park development would be completed and for the 2030 conditions which represents the full build of the Pentagon Park development and the City's Comprehensive Plan development time frame. The results of the analysis are discussed below and shown in Tables 8 and 9. AP Pentagon Park Development City of Edina February 19, 2014 Page 11 of 19 Table 8 — Forecasted No Build, shows that all intersection will continue to operate at overall LOS D or better in 2020 and 2030 during the AM peak hour. However, during the PM peak hours in both 2020 and 2030 with the increase in traffic, some intersections and movements will be operating at LOS E /F. Specifically, the intersections of 77th Street at Computer Drive, 77th at the TH 100 ramps, France Avenue at 76th Street and France Avenue at Minnesota Street will have overall levels of service at F. Mitigation improvements that would improve all intersections and movement to an acceptable LOS E or better includes: 2020 No -Build Mitigation: 1. Addition of a northbound dual right -turn lane at 77t1' Street and TH 100 Southbound Ramp. 2. Improved signal timing at 77th Street and Computer Avenue. 2030 No -Build Mitigation: 1. 2020 No -Build improvements 2. Addition of a westbound right -turn lane at 77th Street and TH 100 Northbound Ramp 3. Addition of a northbound and southbound left turn lane at 77th Street and Computer Drive 4. Addition of a northbound through lane at France Avenue and Minnesota Drive 5. Addition of a southbound through lane at France Avenue and 76th Street Table 8 — Forecasted No Build Level of Service C = Overall LOS, (D) =Worst movement LOS Source: WSB & Associates, Inc. h4 4 2020 2030 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Intersection Overall Overall Overall Overall LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay (sec /veh ) (sec /veh (sec /veh) sec /veh) France Ave at 76th St C (D) 33 D (E) 39 C (D) 35 E (F) 73 France Ave at Minnesota St C (D) 25 D (E) 49 C (D) 28 E (F) 61 77th St at Minnesota St B (C) 20 C (D) 28 B (C) 22 C (D) 29 77th St at Parklawn Ave B (C) 18 C (C) 26 B (C) 20 C (C) 27 77th St at Computer Ave B (C) 15 D (E) 48 B (C) 16 E (F) 85 77th St at Burgundy Place A (C) 12 C (E) 33 A (C) 14 D (E) 39 77th St at TH 100 C (D) 26 D (E) 49 C (D) 27 D (F) 52 Northbound Ram 77t St at TH 100 C (C) 26 E (F) 64 C (D) 32 F (F) 91 Southbound Ram C = Overall LOS, (D) =Worst movement LOS Source: WSB & Associates, Inc. h4 4 Pentagon Park Development City of Edina February 19, 2014 Page 12 of 19 Table 9 — Forecasted Build with Pentagon Park Development, shows that all intersection will continue to operate at overall LOS D or better in 2020 and 2030 during the AM peak hour, however several movements will be at a LOS E/F. During the PM peak hours in both 2020 and 2030 with the increase in traffic, some intersections and movements will be operating at LOS E/F. Specifically, the intersections of 77th Street at Computer Drive, 77th at the TH 100 ramps, France Avenue at 76th Street and France Avenue at Minnesota Street will have overall levels of service at E or F with movements at LOS F. Mitigation improvements that would improve all intersections and movement to an acceptable LOS E or better includes: 2020 Build Mitigation: 1. Addition of a northbound dual right -turn lane at 77th Street and TH 100 Southbound Ramp. 2. Addition of a westbound right -turn lane at 77th Street and TH 100 Northbound Ramp 3. Addition of a northbound dual left turn lane, southbound left turn lane and eastbound right turn lane at 77th Street and Computer Drive. 4. Addition of a northbound through lane at France Avenue and Minnesota Street 5. Addition of a northbound left turn lane, eastbound right turn lane and signal timing improvements at 77th Street and Burgundy Place. 2030 Build Mitigation: 1. 2020 Build improvements 2. Addition of an eastbound and westbound third lane on 77th Street from Industrial Boulevard through Computer Drive. 3. Addition of a southbound through lane at France Avenue and 76th Street 4. Addition of an eastbound and westbound dual left turn lane at France Avenue and Minnesota Street. 5. Addition of a southbound left turn lane at 77th Street and Minnesota Street. 6. Addition of a eastbound right turn lane at 77th Street and Parklawn Avenue, AW Pentagon Park Development City of Edina February 19, 2014 Page 13 of 19 Table 9 — Forecast Build ivith Pentagon Park Development C = Overall LOS, (D) =Worst movement LOS Source: WSB & Associates, Inc. AUAR Mitigation Requirements The AUAR completed in 2007 and updated in 2013 identified several required mitigation measure to be completed at various levels and stages of development. -Table 10 shows a summary of the development scenarios identified in the AUAR. Table 10 - Summary of Redevelopment Scenarios 2020 2030 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Conditions Intersection Master Maximum Maximum Overall Plan Overall Residential Overall Overall 1,862,000 sf 3,261,000 sf LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay sec /veh see/veh 1,296,000 sf sec /veh 1,296,000 sf sec /veh France Ave at 76`h St C (D) 35 E (F) 69 D (D) 38 F (F) 117 France Ave at Minnesota St C (D) 29 D (E) 51 C (D) 31 E (F) 77 77th St at Minnesota St B (C) 23 C (D) 32 B (C) 25 D (F) 48 771h St at Parklawn Ave C (D) 25 C (D) 28 B (C) 26 D (F) 42 77th St at Computer Ave B (D) 13 E (F) 71 D (E) 37 F (F) 95 77th St at Burgundy Place C (F) 27 D (F) 50. C (F) 34 D (F) 46 771 Si at TH 100 D (E) 42 E (F) 63 D (F) 66 E (F) 72 Northbound Ram 77 St at.TH 100 Southbound Ramp D (E) 55 F (F) 83 D (F) 97 F (F) 120 C = Overall LOS, (D) =Worst movement LOS Source: WSB & Associates, Inc. AUAR Mitigation Requirements The AUAR completed in 2007 and updated in 2013 identified several required mitigation measure to be completed at various levels and stages of development. -Table 10 shows a summary of the development scenarios identified in the AUAR. Table 10 - Summary of Redevelopment Scenarios Based on the above development scenarios, the Traffic and Transportation Mitigation measures were developed and included in the AUAR. The list below shows the required mitigation from the AUAR and needs with the Pentagon Park development. 40 Existing Scenario 1: Scenario 2: Scenario 3: Scenario 4: Conditions Comprehensive Master Maximum Maximum Plan Plan Commercial Residential Office 1,546,000 sf 1,862,000 sf 3,261,000 sf 1,094,000 sf Commercial / 15,000 sf 174,000 sf 15,000 sf 15,000 sf Retail/Hotel 1,873,000 sf Office Light 1,296,000 sf 1,296,000 sf 1,296,000 sf 1,296,000 sf Indus Industrial Mix Residential 31,000 sf 31,000 sf 914,000 sf 31,000 sf 1,581,000 sf TOTAL: 1,904,000 sf 2,888,000 sf 1 4,246,000 sf 4,603,000 sf 1 3,986 000 sf Based on the above development scenarios, the Traffic and Transportation Mitigation measures were developed and included in the AUAR. The list below shows the required mitigation from the AUAR and needs with the Pentagon Park development. 40 Pentagon Park Development City of Edina February 19, 2014 Page 14 of 19 G. Traffic and Transportation G1. Scenarios 1 and 4 The following mitigation strategies are needed for Scenario 1 and 4 to accommodate future full development traffic projections: Intersection: France Avenue / West 76t Street Improvement: Extend one southbound thru lane on France Avenue to create a total of four thru lanes Pentagon Park 2030 No -Build Intersection: France Avenue / West 78th Street Improvement: Eastbound dual right turn lanes on West 78' Street Southbound lanes approaching the I -494 ramps restriped to provide exclusive lanes to both westbound 1 -494 and eastbound I -494. The right lane will drop at the westbound I -494 ramp providing an exclusive ramp lane. The second lane will also be an exclusive lane leading to I -494 eastbound, reducing the weaving and stacking of vehicles that occur today. The County has expressed interest in participation. Pentagon Park 2030 Full Build Intersection: Edina Industrial Boulevard / West 78th Street Improvement: Eastbound dual left turn lanes on West 78th Street Pentagon Park 2030 Full Build Intersection: Edina Industrial Boulevard / Metro Boulevard Improvement: Add southbound right turn lane on Metro Boulevard, restriping the existing two southbound lanes to accommodate an exclusive left turn lane, and a thru /left lane, providing dual left turn lanes. Add 300 foot eastbound left turn lane on Edina Industrial Boulevard Pentagon Park 2030 Full Build Intersection: Northbound TH 100 / West 77U' Street Improvement: Add 150 foot northbound right turn lane on Frontage Road Westbound dual right turn lanes on West 77th Street Pentagon Park 2020 No -Build G2. Scenario 2 Scenario 2 will require all the improvements listed above in addition to the following: Intersection: Minnesota Drive / France Avenue Improvement: Dual westbound left turn lanes on Minnesota Drive Eastbound dual left turn lanes on Minnesota Drive Pentagon Park 2030 Full Build A p Pentagon Park Development City of Edina - February 19, 2014 Page 15 of 19 Intersection: Improvement: Pentagon Park Northbound TH 100 / West 77th Street Add 150 foot eastbound right turn lane on West 77th Street 2020 Build Intersection: Computer Avenue / West 77th Street Improvement: Northbound dual left turn lanes on Computer Avenue Pentagon Park 2030 Full Build Intersection: Minnesota Drive / West 77th Street / Johnson Avenue Improvement: Southbound dual left turn lanes on West 77th Street Pentagon Park 2030 Full Build G3. Scenario 3 Scenario 3 will require all the above improvements listed under Scenarios 1, 2, and 4 in addition to the following: Intersection: Minnesota Drive / France Avenue Improvement: Eastbound dual right turn lanes on Minnesota Drive Pentagon Park 2030 Full Build Intersection: France Avenue / West 78th Street Improvement: Westbound dual right turn lanes on West 78th Street Pentagon Park 2030 Full Build Interchange: TH 100 / West 77th Street Improvement: Six -lane section from Metro Boulevard to Computer Avenue Dual left turn turns at both TH 100 Ramps (Hence an eight - lane bridge) Pentagon Park 2030 Full Build G4. General The mitigation measures discussion above (G1 — G3) are needed to address full build -out of the site and surrounding area. Specific mitigation measures required for proposed development plans will be established through traffic and transportation studies required for each development proposal. These proposals will need to document compliance within the AUAR and mitigation plan. G5. Transit/Non- Motorized Transportation As redevelopment occurs in the Study Area, consideration of site - specific improvements needs to be included as developments are proposed. These would include upgrading the existing transit facilities, including bus shelters, to become ADA compliant and improving the sidewalk and/or path connections in and around each redevelopment. k�� Pentagon Park Development City of Edina February 19, 2014 Page 16 of 19 Parking Demand The parking demand for the proposed development was analyzed based on the anticipated use for the site. Based on the current City Code the proposed development would require a total of 5925 parking spaces. The current site plan includes 6400 spaces. Table 11 shows a breakdown of the parking required per City Code. Table 11— Parking Required per City Code Use / Location Size Rate Parking Parking 425 Rooms 1.08/Room 459 Required Provided Non Residential Mix 4903 Retail 57,000 4.1 /1000sf Used Development / 824,560 sf GFA/300 2750 2300 Southside Non Residential Mix _ Used Development / 953,000 sf GFA/300 3175 3 000 Northside Total Parking 1,777,560 5925 6400 Source: City of Edina The parking demand was also analyzed based on industry standards. The parking generation rates used to estimate the parking demand was based on surveys of the parking generation for other similar land uses as documented in the Institute of Transportation Engineers Parking Generation Manual, 4rh Edition. Table 12 below shows the estimated parking generation rate and the anticipated peak parking demand on a typical weekday. This would represent the worst case conditions for the parking on the site assuming the proposed full development of the site, including the Welsh Title site. Table 12 — Site Parkin,- Demand per ITE Use Size Rate Weekday Parking Required Hotel 425 Rooms 1.08/Room 459 Office 1,421,000 sf 3.45/1000sf 4903 Retail 57,000 4.1 /1000sf 234 Total Parking 5596 Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers Parking Generation Manual, 4th Edition Based on the results of the parking analysis, it can be concluded that the parking proposed with the site plan would not be adequate for the proposed development plan. Xd Pentagon Park Development City of Edina February 19, 2014 Page 17 of 19 Conclusions /Recommendation Based on the analysis documented in this memorandum, WSB has concluded the following: The proposed full development of the Pentagon Park site includes: a 375 — 425 room hotel, 500,000sf of office and 25,000 sf of retail uses on the south parcel; 900,000 sf of office and 15,000 sf of retail on the north parcel, and; 21,000 sf of office on the Welsh Title parcel. It is assumed that the south parcel will be developed as the first phase. The site is anticipated to generate an additional 2127 trips in the AM peak hour and 2110 trips in the PM peak hour. • Additional trips will be generated from other approved or anticipated development in the surrounding area. Only a portion of these trips will affect the critical intersections . adjacent to the proposed Think Bank development. • Existing traffic operations at the intersections and driveways in the study area shows that all intersection are operating at an overall LOS D or better during both the AM and PM peak hours with all movements operating at LOS E or better. Intersection traffic operations for the No -Build conditions in 2020 and 2030 shows that all intersection will continue to operate at overall LOS D or better in 2020 and 2030 during the AM peak hour. However, during the PM peak hours in both 2020 and 2030 with the increase in traffic, some intersections and movements will be operating at LOS E/F. Specifically, the intersections of 77th Street at Computer Drive, 77th at the TH 100 ramps, France Avenue at 76th Street and France Avenue at Minnesota Street will have overall levels of service at F. Intersection traffic operations for the Forecasted Build alternative (with the Pentagon Park development traffic) in 2020 and 2030 shows that all intersection will continue to operate at overall LOS D or better in 2020 and 2030 during the AM peak hour, however several movements will be at a LOS E/F. During the PM peak hours in both 2020 and 2030 with the increase in traffic, some intersections and movements will be operating at LOS E/F. Specifically, the intersections of 77th Street at Computer Drive, 77th at the TH 100 ramps, France Avenue at 76th Street and France Avenue at Minnesota Street will have overall levels of service at E or F with movements at LOS F. • The Gateway Area AUAR completed in 2007 and updated in 2013, including the Pentagon Park development area identified several required mitigation measures to be completed at various levels and stages of development. • Based on the traffic analysis mitigation improvements can be implemented to improve the overall and movement level of service to E or better at critical intersections. • The parking shown on the current site plan meets City's Code for the proposed uses. The current plan provides for 6400 parking spaces with 5925 required by City Code. Based on the ITE parking generation estimates the total parking needed for the proposed uses on the site would be 5596. A7D Pentagon Park Development City of Edina February 19, 2014 Page 18 of 19 Based on these conclusions the following improvements are recommended: 2020 No- Build: a. Addition of a northbound dual right -turn lane at 77th Street and TH 100 Southbound Ramp b. Improved signal timing at 77th Street and Computer Avenue. 2. 2020 Build: a. Addition of a northbound dual right -turn lane at 77th Street and TH 100 Southbound Ramp. b. Addition of a westbound right -turn lane at 77th Street and TH 100 Northbound Ramp c. Addition of a northbound dual left turn lane, southbound left turn lane and eastbound right turn lane at 77th Street and Computer Drive. d. Addition of a northbound through lane at France Avenue and Minnesota Street e. Addition of a northbound left turn lane, eastbound right turn lane and signal timing improvements at 77th Street and Burgundy Place. 2030 No- Build: a. 2020 No -Build Improvements b. Addition of an eastbound and westbound right -turn lane at 77th Street and TH 100 Northbound Ramp c. Addition of a northbound and southbound left turn lane at 77th Street and Computer Drive d. Addition of a northbound through lane at France Avenue and Minnesota Drive e. Addition of a southbound through lane at France Avenue and 76th Street 4. 2030 Build: a. 2020 Build improvements b. Addition of an eastbound and westbound third lane on 77th Street from Industrial Boulevard through Computer Drive. c. Addition of a southbound through lane at France Avenue and 76th Street d. Addition of an eastbound and westbound dual left turn lane at France Avenue and Minnesota Street. e. Addition of a southbound left turn lane at 77th Street and Minnesota Street. f. Addition of a eastbound right turn lane at 77th Street and Parklawn Avenue, 117 Pentagon Park Development City of Edina February 19, 2014 Page 19 of 19 APPENDIX A7a tiF� Q? J4i a V w �JL•• uu �J _ N >R C7U7 A a EW a wa J U CH kid (q � Rp �J CU ❑� W. 62 nd '2nd ST �� 3, W, 62 nd ST. Q w x ° z a (A• a a a a GARRI SON ° '> w �, ST. ° ° 35. u N (4 > u a a a m _ 0 Too ft noo ft 35. p 6� 3 O w x w w > w w o a > > J a a 00 ST. a 64 th T. a [MiN�a a W' 64 th ST• p� o r C) a W• 64th _ J Q 0 0� w w w > > > > W o J a s a a sSth ST. or a W. z o 65 th ST. UJ Z r Rl � Lake F>I: m h ST. vx 7 - -- z W. 66th ° T. v . a o0 E a 0 G Corn elia SOUTH UQ ALE r n a a 0 CIR. 2�tM~U00TA 4AGUN 68 th a <� ROYCA r� DR. ST, 0 TON UPRD. BALFARD. ° �� P w PER �< a > �P• TER• z JUDS � o� r�� 4 C:= 69th pR0 AY w �J 4%� z �� r7� W. 69th ST. ST. p W °a Q z a 3 000 C= 0 LJ O Qq 38. U�eERRY o u ° (q.° J a x O J o a w W. 70th o w ST. —JET Li Qo�o L AR, I �q rA G qn a MAVELL E_ m 0 ANDOVER (3 o J aN a HAZELTON Ln ASPgS C( R�� VIDERE ,DR. w . o xcc �- D ORE, C w ° V w_ o a TRI( �4 ASPASIA D cIR (qA'E c o x L� (9CIR. w �NH44 RJAI MRORF W. c� z m 72 End oST. r R. cr o Q Creed IBISCUS R. Q E((SwDRTH o� DR. w � CtRO( ? a = J a AVE. M O�c a FQNDELL DR. w w v~ DR ' o O Q z w x a -J PHLOX 3 GILFORD DR. � o cwo z L m LA. wU o � � u 4th Lake HIBISCUS a Y > a CT' L ST. a a o PARKLAWN co AVE. ST. AVE. ° o Edina o S�DU P�� o W. 75th p o �� o QOPPY SNORE LA w Qpe K PLAZA r r o LA Y DR. 3 a � J � a W. 76th ST. L I BLVD. o �s�JO W ' o: w o x –� Cl ° MINNESOTA DR VIK NG w DR. C' Project Location Traffic Study Figure 1 e Pentagon Park Development •. �, City of Edina, Minnesota Project Location Map A-73 4 e: vrtnreo: KeyStaflstics Land Use Structured Parking South Parcel: Holes -375. 425 Rooms A 1,00 STALLS Office - 500,000 GSF 3 1.400 STALLS Retail - 25,000 GSF C BOO 5 TALLS North Parcel: 0;6cq - 900,000 GSF 0 MO STALLS Retag - 15,000 GSF E BOO STALLS F 1,200 STALLS rcum BURGUNDY PLACE -40WEMW IMUE. L! i e3 -WA L 54,rrN.3 1, A sliZ., 7 . PA.'. WJW r- llpinS;ann 9, ZVI N"', VC"j--,eWj PRELVAINA PLANNING CONIMISSION DAMON FARBER ASSOCIATES U Iq TIF DIAGRAM ,? * "11cl05r5y"101ILC MNA, FON - WWWBER 6, 2013 Traffic Study Figure 2 Pentagon Park Development 1 `( C9, �lc City of Edina, Minnesota Site Plan Option 1 Vf IYSB�Filenome: :,�, a •��ti r �-- ,�--�' ,'mow � -+T L - - ti�� -- ''1 ' � ° .; J 0 400 ft 800 ft ,"' . t.. r dv ,� a n.e r . '' �1ly .F. J ..•. -..4I H„ ' '� C '.+ d •ii i; # r -tom Iti/lj , (It��i��t ., p tit �� aPi .q !: • , .1't •s.. 5 — 'f _� _La ._ - �L.��i;�Lt'.-'_.h.irJf"�... �c:.'��[ �!^ 4[a ° t .�-•. '-,-t 7 /''(- 'r+r1 -r'!F f Pill . Traffic Study Figure 3 (\ e 1 Pentagon Park Development �a� -• City of Edina, Minnesota Key Intersections Pt tYIYYCSOiA � �x r♦ � - 'j � • 1 1 1 ; 4 j �{! R 54(426) m ^�. ` � M i, � '� / ? � R 60t.6 .. a ,f m o F 473(321) !!3 are / '{ ' iFri .'. 280(184 nr J 1 1.4 r 56 (119) I rJO r'S7,i ` h JUh, p Cj1 `i( 4 J 111 V r 174(232) (431)112 ./ S 1 (r, rg J,IZO ,� )rrl ��,,t ..!.(.. ` y (215) 57 1 tttt •- (960) 504 -► m (418)127 (29) 7 ( 253) 67 N K J ` }}T_� 7 i. ♦ �� i. r ) , l Y - - _ �].__ :ibis -i i r 7 7 lYY"""' l •. 'Y' �lLt" R 127 ( 562) R 12 (86) • m L� I� '°- :der 250 (639) l i a? 142(169) J 1 SA4 r 7( 5) � tt jL ,; t ra fAit 'T J llll 4 r 92 (414) it I (626 )111 }� -�ltt j\.`� l (151) 32 .0 ttt .A �tj f 5 � {+ (1005)1088 -► ^ry 1i - -V�s (348)167 y a V (439) 52 1 ( 99)186 'i► `. '- r r., %' ' • � ; •1 y)A' AYSd� j fsf'.t �.._ -; ��s _ r1 _.its 1 1 Il� A 5 LEGEND m 4t. 6( 0) — _ .L zo(4z) i; R 128 (20B) � m � � F 305(913) o 2 •" 133(320) a �. 146( 6) Y ® m o M - }. Thru- Stop lntersection J j. r 42(40) :• ,r °(0) r 74(5s) 4' ">;• µ� ,. �� ® m (655)317 Signalized Intersection ( 8) as s 4 P o '�' (67) z (433)443 (979) 969 (169) 1 N 50 (75) AM (PM) Counts ( 46)174 ( 2) 1 i' V ( 54) 1 �.Yirr 'ItF Existing Lane Geometry V S�.Tt. • 'may ,� f g-�j1+ - 1 � - _ r s �"' Traffic Study �c 2 i >((� )1 Pentagon Park Development Figures City of Edina, Minnesota Existing (2014) Traffic Volumes A76 R 60(485) R 5( 5) 1 '�..... ''iY l�i �r ° o R 55 (I ) .�sc 505 (345) 360 (1205) y+ s ` t2 e 305 (20G) J j k r 65(130) i J j w r 10(10) _Ij irra..v _ y,e,_ �! j d r 190(250) 1 ( 465)125 -0 'j t /' (20) 20 .0 1 t r � 5 9 q 1 - (295) 65 'j t r *.l t (1030)545 (1090)1310 -► ° ° �ri� Y (450)140 -► ° ( 35) 10 1 -- ^� ` ( 45) 75 (275) 75 7 Z m `f •1 � Y • J� � ; �,y�. aa.a,,. S+ J .h �,.�"S1�� Ltd" T � p t1 t � � ' � ►' \ . i - �Ii i�'' 51 ��i' � .. °w.: ; � ,�F`,k•; ° R 140(60 D) �,i. r -'i `i tt1 , R 15(95) �. ° �— 270 690 f 1 tss(tas) � m 4 10 10 _ " ry.4� R0 J e (445) J j r 1 ) � _ ,� ' \. 1• � 4 � j � r 100 f (675) 120 .f t r ,tom( \;ti 'r i•�.' :_J to (165) 35 -0 t r (1080)1170 -i j' , - l - �° (375)180 -i _ a r (110)205 Z o '_ �t.� __.. "' _ r- L. �' (� 1 ( ) �' 415 60 7 LEGEND R 10( 0) ° R 25(50) 3 R 140(125) r' o n �•• 330(980) o°�� o r !� 145(345) �°-� ,°„ t2 !-• 160( 10) 1 Thru- Stop lntersection J j (, or 50(45) J j {. r of D) ./ j 6 r 80 65) O (10) 95 q t r (7DS) 340 75) 5 •r t • Signalized Intersection t r ( 1 (1055)1045 -+ ^ (465) 475 -+ _ (185) 5 -+ 50 (75) AM (PM) Counts ( 50)190 1 0 ( 5) s t V _ ( 60) s n. N '1f F Turning Movement Direction 's� e Traffic Study Figure 5 e r }_ Pentagon Park Development 2020 No Development City of Edina, Minnesota Traffic Volumes P %•, Traffic Study Figure 6 (e , Pentagon Park Development 2020 With Phase 1 Development City of Edina, Minnesota Traffic Volumes 65 ( 505) ' , N L 5 ( 5) 75 ( 200) .� ". 565 (385) F- 400 (1335) ��, r r ,� F 335 ( 220) d j 6 r 70(145) .1 j 6 r 10( 10) F+� 4 r 210(275) i (515)135 9 t 1 o) zs 1 v r (330) 70 (1140) 600 (1205)7445 50155 (35) n (50) 85 z s .J t p a0 , Iii -I'- • �� a''�� - k "- � _J k /�,1. VaJ[i I ) �^ tti ) fi N\ s _ L 760(670) ..,: y s„ „,� +_ 1-_ '1� . T. r m o 15 (105) _ 300 (160) '�.�” f ::� ; �i�1}+ t .11 * - _ �� - `��•tt - Q e .— 170 ( 205) _ si. �1fi5 6 r 10(10)' r 11t 0 (495r ) (745)135 (1e0) 40 1 + � (415)200 (1195)1290 �_ (120)225 Z, (520) 65 10 7 ? t 25 527 ' 3 , M1t• �" y r LEGEND O m (, �v ,s5a5o) �— 365(1085) 160(380) e — c a Thru -Stop Intersection J j L or 50( 50) .! j V r of o) ,/ j {, r 90(70) © Signalized Intersection (10)105 '1 t (780)380 a t (80)51 p1691150 (s7s)szs _ (zos) s 50 75 AM(PM)Counts — F N � ) (ss) zto � m � (s) s 1 — (65) 5 7 -- `itP Turning Movement Direction CI) Traffic Study Figure 7 Pentagon Park Development 2030 No Development Cit of Edina, Minnesota Y Traffic Volumes h 7i _._ Traffic Study Figure 8 e Pentagon Park Development 2030 With Phases 1 & 2 Development City of Edina, Minnesota Traffic Volumes R FINAL AILTERNATIVE URBAN AREAWIDE REVIEW UPDATE GATEWAY STUDY AREA - UPDATE FOR TIDE CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA Original AUAR: September 2007 Update 1: June 2013 Prepared By: WSB & Associates, Inc. 701 Xenia Avenue - Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55416 763 - 541 -4800 Final Alternative Urban Areawide Review Update Gateway Study Area City of Edina, MN WSB Project No. 1686 -37 A& f City of Edina 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN,55424 952 - 826 -0460 TABLE OF CONTENTS TITLE SHEET TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction and Pur pose .......................................................... ..............................1 1I. Approved Development/ Current Conditions ......................... ..............................2 III. Areas Remaining to be Developed ............................................ ..............................2 IV. Update to the Environmental Review ...................................... ..............................2 V. Mitigation Summary and Update ................................................. ..............................7 VI. AUAR Update Review ................................................................... ............................1.4 List of Figures Figure 1 Location Map Figure 2 USGS Location Map Figure 3 Aerial Photo Figure 4 -1 Scenario 1 Figure 4 -2 Scenario 2. Figure 4 -3 Scenario 3 Figure 4 -4 Scenario 4 Figure 5 Adjacent Developments Appendix A - Figures Appendix B - Agency Correspondence Final Alternative Urban Areawide Review Update Gateway Study Area City of Edina, MN WSB Project No. 1686 -37 �� I. Introduction and Purpose The Gateway Study Area (Study Area) is approximately 135 acres. The Study Area is bounded by Minnesota Trunk Highway 100 (TH 100) on the west; France Avenue on the east; 76th Street West and Fred Richards Golf Course on the north; and Edina's border with Bloomington on the south. The area is shown on Figures 1, 2, and 3. The Study Area currently contains a mixture of light industrial /warehouse, commercial, office and residential uses. There is a total of 1,904,000 gross square feet (gsf) of these uses in the existing conditions. The City of Edina adopted the Final AUAR on November 5, 2007. Pursuant to Minnesota Rules 4410.3610 Subp. 7, for the AUAR to remain valid as the environmental review document for the area, the document needs to be updated every five years until all development in the study area has received final approval. Since redevelopment has not occurred in the study area and the AUAR expired in November 2012, the purpose of-this document is to update the AUAR pursuant to Minnesota Rules. The 2007 AUAR included an analysis of the following development scenarios (Figure 4 -1 to 4 -4): Scenario 1- Comprehensive Plan Scenario 2 - Master Plan Scenario Scenario 3 - Maximum Commercial Build Scenario Scenario 4 - Maximum Residential Scenario Table 1: Summary of Redevelopment Scenarios In 2008, the City updated their Comprehensive Plan. However, Scenario 1 is still consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. This AUAR Update serves as an update of the 2007 AUAR, and includes a review of the areas that have and have not developed, an update to the environmental analysis as needed, and a review of the mitigation measures. The original 2007 AUAR is available Final Alternative Urban Areawide Review Update Page 1 Gateway Study Area City of Edina, MN WSB Project No. 1686 -37 June 2013 413 Existing Scenario 1: Scenario 2: Scenario 3: Scenario 4: Conditions Comprehensive Master Plan Maximum Maximum Plan Commercial Residential Office 1,546,000 1,862,000 3,261,000 1,094,000 Commercial / Retail Hotel 1,873,000 15,000 174,000 15,000 15,000 Office & Light Industrial Mix 1,296,000 1,296,000 1,296,000 1,296,000 Residential 31,000 1 31,000 914,000 31,000 1,581,000 TOTAL: 1 1,904,000 1 2,888,000 4,246,000 4,603,000 3,986,000 In 2008, the City updated their Comprehensive Plan. However, Scenario 1 is still consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. This AUAR Update serves as an update of the 2007 AUAR, and includes a review of the areas that have and have not developed, an update to the environmental analysis as needed, and a review of the mitigation measures. The original 2007 AUAR is available Final Alternative Urban Areawide Review Update Page 1 Gateway Study Area City of Edina, MN WSB Project No. 1686 -37 June 2013 413 for review on the City's web -site at http,;f /edinamn .gov /index.php? section = community - development - planning. II. Approved Development /Current Conditions No redevelopment has occurred within the study. area. Figure 3 shows the aerial photo for the site. In 2008, the City updated their Comprehensive Plan. However, Scenario 1 is still consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. III. Areas Remaining to be Developed No redevelopment has occurred within the study area. The initial potential redevelopment that triggered the initial AUAR in 2007 did not come to fruition. Recently, there has been renewed interest in redevelopment of the area. The redevelopment plans are within or below the densities analyzed in the AUAR. Timeline: The 2007 AUAR anticipated redevelopment of the Pentagon Towers and Pentagon Quad areas (approximately 39 acres) to begin in 2008 and be completed within 5 -7 years. The remaining 96 acres did not have a specific timeline for redevelopment. This redevelopment has not occurred. The current estimate for redevelopment timeline for the area is 5 -10 years. IV. Update to the Environmental Review Wildlife: The DNR.Natural Heritage Database was reviewed to provide an update for any threatened and endangered species. This review and DNR correspondence is included in Appendix B. There are no new incidents of rare or endangered species within the study area. Contamination and Past Land Use: Public MPCA database information was reviewed to update this section of the AUAR to identify verified or potential hazardous substances and petroleum release sites associated with the project area or surrounding area. The following databases were reviewed as part of this investigation: • MPCA "What's in My Neighborhood ?" website search • MPCA Storage Tank Leak site website search Twenty -nine database listings were identified for the project area. Some of the identified sites were listed on more than one database and the majority of the listings were for small quantity hazardous waste generator (15) and tank sites (7). Inclusions on these databases do not directly indicate an environmental hazard and no spills or mishandling of hazardous waste was identified during the review. However, the following database listings for the project area were determined to directly indicate historic or current environmental contamination: Final Alternative Urban Areawide Review Update Page 2 Gateway Study Area City of Edina, MN WSB Project No. 1686 -37 June 2013 lL Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Sites • MPCA Leak #4105 - Pentagon Office Park located at 4930 West 77th Street, Edina, MN 55435. This site has been issued site closure by the MPCA. Site closure indicates that the contamination, if present, has been investigated and determined to not pose a threat to human health or the environment. Note: site closure does not indicate that the site is free of contamination. • MPCA Leak 4627 - Pentagon Office Park located at West 77th Street, Edina, MN 55435. This site has been issued site closure by the MPCA. • MPCA Leak # 617 - Roberts Automatic Products located at 4451 West 76th Street, Edina, MN 55435. This site has been issued site closure by the MPCA. Voluntary Investigation and Cleanup (VIC) Sites • MPCA VIC #28660 - Hillcrest Development located at 4530, 4540, 4550, 4570, 4600, 4640, and 4660 West 77th Street, Edina, MN 55435. • MPCA VIC #29410 - Hillcrest Development located at 4510, 4815, and 4901 West 77th Street and 7600 Parklawn Avenue, Edina, MN 55435. • MPCA VIC #2890 - Parklawn located at 7625 Parklawn Avenue, Edina, MN,\ 55435. • MPCA VIC #13540 - National Rental Car located at 7700 France Avenue, Edina, MN 55435. Petroleum Brownfields Sites • MPCA PB #4182 - Hillcrest Development located at 4530, 4540, 4550, 4570, 4600, 4640, and 4660 West 77th Street, Edina, MN 55435 (also a VIC site). • MPCA PB #4239 - Hillcrest Development located at 4510, 4815, and 4901 West 77th Street and 7600 Parklawn Avenue, Edina, MN 55435 (also a VIC site). Wastewater System: The AUAR analyzed the wastewater system in the area, including the Metropolitan Council's interceptor, BN -499: Since the 2007 AUAR, a wastewater project was completed in the area. Asa result of the AUAR and potential re- development anticipated within the study area, the City of Bloomington, in conjunction with Met Council, upgraded Lift Station 10 (MCES L -55) to a near -term capacity of 1.8 million gallons per day (mgd). Project improvements also involved constructing a new 16 -inch forcemain to replace the existing 12 -inch forcemain in West 841h Street in Bloomington providing a long -term capacity in the forcemain of 4.8 mgd. Inter - community flows from Edina have been - redirected to the new forcemain, essentially bypassing the gravity portions of MCES Interceptor BN -499 to provide additional'capacity for re- development in Bloomington. Water Supply System: No changes to the water supply system have occurred in the area. Final Alternative Urban Areawlde Review Update ' Page 3 Gateway Study Area City of Edina, MN WSB Project No. 1686 -37 June 2013 �� Storm Water Management: The Nine Mile Creek Watershed District adopted updated rules in 2008. Based on these rules, if a redevelopment project disturbs more than 50 percent of the existing impervious surface on the parcel (or increases the imperviousness of the entire parcel by more than 50 percent), retention of one inch of runoff from all the impervious surface will need to be provided. Also, peak flow runoff rates cannot exceed the existing conditions for the 2-year, 10-year, and 100 -year storm events and the runoff from a 2.5 -inch storm event from the parcel will need to be treated to remove at least 60% of the phosphorus and 90% of the total suspended solids. Additionally, Edina Lake, which is north of the project area, was added to the impaired waters list in 2008. Edina Lake is impaired for nutrients /eutrophication. No TMDL study has been completed to date. Transportation: The AUAR completed in 2007 analyzed the impacts of the four development scenarios for the years 2014 and 2030. The analysis for both years assumed a 1% per year growth in general background traffic, the approved development in the Cities of Bloomington and Edina (see Cumulative Impacts) and the proposed Gateway Development traffic. Updated traffic counts were conducted the week of April 1, 2013 at selected intersection and roadway segments on 77th Avenue. The updated traffic counts were then compared to those assumed in the 2007 AUAR to determine if the analysis and recommended mitigation measures were still valid. The peak hour traffic counts ranged from 5% to 15% less than those counted for the base year in the AUAR in 2007. In addition, the 2013 counts were 65% to 75% less than the 2014 Scenario 1 condition, which had the smallest associated trip generation. The Average Daily Traffic (ADT) counts used as a baseline in the AUAR were fr6m the 2005 MnDOT State Aid counts. In 2009 these counts were updated and in general, these counts were at or slightly lower than those in 2005. The 2013 ADT counts compared to the 2009 ADT counts showed a slight increase (10 %) on the section of 77th Street from TH 100 to Parklawn Avenue. Based on the facts that 1) no Gateway Development has occurred in the area, and 2) the majority of the additional development has been in Bloomington and Edina and their traffic generation included in the new 2013 traffic counts, and 3) the area traffic levels have not changed significantly from those assumed in the AUAR for the baseline conditions (see Cumulative Impacts), it can be concluded that the future year analysis and recommended mitigation is still valid. Cumulative Impacts: The Study Area and its surroundings are within a first -ring suburb of Minneapolis that is generally fully developed. Cumulative impacts will generally be driven by either individual parcel redevelopment or area -wide redevelopment. To analyze cumulative impacts for the Study Area, the information Final Alternative Urban Areawide Review Update Page 4 Gateway Study Area City of Edina, MN WSH Project No. 1686-37 June 2013 �� from the 2007 MAR was updated to reflect known or approved redevelopment projects within or near the TH 100 and I -494 area. Table 2 summarizes the known redevelopment plans and updates the 2007 AUAR in the area and Figure 5 shows the location of these projects. Table 2. Summary of Adjacent Redevelopment Proposals City Development Summary of Impacts Duke -Weeks Realty Limited Phase 1 and 2 completed Phase 3 to add an additional 312,000 sq. ft. of office in Partnership the future Norman Pointe Walser Real Estate II, LLC 50,000 sq. ft. car dealership project completed. Walser Toyota) Addition of 112,000 ftz of medical office space completed Ryan Companies phase 1 and 2 completed. Phase 3 to add an additional 250,000 sq. ft. of office in US, Inc. the future. (Marketpoint) Hilton Hotel 256 room hotel and adjoining restaurant completed Normandale 122 space parking ramp to meet demand for existing offices completed Investments, LLC Bloomington United Properties 285,000 square foot office building at 8200 Norman Center Drive completed Covington 250 Apartment units - Approved, under construction. Apartments 8100 Office Tower 255,000 ftz of office - Future Hotel 100 Rooms - Future Luxembourg 282 Apartment units - Approved, under construction Apartments OA TI Office /Data 100,000 ftz of office - Future Center Venture Bank 37,000 ftz of office - Completed 2009 Office Final Alternative Urban Areawide Review Update Gateway Study Area City of Edina, MN WSB Project No. 1686.37 June 2013 417 Page 5 Final Alternative UrbanAreawide Review Update Gateway Study Area City of Edina, MN WSB Project No. 1686-37 June 2013 A$f Page 6 Hotel 257 Rooms - Future Norman Pointe 111 312,000 ft2 Office - Future Office Tower Marketpointlll 250,000 ftz Office - Future Office Tower 6500 France 209 Unit Senior Housing / Skilled Care - In review process Avenue Redevelopment of 40,000 ft2 of a movie theater to 86,000 ft2 of retail Cypress Properties development. (Not Yet Completed) Approved increase of retail space from 154,000 ft2 to 196,500 ft2 by 2008. Target (Completed) Approved construction of an 18 story building with 79 condominiums, a 225 Westin room hotel, and 7,000 ft2 restaurant (Completed) York Place Approved construction of 49,000 ft2 of retail space and 86 senior apartments. Development Replaces 52,750 ft2 of office space. (Development Completed as CVS) TE Miller Development (7380 Net increase of 2,000 gsf of office space (Completed) France Office) Edina 6996 France 3,000 ft2 Retail and 5,000 ft2 Office - Completed Avenue Centennial Lakes 2 2,000 P ft Coffee Shop - Approved roved under construction Coffee Shop Fairview Southdale 30,000 ft2 Emergency Room expansion - In review process Expansion Southdale 232 Units - Approved under construction Residential Whole Foods 32,000 ft2 Whole Food Grocery store - Completed YMCA 21,000 ft2 Expansion - Completed Final Alternative UrbanAreawide Review Update Gateway Study Area City of Edina, MN WSB Project No. 1686-37 June 2013 A$f Page 6 V. Mitigation Summary and Update Many of the mitigation measures outlined in the 2007 AUAR still remain valid. The updated mitigation measures are outlined below and either remain in effect from the 2007 AUAR or have been updated based on new analysis as noted. A. Land Use Compatibility and Permitting Al. The proposed change in land use of Scenarios 2, 3, and 4 at the Pentagon Towers and Pentagon Quads site will require a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. A2. Any redevelopment will be required to meet Edina zoning requirements. A3. Any project proposers will be required to obtain any necessary approvals and permits. A4. If components of a proposed project exceed Edina City Code requirements, variances from the City's requirement will need to be applied for by the developer. The City will review these variance requests and make a determination as to the approval or denial of the project as part of the review process. A project proposer could also seek to amend the City Code. This request would also be reviewed by the City. B. Geologic Hazards, Erosion Control, and Hazardous Material B1. Prior to demolition an asbestos survey shall be completed by a project proposer. At the time of demolition, any necessary asbestos abatement will need to be completed by the project proposer in compliance with MPCA requirements. B2. The management, containment, and cleanup of any spills that may occur within the Study Area during construction will be addressed by the permit holders of the MPCA NPDES /SDS Storm Water Construction Permit and its accompanying Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan preparation. B3. If a neighborhood convenience store and gas station is proposed, the project proposer will be required to adhere to State regulations for containment of underground petroleum tanks and an annual license would be needed. B4. The Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), including temporary and permanent seeding and staging plans, will be required to be submitted by each project proposer and reviewed by Edina. 135. The project proposer will need to develop an erosion control plan and submit this plan to the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District for review and approval. Final Alternative Urban Areawide Review Update Gateway Study Area City of Edina, MN WSB Project No. 1696 -37 401 June2013 Page 7 B6. During construction, the project proposer and their contractor will implement Best Management Practices as needed to prevent erosion and sedimentation of downstream water resources. B7. Edina will develop a SWPPP and obtain an NPDES permit for the construction of any public infrastructure improvements (sanitary sewer, storm sewer, water main) that disturb one acre of land or more. B8. Edina will conduct erosion control inspections during construction. B9. Project proposers will make environmental hazard investigation documents, such as Phase I Environmental Assessments, available to Edina. 1310. Project proposers will be required to remediate any contaminated soils encountered in conformance with MPCA regulations. 1311. Project proposers will be required to remove and properly dispose of trash and debris located within a project site, including all demolition materials that may include asbestos. B12. Municipal waste hauler companies will make residential and commercial recycling programs available to the Study Area. General municipal waste will be removed by these waste hauler companies. B13. The NPDES Construction Site permit requires a site specific SWPPP to be completed for the construction by the project proposer. This SWPPP is required to include pollution prevention management measures for solid waste and hazardous material spills that occur during construction. B14. Mitigation includes conformance with the Edina spill response plan. Spills will be reported to the fire chief and /or applicable City Staff. The fire chief and /or applicable City Staff will in turn notify any other appropriate officials depending on the nature of the spill. B15. Project proposers will be required to develop a temporary dewatering plan for construction activities, review this plan with Edina and Nine Mile Creek Watershed District for approval, and conform to the dewatering requirements of the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and NPDES Construction permit. B16. If a redevelopment project involves permanent dewatering for underground facilities, a detailed dewatering plan is required to be developed by the project proposer. This plan would include anticipated dewatering amounts, direction of discharge, analysis of impact on adjacent ponds and downstream receiving waters, and impact on the organic material within the Study Area for the Final Alternative Urban Areawide Review Update Gateway Study Area City of Edina, MN WSB Project No. 1686-37 June 2013 1"6 Page 8 potential for subsidence. The plan will need to be submitted to Edina, Nine Mile Creek Watershed District, and DNR for review and /or approval. C. Fish, Wildlife, Wetlands, and Ecologically Sensitive Resources C1. Buildings to be removed as part of redevelopment will be field checked by the project proposer to determine if there are nesting Peregrine Falcons on the structure. If falcons are noted nesting on the structure, the site cannot be disturbed until the juvenile birds have fledged and left the nest. C2. The project proposer will be required to delineate wetlands within their. project boundaries, if any, and review these delineations with the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District and Edina to determine jurisdictional status. The Nine Mile Creek Watershed District is the Local Government Unit for the Wetland Conservation Act and will review and verify any wetland delineations. C3. If wetland impact is proposed, the project proposer will be required to minimize impact to the maximum extent possible and mitigate for any unavoidable impacts in conformance with the Wetland Conservation Act. D. - Municipal Water Use and Service D1. Edina will work with Bloomington to determine the needs for water system capacity improvements, water main upgrades, and future service to the Gateway Study Area. D2. In conjunction with their Comprehensive Plan update, Edina will complete an update to the 2002 Water Distribution System Analysis for the entire city to determine what current and future water system improvements may be necessary to continue to serve the City's water needs and maintain a water system firm capacity above the maximum daily water use within the City. D3. As redevelopment occurs, Edina will complete an analysis of the water mains within the Study Area to determine if performing water main replacement is necessary and if it should occur in conjunction with other potential infrastructure improvements, such as sanitary sewer, storm sewer, and transportation improvements. D4. Any abandoned wells found within the Study Area will be sealed in accordance with Minnesota Department of Health guidelines. This will be the responsibility of the project proposer. DS. In accordance with Edina's Wellhead Protection Plan, continued protection of the existing Drinking Water Supply Management Areas located within the Study Area will be required for redevelopment projects. Final Alternative Urban Areawide Review Update Page 9 Gateway Study Area City of Edina, MN WSB Project No.1686 -37 June 2013 q 1 D6. There is potential for areas that redevelop within the Bloomington service area to request to be served by Edina. If this occurs, additional analysis and water main improvements will need to be completed by Edina in coordination with Bloomington: D7. Individual redevelopment may require the installation of service pumps to serve multi -story buildings and to provide adequate fire protection. The size and type of pumps will vary based on individual building characteristics, should meet the existing local building and fire protection codes, and will be the responsibility of the developer. E. Water Quality and Quantity E1. Redevelopment projects will be required to be designed to meet the policies of the most current Edina Comprehensive Storm Water Management Plan. E2. Redevelopment projects will be required to be designed to meet the policies of the most current Nine Mile Creek Watershed District requirements. E3. Redevelopment within the Study Area will be required to limit peak runoff rates to at least existing conditions and reduce the runoff volume so as not to negatively impact the existing storm sewer system.. E4. Redevelopment needs to reduce the amount of impervious surface within the project limits or develop a site specific storm water management plan that shows that the project will not impact downstream pollutant or volume loading. E5. If warranted by Edina's Nondegradation Plan, project proposers will need to include storm water management strategies that reduce the total suspended solid loadings, total phosphorous pollutant loadings, and storm water runoff volumes -from the Study Area. E6. Any redevelopment project that disturbs more than one acre of land is required to develop a SWPPP and obtain an NPDES permit from the MPCA. E7. Edina and project proposer(s) will investigate the expansion of the existing ponding areas within the Fred Richards Golf Course to provide additional storage and treatment as outlined in Edina's Water Resource Management Plan. E8. The Cities of Edina and Bloomington will petition the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District to expand the South Pond (SP-1) pond to provide additional storm water treatment for the area. E9. As Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) studies are completed for Nine Mile Creek, the results of these studies will be reviewed by Edina. Redevelopment in Final Alternative Urban Areawide Review Update Gateway Study Area City of Edina, MN WSB Project No. 1686 -37 June2013 ' I i Page 10 the Study Area will be required to meet any mitigation and pollutant load reductions that maybe outlined within the TMDL studies. Update: This mitigation measure also applies to Edina Lake. E10. The project proposer will review and determine which Low Impact Development (LID) practices are feasible to be used for each parcel. Edina will review the LID techniques and encourage their use to the greatest extent possible.. E11. A maintenance plan is required to be reviewed and approved by the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District for privately constructed and maintained storm water management facilities. F. Wastewater Mitigation Plan F1. Any redevelopment activities that may increase the total sanitary sewer flows within Service Area A beyond threshold limits for peak capacity will require upgraded facilities within the Gateway Study Area (Computer Avenue sanitary sewer) and Bloomington (MCES Bloomington Lift Station No. 10) to accommodate increased flows. Update:' Bloomington Lift Station No. 10 is also denoted at MCES Lift Station L- 55. In 2011, the pumps in the existing lift station were upgraded to provide a near -term peak capacity of 1.8 million gallons per day (mgd). Future increases in flow for re- development will need to be evaluated as the final lift station site is proposed to be relocated with the proposed future realignment of 1 -494. F2. Edina, Bloomington, and Metropolitan Council Environmental Services will continue discussions and analysis regarding proposed capacity upgrades to Bloomington Lift Station No. 10 and the MCES BN -499 Interceptor along West 84th Street in Bloomington. Update: Capacity to L -55 (Bloomington LS 10 was increased to a peak flow of 1.8 MDG as previously discussed. Also in 2011,The MCES BN -499 interceptor was replaced with a 16 -inch forcemain from L -55 southerly and westerly along W. 84th Street to a gravity sewer approximately 600 feet west of France Avenue. The forcemain was designed to carry peak flows for the proposed redevelopment area. F3. Edina will complete its update to their Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan. F4. Edina will upgrade Lift Station No. 22. Final Alternative Urban Areawide Review Update Gateway Study Area City of Edina, NN WSB Project No. 1686-37 June2013 A 1 3 Page 11 F5. In conjunction with redevelopment activities, Edina will determine the condition of the existing sanitary sewer pipe within the Gateway Study Area to determine if repairs or replacement is necessary. based on in -place pipe condition and infiltration potential. G. Traffic and Transportation G1. Scenarios 1 and 4 The following mitigation strategies are needed for Scenario 1 and 4 to accommodate future full development traffic projections: Intersection: France Avenue / West 76th Street Improvement: Extend one southbound thru lane on France Avenue to create a total of four thru lanes Intersection: France Avenue / West 78th Street Improvement: Eastbound dual right turn lanes on West 78th Street Southbound lanes approaching the 1 -494 ramps restriped to provide exclusive lanes to both westbound I -494 and eastbound 1 -494. The right lane will drop at the westbound 1 -494 ramp providing an exclusive ramp lane. The second lane will also be an exclusive lane leading to I- 494 eastbound, reducing the weaving and stacking of vehicles that occur today. The County has expressed interest in participation. Intersection: Edina Industrial Boulevard / West 78th Street Improvement: Eastbound dual left turn lanes on West 78th Street Intersection: Edina Industrial Boulevard / Metro Boulevard Improvement: Add southbound right turn lane on Metro Boulevard, restriping the existing two southbound lanes to accommodate an exclusive left turn lane, and a thru /left lane, providing dual left turn lanes. Add 300 foot eastbound left turn lane on Edina Industrial Boulevard Intersection: Northbound TH 100 / West 77th Street Improvement: Add 150 foot northbound right turn lane on Frontage Road Westbound dual right turn lanes on West 77th Street Final Alternative Urban Areawide Review Update Gateway Study Area City of Edina, MN WSB Project No. 1686-37 June 2013 fj1� Page 12 G2. Scenario 2 Scenario 2 will require all the improvements listed above in addition to the following: Intersection: Improvement: Intersection: Improvement: Intersection: Improvement: Intersection: Improvement: G3. Scenario 3 Minnesota Drive / France Avenue Dual westbound left turn lanes on Minnesota Drive Eastbound dual left turn lanes on Minnesota Drive Northbound TH 100 / West 77th Street Add 150 foot eastbound right turn lane on West 77th Street Computer Avenue / West 77th Street Northbound dual left turn lanes on Computer Avenue Minnesota Drive / West 771h Street / Johnson Avenue Southbound dual left turn lanes on West 77th Street Scenario 3 will require all the above improvements listed under Scenarios 1, 2, and 4 in addition to the following: Intersection: Minnesota Drive / France Avenue Improvement: Eastbound dual right turn lanes on Minnesota Drive Intersection: France Avenue / West 78th Street Improvement: Westbound dual right turn lanes on West 78th Street Interchange: TH 100 / West 77th Street Improvement: Six -lane section from Metro Boulevard to Computer Avenue Dual left turn turns at both TH 100 Ramps (Hence an eight - lane bridge) G4. General The mitigation measures discussion above (G1- G3) are needed to address full build -out of the site and surrounding area. Specific mitigation measures required for proposed development plans will be established through traffic and transportation studies required for each development proposal. These proposals will need to document compliance within the AUAR and mitigation plan. G5. Transit /Non- Motorized Transportation As redevelopment occurs in the Study Area, consideration of site - specific improvements needs to be included as developments are proposed. These Final Alternative Urban Areawide Review Update Page 13 Gateway Study Area City of Edina, MN WSB Project No. 1686 -37 June 2013 j� would include upgrading the existing transit facilities, including bus shelters, to become ADA compliant and improving the sidewalk and /or path connections in and around each redevelopment. H. Odor, Noise, and Dust H1. During construction activities, the project proposer and contractor shall observe all dust control Best Management Practices for fugitive dust. H2. Edina will limit construction activities and any other activities that produce noise audible outside the perimeter of a property to between 7 :OOAM to 9:OOPM Monday through Friday and between 8:OOAM and 7:0OPM on Saturday, Sunday, and holidays. H3. Noise mitigation will be necessary if any residential units are constructed near Receptor 2, located in the southwest quadrant of TH 100 /West 77th Street. Any residential buildings should be constructed using noise abatement methods. Noise abatement requirements to conform to state standards can be found in Minn. Rules 7030.0050, subp. 3. I. Archaeological, historical, or architectural resources I1. Prior to redevelopment of the Pentagon Towers and Quads sites that would require razing of the existing structures, an evaluation and documentation of the historical and architectural significance of the sites will be needed by the project proposer. This information will need to be submitted to Edina. J. Cumulative Impacts J1. Edina will work with Bloomington and potentially participate in d regional traffic study that will assist in anticipating future potential redevelopment within the TH 100 /I -494 area and plan for infrastructure improvements. Edina will also coordinate with other entities to address cumulative impacts. These items have been addressed in other areas of the AUAR and include mitigation plan items D1, D6, E8, F1, and F2. VI. AUAR Update Review This AUAR Update has been reviewed pursuant to Minnesota Rules 4410.3610 Subp. 7. The Gateway Study Area AUAR will remain valid for an additional five years from the City Council adoption date. Final Alternative UrbanAreawide Review Update Page 14 Gateway Study Area City of Edina, MN WSB Project No. 1686-37 June 2013 61r Appendix A — Figures X17 • Ill• .' C 1 a' •.. Y i . � c I % I eo % if' • ♦ 7p.�r� •s• y � ti's ., � _sue r'I �, %� C. I it Gr ' i i' 4 � '• it 'r'.. �`� I� + .h I� ,ia. �y ,•'�` �r i � � I -_ _�r_ti f,. -' 11 . <:, 1 ' v � i • . • JI , �� ~ ` � III• �' a ` - S` sll .... 0 rr i 2 • i o�qe ^f�ri Figure 1 Legend o 4 a N A o Location Map � Project Location Miles WSB .g . Ga tewa y A UAR & Associates. hic. s J !626 A—. ti -�s r T. N f a,..tt Y' -AN) 110 NNW 116f) L Nil! -7 ly d"12 =78th F46PA I A :6 I Aa 1. Legend Gateway Study Area Figure 2 r� }o USGS Locati ®n Map Gateway AUAR I 14 A 0 500 1,000 WSB Feet S & Associates, bic. All, i vgiNA,lltr� Figure 3 Le end rIGatewayAUARStudyArea °( e Aerial Locati ®n Map ® �°° Pentagon Quads 0 500 1,000 YYVO ,A,cQ I I /� A Feet � �``''' Gateway AUR M PentagonTowers s 4' 01 ft4—R Ar. A. 70TH S f mvzi �j Am -- A� v D, " f r �4-^ .-Syr' �• t�9- '•5 }i .;'.tfL..7'`�"c -,� 's f is ialY v }Yt s{"si n. 17 0 7- yzr y , V z A WZ.5a- PARKLAV FO 7 IN r NIV 15,000 GSF Non-Res a 31,000 GSF Res (36 Units) 544,700 GSF No t I '- 20 81 A Non -Res 6 59 Ac: 9 i A24- 27-03 Ac 113,600 GSF 8.00 Ac 589,000 GSF Non-Re s Non-Res 174,200 GSF on -Res 12.08 Ac 17-2 264,000 GSF IA 375,700 GSN..-Res M1NNESOTA!DRJVF_ ip fr r J -A E!, 0— F_ 7- L-d it , 4 L N L-, PC — _ � f � � I ;y� S `''� J �ri'�''.�Y� $ � ate' ,' � - r � . U Figure 4-1 Legend GatewayAUAR 13 GatewayAUAR PC D -3 POD-1 -3 _�j Scenario 1: M PID POD-2 Comprehensive Plan * GSF = Gross Square Feet k k 0 500 1,000 A mmmmw:::� Feet WSB /I to ' ,' +:. I I!�a` sJs��y I: f31.a i ulrk _ _ yi ?oziHsrw� 1 - i' m tf Lr1 • T,'c t,�•y� +yL''i+� _ �1 rti.. { a�i - 1• I� t i �.�i t`a'_• tp,,.., .Ly�7� fl a.�Jt-rI� I f!+ • 'x �• ,� • l r,. , '� I))+ ,irk ? f3 � - - ��-�' ` -�� "' � � �� , \.�{y�^��yy,. , �.� _ 1 1 { ',, ��• Y al ��1 � 1.4 f . `� _ '�. .iL �� fl' I J'V h= �y �'• �'L,� . �T 1 ,+ �..� ,.I .. i' - �' �� ' :.ems � a, j ,'�� tik,�'tl• 'k� �pL�� HIV � t_ir�f�- [.�'�% J� 4 •� ,j,A •y y*r,� _ » �. -1-M F. '� tYy'C1 �p+4a, ^ti w� �'• r f _� ••I - }j.r, �"..,'. X37 ?1 � ��)�� i,l ;Ire r �. �( C e yl �i yia• S � +\ .�. ,�� I�" �, �� r +;�, „i or .�' . z `-'�yi fi�a'er'� . � a` s:. y T � ": � • �i'�r i • lid } - ,r i '7• A,. V� 7 1- 'yyK_ # •;7.. :L . _�, *.ttit. LI �•. L. ,~ `1i7[ —�r�. �' i , � p 1� 1� ® 1� 3 �izs if,4_ 1�!IS7jl' -��; s�jaxuz rui -r i I �`r x�• - 4 7 jst�!ki }� °: r ; ? iT / ! [w�.• _ �y S� �. x. �"gj�L¢S 1] :�::: `•'7 'Ji 1 C � ',. 4-• - - [� €�� -((,Tr a .'. j-"r - �- is i. I.:(; � ` '�• >s, a� ra) l7` r, 7as a. i � 1 i : ua :`iT,rC0.l�'fR... -1 I� ,k�'� •�� ` ' : 'r - �_3t. � !;:'R a. � titP�'� '.''��'C�'�'nf.��,,y� � , L i ,- _'i"`p �_ r� - .�Y s �! _f;'."[` +.3-'x�t- -�il i L� a� 3 � 1+�`� a�� 1 � yt i� . Y' �' .r. � per•''= ,tee'. �L2 .� � I•� S h �ar'i � -�. i p n � 'S' 11 �, � f _. S-.t S. } t � •,��Y 2.14 Ac #lq.i. 15,000 GSF Non -Res i`'e5t !c�.. *4v�.• _ �� ` ��:xx t 31,000 GSF Res (36 Units) r 7 c %1 r' }? 4:� � � � �i { r 1 c• fJ R ,�e;— � , �'• � -"' - �= +se'b-. -�,. Z 14,700 G5(= Non -Res SAO A 3 ! 3,60.ti�i5 • r��ry� s+ ' 174,200 8SF x Non fifes . \ R - -- - - Non es a ', - - T � 11 17.23Ar.:°'' 751,400 GSF i4 in -Res f X75,700 GSF on �eMinnesota Drrve - ° - --•s"i Y_. I�1i R'7 {•.'M .st`i r�•. "`"I i. i J.,. I I rl L.. '• ''- ei }'1. I- I'4 �.•t t y - '••�` �. ,r�� -Y 1,�. y.. r a ..'4 .�j I,f >` ', .i>� I..r�. n p� - �� ri7f f v:T' R% 1 ��-�/71��' U'. >y�,.` „+a.n'l"' �v+�.. T .-l` � .y 7j�T� .j •' ;J� — �'•�`'T:' (1 _ fe �t78THT`�d'{.c.� i �• may',, \ I �� •�-4' - -- �.,� ��'`�',�`� `S , I .. },i� l �j . �r � I ..rte' „ �-, •- ``-� --`_, _ _ _ `� i .., � � � e IVO1W' _.: Nk .�,(�j-l. /. lkr. ,1 �. I rte, ,n jl�� Imo, 3.1,- �.::.�raS"' a 7�.a+:1• j��-`' � r�� '-7 _•. it ,q [, t.s � ,�,,t .y 'I � �i�, p'• '4` �' 1• t+� °__'= _ ° _ _�f�' ;a �R• L •.`S�g !, i;. �yr_.� .$ ,'til i� .. Q .fir• a; y ..111, m• t c�{.. -. .t; ± Y`- 1.� .�crir�' � ' t� r .� a � - ,++°yfa> + ;y. r 1_ f - °' lS1�Y'! -Y,. 7 Y•ii r � -+r n . ELL L.401 A - -- �s�fti Figure 4 -3 Legend° N °(e ' GafewayAUAR O Gate.yAUAR ,� POD -1 PCD -2 0 500 1,000 AL Scenario 3 PID - POD -2 PCD -3 Feet TSB •GSF = Gross Square Feet _ — 6 603 �yt,�.'� ,fir` - I111 L �t • {2 �fi `i{'�' KC 1. i � , .'- ti 'SF�n� 1}, 5T LV t�'�� '� %2,} r �'y °r �.g7. :I LAS )� .!_, • I �+ ;f�`T'i .A _ ,� � -•t .^�-'..AF �I� 1,.,iv77.- •�' �. �.•". I 1 t • S rarH sr �� • Ii tSr .� �� rrn a� r y, '� F ;�,ei�. i�riai�">�'' .w �; p�U. , r�^''�.. . � 3 _ CX T ,L f ,��._ �j�g• -�j 4 1� ,i -� ? � � �a7 i��e�i7�'`� �f+�� 11t i �� ',� r J i.�- � �, rt _ t - _ -y�" - 1YF' - S� ` 'J4'- T- s '�.r P'::l.��du • -1' i �II�" ,. j �. � A t r " w.�C lor �•R� +'t�% v Y "" rte rf r gt i Sti� 6 =j 4 p�?7�--I.f �� '� rt , �� I _ .h �� y '��'� ,,z �0 yi l�5- i°lr �t' -- �+ ,i? � f,;�;: • : 5 1 - - °. �' `ir. G ar" ,t, Ji'�a .. -x' �• t'i' - t[ . t�� ir� a 't a_'i, +� { tpQ�,�. S --`4Ef ��, •I1�r� jl r � � �� t M'.... �"L 't� 1• �'t�� ,,. ryrs F x} •.aa �e,,,s -..Jze - .�[' {: � f ARKLAVIN m tAVsC, �1 t i , r il h l..'ii i ,r t j s.-n1t�yL 1�•- 2.14 Ac :i I +' %�� ,�.� 'I 15,000 GSF Non-Res ig '�i',v "n: - 4 f� t r •' L �4� I ~'r 31,000 GSF Res y1' ; �r (36 Units) zl 1C t �• Y !- - i �.Z W Lu 20.94 Ac z 544,700 GSF Non- Res .6.59Ac i:r �I_1i'•I i j �� 27.03 Ac 3 143,600 Ga ' 8.00 Ac 140,000 GSF Non -Res ~r r" 174,200 GSFi 1,240,000 GSF Residential Y Non -Res - Non -Res ° (1,200 Units) aK; 12.08 Ac 1rHis w' 25 Ac .: 260,000 GSF Non es 28 5 -' 310 000 GSF Res ential 751,400 GSF Non -Res h� 75,700 GSF Non .. ;' "• (30 Units) D Uni r +�•Minneso[a Dnv T TWIC P. .Jyyv rs t Li �_ - ,rsze�� ■ 'y .� 4rr -+ys.a r �i' I =� - 7 _ 3 ''• �..,�ajl.'^ `- -t a I L ��i '`' 'F r.. ;`:-.. j f,;.t . 1 LP �, � � (/y - yr . _ ... �f+ _ �787H S :�`�'[ -� - t•�' ""n1 .:� AMERICAN �voty� = r Vii_ k !'[7T ■(C1(x°y IF t -(f/ t g •1 dal" t °' t i[� ' �i ^'al.� J �' C `!` � '�� qg� %s t � _ _ r[•'7�:- .J�7 ?,. , #J� t a�[�� 1 I � -;; 4-1 1 lYti o�_'v t•1_ .itax'� e�3. :;,L j ' �'f _, r -� 4 ='r�'m �'p�'� )�p�; � �. � � ;y R �•'. � ':.� �, ,a��1p- ;��,�g�'`� -�J} -.+`t' ¢mil ,, Y� -r- � �' � 3Y wl -- r _ ! w' , 1 r � �• q /�Y,M-''x• ' �C/3t� S1-n �, a r QyOMtvti(�•$ • �'} .1 � t^r r Legend N ��iiAA Figure 4 -4 MDD -5 f POD-1 PCD -3 Q Gateway AUAR A r� GatewayAUAR 0 500 1,000 WSB °.� PM PID - POD -2 ( (PSR -4 Feet Scenario 4 'GSF =Gross Square Feet � Engineering Department • Phone 952 - 826 -0371 Fax 952 - 826 -0392 • www.CityofEdina.com Date: February 19, 2014 To: Cary Teague — Community Development Director From: Chad Millner — Director of Engineering Re: Pentagon Park Development Dated January 22, 2014 MEMO \l'lr Engineering has reviewed the above stated proposed plan and offer the following comments: Watermain• • Provide watermain loop from Burgundy Place to Fred Richards Golf Buildings. Sanitary Sewer: • Concept flows are consistent with AUAR. Flow or phasing limitations and required public improvements are described in AUAR. Pedestrian Facilities: Provide a public trailway easement along Fred Richards Golf Course for the installation of the Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail. Provide documentation from the property owners along the south side of 77`h Street in regards to the installation of a sidewalk with a boulevard. This may require acquisition of easements by the developer. Roadways: • Roadway design shall follow the Living Streets Policy, Living Streets Plan (anticipated plan approval in fall 2014), and MN State Aid Standards (MSA) where applicable. • Typical section dimensions along 77`h Street do not meet MSA. Update section per MSA standards. • Typical section shown for Parklawn Avenue is incorrect and needs updating. • It is anticipated that significant soil correction measures will needed to build structurally sound roadways and for proper utility bedding. Soil corrections shall be the responsibility of the developer. • A recently completed AUAR does not identify any environmental hazards or spills but the area did have former tanks and hazardous waste generators. Any contaminated soils or structures will need to be disposed of by the developer per regulations. Staff will require a more detailed review of the Civil Plans if this project is approved by the City Council. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding this review. G: \PW\ADMIN \COMM \EXTERNAL \GENERAL CORR BY STREETSVO - 79 Streets\77th St (Pentagon Park) \Eng Reviews\20140219 Edina Review Pentagon Park.doc Engineering Department • 7450 Metro Blvd • Edina, MN 55439 AID� T. Gateway AUAR Study Area (135.55 Acres) + • �, si e ._ j Proposed Redevelopment Areas 2007 AUAR e , �' • r I1r '1 'Normandale Investments,LLCParkingRamp i ` �'� I i i �� 4 Or j' '2 ,Duke -Weeks Realty Limited Partnership 4 ;Ryan Companies US, Inc .. ti E. , /` �• s ' �S `I`` M@v `Walser Real Estate II, LLC �3 �.a t: 16 (Mortensen Development, Inc r m 17 !United Properties Proposed Redevelopment Areas 2013 Update , tn:_k i_ , l , « G'v L '1 'ksl A ICovington Apartments - 250 units (underconstruction) , ,, l ��'• yp , t t3 8100 Office Tower - 2551 000sq. ft. (future) it " D Potential Hotest -100 rooms (future) + 'r`r '�` ?!'I1 ^t�; r w i C trc �! }+ E iLuxembourgApartments -282 units (under construction) F 'OATIOffice /DataCenter t Approx. 100,000sq. ft. (future) {y.' .I Hotel - 257 rooms (future) I 'S �h•K�;'' 'y -1"rl '{r ;� . ' t j' ,t..• .r. 1 INormanPointe III Office Tower- 312,OOOsq. ft. (future) cif'' c �,t"T'�" �ar'.° ' , 'f ;f �;•'t _ K 'Market point Ill Office Tower- t rk ',i ar C�`f' "': s' •�t , ;(— p r- 250000sq ft (future) o, ,: !..( ' _'� - .. .. - r`�� -,�� n 1� �•, , ,F Il,ra env, 3u ,}": :�i• "•; -! •' .�;' a r;r.. +S'.'•ll. ry"'p� 1'�° f e '. • i .� ,+yr -Ua o r� •'�r'r �t/ti k�a O rll•y 7 t�i•%' ti �,)= _ J'j r l ,r l 1 i i""'l --ri C� :It r II •`+ �x�r: }•.,> 1� > L..( �r'�s- TjrerW�,'�11f �-.1J -`i � � r *u wri �, o ytf o .p r�r+'l: r. ,�`` "ff�','f„S^^^^''"'' --s[j' ,,};•' .��;v r _: -o o _ •. I �t tir`�. ;l o_CJV. �'AY. I'1 ' •w i.11° Yt. -, 0'Y. r. ��' _ t,��.. :� 1 t .� •'�..•yt •! I � - � �: �' 11"M1 S,`r 1 i - � •i.. ° ,� `�1 .i, �� .i�1.1 � Y + ° +�� -' ^ • +1 _ c �p, J1;�r`}�. �cI ,�itti. r.-!�� `rr ,�,viB; J:t?'Ja�'r� x�4�•��4"t - t' r:Y_'} r� "L _�'?' �,��' ir, -39i �tix c�`>ll ;J�``f _ j- �r1�, {_'�,3 •'( 4• � rari lf?- .1r- ri•F,� �t RIT. U, i_'�' _. —S (� +`.,� �.: i• I {'�.: �'I r tiJ ._ '. :d'•'. Jj �1�` Se. `�7� ;' Yi �i•j ry��Y ; j"��- ?-T /��S�i�. �y�> ,=' - �..'`4 - � r ''I � .' o. 71 k+'� ��a '; �., Ilt �1 -�, -., J a,``,�ti �•1I -� •f '� ��t � `�Y"t� ` �1'�� {�i,'�t,� ■�'.i -_'• +' <y,� ;l y�., �,<I,, �+t I i f, 7 ` �I'�`��'. o+ "��'� • � S � Tom'• �� -rl. tib��:I,f •;-c' •�'�• Y ��. �.1 i_�y'+ .�� •!• -+< �l ,,, 1 ,, � ,y o. ��c �°a ��t�.- : 'S _:�1::- i - + •} t I I k'J` i I �';�iuc'Y, ,,�•_ Q>zi��;' •�(,' .Y , . J:91!!# i �1 - ��'. l?>.�.. a i.�, .5 �� ,EE-, Y • r -i3J1 ,. 1 ' s� -T tr'. � r�ii i I, �� =• "1 ie^ " , ; J. � � �' � i I L 1 JI j` ( �: '= � . , .4 �•� r6 • D � .° s1% • 7.., :.: •.._ [ �!'I�(il ,;, � '1(��• T ��,1. �• �� o ��:�i.'ny`•dl "�,.•,'', }f• feu: d,z.-. `' I FFlrra ii�� tb a o:;. any .1)(I'�' :� •t,�p(rYy.'< c '�. , �.1.•_!•.•�'....._... �'i'k�i�nlrr�crtvy,,c,�.•i�� l �.•r.1Rr�r.�c!1L`tif1-'�. �:. _ • y�Y 17 I' c':: S �ti; rd._• .•• 'r..l: ••. - �'s'ir — mil`•''• I::y -'� G si��raxu�sst��~,;.�cff _��", � �,� ;..,,jj� r.. ss:,L�'r �i � l�lsy�ir�� L��,� _ �....�:.:.�' -� ��- : o -- _Ai_JL_r��'_l :i.ei:' •''o lu/'dl —ra_ - 4:?�- r 1K r r #- (;:r:�r• •� .I / r , n.'iz `(` ', ",'•_ n�. •1 _. ' r •�s�' ,� . _.!'_ _�. -D ( >j'�- ;C r•i: ;�,lrp- -.5: crs'1 .__""."� C.i,U -�•� " '` �1 i "� Ir. +} 1L.' ' ,J J"1 .' - R - iJ A, �'�•;, _ Jlfl r "e • } to }'';� �� I .� /ti`�r® f 4 !r „},a. -' 't .- t, _ �.7 •�rr1r �,{Ji �Y�r z�` ,�1,r ti /jam �• ;� � S:f � , �z.c �: ,,?•t i.- i ' I i °r�� .: �tf .4'�t Q� .L �. �. ' r 1 / }► L S / 'C• �� ;ia( h 1 + i ti' r '.S �yi. W R + t� 1, ?i rx r rr?t f it s 'I r 0 ��•�,�vFr � �ir ~•-eii� r I �r`e� �:O r p jtr�^^� 0 �+ � ri i�� ,r� :'�, -a }{�• .�� '��r. fr (r �.+ t. i �'rr >rruyyt4 , - ,L `_�` � \�,�;'rJ+ L�IA�y 4 i� .�1r�JTi '' r�t,� {. }r V �?il�. !7 ••t.f'r�9 �i t,; �� i�•'' ,F {., '- y�`,�� 4.i t,tl . +4-. .I`0 �.�•'l:•g ,. 4,r• �1;.y Y�. t'�� =Y��y "i �S'!'`aa,t of .r 4trSt rL-• rmz "'airfCS Ij'l •;jar 7 Lf 'T ",�R. 3. o j„ - o i- 'Rt i4 i'� iJ._,' • F`�� IJ 1 0 f ry ri 'r a r +• ''.'. ,Sr{ �•r�, ��'. —._... ,� .ail 1 ➢r�S��tSt�l_ -5Y ..i 1 .>, S�s.> �"� .`r.�i�'�+ ,4•�7. �y�t%+` i �i''Si�'�'�3" S(ti "�w` •t `� �'�k� � �- f \fir t :'Can't `'• ` ' °-' �.�Y' � }� *t�`r - ,_ ' �r � i�t.� y x - t �'' t ; 4i7..�Z.r �� r•�•T. L. d .t c 4ptf F 1v't�rci:,, r Li 'c V. ` + }1 . s� -ter yYt 1 r;i�1'A'f 1` -�Y-' i 41 *�ti Z >_. Y77 Irr ��.t J? � C� ",-ai • i� -!� `rJr.lC o49e ^f�� Figure 5 0 F� }o Adjacent Developments Map GatewayAVAR 750 1,500 A o Feet WSB 2 &.4m.01arvy, Inc. REPORT /RECOMMENDATION r. dI U 1888 To: MAYOR AND COUNCIL Agenda Item #: VIII.A. From: Cary Teague, Community Development Director Action 0 Discussion ❑x Date: March 18, 2014. Information iD Subject: Consideration of a citizen petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for conversion of the Fred Richards Golf Course in Edina; Resolution No. 2014 =30. Action Requested: Approve the attached Resolution denying the request for an EAW to be done prior to a decision as to whether the Fred Richards golf course be closed. Information /Background: The Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (EQB) received a petition requesting that an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) be prepared for the conversion of the Fred Richards Golf Course in Edina. The EQB determined that the City of Edina is the appropriate governmental unit to determine the need for an EAW. Staff believes that the closing the golf course is not a "project" as that term is defined in Minnesota Rules 4410.0200, Subd. 65, because the closure would not "result in the physical manipulation of the environment, directly, or indirectly." The rezoning application for Pentagon Park project to the south does not include any part of the golf course. An AUAR environmental review was done for the Pentagon Park project. Closing of the golf course and the proposed Pentagon Park redevelopment are not connected actions as that term is defined in Minnesota Rules 4410.0200, Subd. 9c. One "project" does not induce the other, one "project" is not a prerequisite for the, other, and both "projects" stand on their own. ATTACHMENTS: • Resolution No. 2014 -30 • Record of Decision • Letter from the EQB dated February 28, 2014 • Citizens Petition for Environmental Review City of Edina • 4801 W. 50`h St. • Edina, MN 55424 RESOLUTION NO. 2014-30 RESOLUTION CONCERNING A PETITION FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET FOR THE FRED RICHARDS GOLF COURSE WHEREAS, the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (EQB) received a petition requesting that an environmental assessment worksheet be prepared; and WHEREAS, the EQB has determined that the City of Edina is the appropriate governmental unit to determine the need for an EAW. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edina: 1. The Record of Decision is adopted. 2. The evidence presented fails to demonstrate that closing the Fred Richards Golf Course is a "project" as defined by State law or Rule, or that if it is a "project" that it may have the potential for significant environmental effect. 3. The petition for an EAW is denied. Adopted this 18th day of March, 2014. ATTEST: Debra A. Mangen, City Clerk STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )SS CITY OF EDINA ) James B. Hovland, Mayor CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street a Edina, Minnesota 55424 www RdinaMN anv . 952- 977 -RR61 a Fax 952 -R26-0390 r ` RESOLUTION NO. 2014- Page Two 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 March 18, 2014, and as recorded in the Minutes of said Regular Meeting. WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this day of , 2014. City Clerk CITY OF EDINA HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RECORD OF DECISION 1. PETITION. The Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (EQB) received a petition requesting that an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) be prepared for the conversion of the Fred Richards Golf Course in Edina. In a letter dated February 28, 2014, the EQB sent the petition to the City and notified the City that the City of Edina is the appropriate governmental unit to determine the need for an EAW. The City of Edina received the letter and petition from the EQB on March 7, 2014. 2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION. The City of Edina is considering closing the Fred Richards Golf Course ( "golf course "). If the decision is made to close the golf course, the City will undertake a planning process for the future use of the property but no project or action has been decided upon, nor is one pending. 3. FINDINGS. The Edina City Council makes the following findings: 3.1 Closing the golf course is not a "project" as that term is defined in Minnesota Rules 4410.0200, Subp. 65 because the closure will not "result in the physical manipulation of the environment, directly or indirectly." 3.2 Closing the golf course is not within the mandatory or exempt categories listed in Minnesota Rules 4410.43 00, 4410.4400 and 4410.4600. 3.3 The City has received an application to rezone the adjacent Pentagon Park office complex to Planned Unit Development (PUD). The rezoning application does not include any part of the golf course. No part of the golf course property will be included in the Pentagon Park office redevelopment. The golf course property will not be used for stormwater drainage, retention ponds, trails, streets or anything else to serve the Pentagon Park office redevelopment. 3.4 Closing the golf course and the proposed Pentagon Park redevelopment are not connected actions as that term is defined in Minnesota Rules 4410.0200, Subp. 9c. One "project" 175286.v2 does not induce the other; one "project" is not a prerequisite for. the .other, and both "projects" stand on their own: 3.5 The Pentagon Park property. is included within the scope of the 20.07 Gateway Alternative Urban Areawide Review, which was updated on June 1, 2013. 3.6 The City has considered the criteria in. Minnesota Rules 4410.1700, Subp. T. in determining whether the "project" has the potential for significant environmental effects and has determined that the "project" does not have the potential for significant environmental effects. 4. CONCLUSION. The City of Edina denies the petition for an EAW because the evidence presented fails to demonstrate that closing the golf course is a "project" as defined by State law or Rule, or that even if it is a "project" that it would have the potential for significant environmental effects. 175286.v2 Environmental Quality Board 520 LAFAYETTE ROAD NORTH. ST. PAUL, MN 55155 PHONE: 651- 757 -2873 W W W.EQB.STATE.MN.US February 28, 2014 Ms. Ann Kattreh City of Edina 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 VIA E -MAIL AND U.S. MAIL RE: Citizens Petition for an EAW for Conversion of the Fred Richards Golf Course in Edina Dear Ms. Kattreh: The Environmental Quality Board (EQB) has received a petition requesting that an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) be prepared on the project described in the petition, and has determined that the city of Edina is the appropriate governmental unit to decide the need for an EAW. The requirements for environmental review, including the preparation of an EAW, can be found in the Minnesota Rules, chapter 4410. The procedures to be followed in making the EAW decision are set forth in part 4410.1100. Key points in the procedures include: 1. No fmal government approvals may be given to the project named in the petition, nor may construction on the project be started until the need for an EAW has been determined. Project construction includes any activities which directly affect the environment, including preparation of land. If the decision is to prepare an EAW, approval must be withheld until either a Negative Declaration is issued or an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is completed (see part 4410.3 100, subpart 1). 2. A first step in making the decision regarding the need for an EAW would be to' compare the project to the mandatory EAW, EIS, and Exemption categories listed in parts 4410.4300, 4410.4400, and 4410.4600, respectively.. If the project should fall under any of these categories, environmental review is automatically required or prohibited. If this should be the case, proceed accordingly. 3. If preparation of an EAW is neither mandatory nor exempted, the city has the option to prepare an EAW. The standard to be used to decide if an EAW should be done is given in part 4410.1100, subp. 6. Note that this requires that a record of decision, including specific findings of fact, be maintained. 4. You are allowed up to 30 working days (Saturdays, Sundays and holidays do not count) for your decision if it will be made by a council, board, or other body which meets only periodically, or 15 working days if it will be made by a single individual. You may request an extra 15 days from the EQB if the decision will be made by an individual. Ms. Kattreh Page 2 February 28, 2014 5. You must notify, in writing, the proposer, the petitioners' representative, and the EQB of your decision within 5 working days. I would appreciate if you would send a copy of your record of decision on the petition along with notification of your decision for our records. This is not required,. however. 6. If for any. reason you are unable to act on the petition.at this time (e.g., no application has yet been filed or the application has been withdrawn or denied), the petition will remain in effect for a period of one year, and must be acted upon prior to any. final decision concerning the project identified in the petition. Notice of the petition and its assignment to your unit of government will be published in the EQB Monitor on March 3, 2014. If you have any questions or need any assistance, please do not hesitate to call me. The telephone number is 651- 757 -2873. Sincerely, 4 Kate Frantz Planner Principal State Environmental Quality Board KF:bt Enclosure cc: John Stang (email only) Colleen Wolf (email only) Will Seuffert, EQB Executive Director (email only) February 24, 2014 Via Hand Deliverer Minnesota Environmental Quality Board c/o Ms. Kate Frantz 520 Lafayette Road North Saint Paul, MN 55155 RE: Citizens Petition for Environmental Review — City of Edina Land Use Conversion Dear Ms. Frantz — Enclosed please find our Citizens Petition for Environmental Review pursuant to Minnesota Rules 4410.1100 including the following for the project listed above: A description of the proposed project; 2. Identification of the project proposer; 3. Identification of a representative for petitioners, including mailing address and telephone number; 4. A brief description of the project's potential environmental effects, including an explanation of how unusual or unique characteristics of the project or its location create a need for an EAW even though no mandatory threshold is exceeded; 5. Material evidence of potential for significant environmental effects because of the project's nature or location; and 6. Signatures of at least 25 individuals, with no restriction on location of residence, By copy of this letter we have given the project proposer written notice of the filing of the petition. If you have any other'questions please contact me using the information on the petition. Sincerely Ms. Colleen Wolfe City of Edina, Minnesota Hillcrest Development t PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Project: Conversion of the Fred Richards Golf Course in Edina Project Proposer: Hillcrest Development ( "Developer") and City of Edina ( "City') Name, address, and telephone number of the representatives of the Petitioners John Stang pstanq(a-comcast:net 4525 Sedum Lane, Edina, MN 5543.5 612- 804 -7292 Colleen Wolf - colleenwolfe5(aD-comcast.net 4408 Gilford Drive, Edina, MN 952 =250 -6669 Description of the Proposed Project: The City.of Edina Project includes'the closure`land"use conversion and joint repurposing of Fred Richards Golf Course including inclusion of the former golf course in the redevelopment of the Pentagon Park office complex along 77th Street in the City of Edina., (See property location on included materials) and closure, land use conversion and repurposing of Fred Richards Golf Course. The total site area is, on information and belief, approximately 81 acres in size based on site renderings published by the developer and information from the City's website about the golf course; and would likely redevelop the entire combined site over the next 2- 15.years' in the future. Proposed uses include office, retail, residential, and a hotel and'conversion of the City owned golf course into a stormwater drainage area for the development. The Developer is asking the City for a PUD type of Development and inclusion, of the golf course for its plans.. Which would allow greater flexibility of land uses, amenities, setbacks, pedestrian connection, and closing the Fred Richards Golf to redevelop this City open space into a stormwater drainage and retention system for the development and discussed in the attached materia12. 'See Exhibit A. Z See Exhibit C. Exhibit D and Exhibit E Page a Clearly the City's project for the Fred Richards Golf Course. and the redevelopment of the Pentagon Park Office Complex are Connected and Cummulative as defined in Minnesota Rules Part 4410.1000, subpart 4 and part 4410.2000, subpart 4. These rules specify that an EAW or Supplemental EIS must precede approval of each stage or component of connected projects. The City is attempting to divide these two projects merely to divide up a large system into exempted segments which is not allowed under the rules (parts 4410.1000 and 4410.2000, subparts 4). The Fred Richards portion of the connected project cannot be approved or started until the review is completed. Brief Description of Potential environmental effects: The petitioners request an EAW to fully assess the potential for cumulative and sequential significant environmental effects of with the combined City's use intensification and incorporated conversion of the Fred Richards Golf Course into a stormwater drainage and containment system for the development and.surrounding.area. The project resulting with the physical changes to the adjoin sites contemplated,by. the City and Developer start with the closure of the golf course and physical manipulation.to change the drainage, grades, and entire appearance and conditions at.the gite.to allow for an area wide redistribution, change or collection and installation of new stormwater control measures, enhanced human interaction and finally environmental damages and changes. The potential impacts include: 1. Stormwater. Clearly the intentional and unintentional changes in stormwater run -off and drainage to the large surrounding. the Development and Golf Course given the change in topography and drainage can result in many negative impacts, The project is directly in the middle of and connected hydraulically to 9 -Mile Creek and impacts may occur far from the project site. The intensification of use, reconfiguration and physical manipulation..of the. Fred: Richards site golf course anticipates a large increase in. the.water deposited. on the Project site as a result of the City's decision to integrate it into the overall plan for the area.3 9 -mile Creek watershed already has a TMDL established .by the MPCA for Chloride and the City has failed to address the harm and likely d' egradation of this important water body based on increased stormwater run -off from the use of the Project 3 See pages identified as A4, A11 and the staff report as part of Exhibit 'B which show a flooding of the Fred Richards property and incorporation.of a large portion of.the property for stormwater runoff from the Pentagon Park Development. See also, pages'7 —15 of`Exhibit F which' shows the planned connection between the two parcels, intensified "Connection" and "Integrated Stormwater" features on the east side or right hand side of the page. Page?- of property for stormwater from the adjoining redevelopment project and potential violation of the TMDL4 2. Flooding Related Concerns. Petitioners are concerned that the project as proposed will negatively affect.the, already high :wate.r table ;with issues labeled as Other Flood Areas on the FEMA flood maps published -.by :the City9, pushing water to nearby residential areas in an area with a high water table and history of flooding. Petitioners are also concerned that the previously low areas of the project land will be graded to a height higher than'current 'conditions thereby affecting nearby residential areas. The City has, failed to address or consider these externalities associated with its development. The petitioners are concerned about the potential increase in mosquitoes in the summer associated with this flooding. 3. Wildlife Impacts. Because the project the City is contemplating is in the middle of the nine mile creek watershed district, and because much of the project involves reducing dry land in the same, Petitioners are concerned about the impact on species which migrate through the area. `Including the identification of threatened or endangered species including6: a. Two Blanding!s: TOM es (Emydoidea bl.a'nding b. One Peregrine a Falcon (Fl,co pere.griries); c. One Common.M.00rhen (Gallinula; dh propus) d. One Forester'sTern. (Sterna forsteri) Petitioners do not believe that the RGU. has. taken this..matter into consideration. A site survey of these resources shouldbe conducted. 4. Soil contamination, hazardous waste and storage tanks. There is no indication that a plan dealing with the disturbance of'polluted soil has been submitted. It is not known how ground water will- be impacted when polluted soil is disturbed. The City should be required to identify any toxic or h'azardous'materials to be used or present at the site and must identify measures to be used to prevent them from contaminating groundwater. There is an extensive history.,of leaking underground storage tanks used for gasoline, heating fuel oil aril waste oil in the Project area A 4 See Exhibit J 5 See Exhibit G The Department of Homeland Security's Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has prepared Preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) plate 27053C0452 published on Edina City Website http: / /edinamn.gov /ir dL-X,php? section= coihMohity- development. 6 See Exhibit H Page 3 of search of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) website accessing "What's in My Neighborhood!" data: indicated the: following sites are identified within or near the project boundary:: a. • 1 former CERCLIs /Supe.rfund,site b. - 1 abandoned unpermitted dump located west of Tracy Avenue c. - 5 leaking underground storage tank sites (some with more than one release event) . d. - 2 air permitted sites e. - 28 hazardous waste generators (small to minimal quantity) f. - 21 tank sites? The number, location and size of underground storage tanks have not been provided. Petitioners are also concerned about the proximity and:lack of information on the limit:: of the former France Avenue Dump for the City.of Bloomington just to the east and up- gradient of the City's project. Depending on.the rain,during the time of excavation, Petitioners want to see a plan for the disposal of potentially contaminated rainwater that accumulates on the construction and.storage tank sites. There is no plan of which Petitioners are aware that deals with storage, disposal or reuse of polluted soil. Petitioners request an emergency response containment plan be made publicly available. 5. Additional Impacts. Additional impacts from the Project include: a. Wastewater treatment or septic system issues. b. Noise c. Odors d. Visual and Aesthetic Impacts The Proposed Project falls into a .Mandatory Category for,.Environmental Review See Exhibit Page y of While not part of this application, the petitioners request that the EQB consider the absence of compliance by the City by way.of its ignoring the requirements of Minnesota Rules 4410.4300. An EAW must be prepared for projects that meet or exceed threshold of any of the criteria listed in Subparts, 21hrough'37 of.the rule. If the project is an "expansion" of an existing project, like here where the City of Edina is seeking to combine the Fred Richards golf course with the Pentagon Park development, the cumulative total of the proposed project must be taken into account (e.g. the total 81 acres). Subpart 36 of Minnesota Rule 4410.4300 specifically lists "Land use conversion, including golf courses as one the threshold categories that requires a mandatory environmental review. Previously, the Gateway Alternative Urban Area wide review was completed 2007, but ONLY for the Pentagon Park Redevelopment Project. That study did not include the incorporation or intensified use of the Fred Richards golf course and did not address cumulative or sequenced environmental impacts associated with the project.$ Additionally, that AUAR is outdated as it is "required to be updated every 5 years.9 Supporting Evidence: Without an on -site investigation and analysis; the applicant's relied upon information supplied by the City of Edina and the Developer. This information includes: 1. Project Aerial Photo - Exhibit A 2. Staff Report to Edina Planning Commission dated December 11. 2013 — Exhibit B 3. Minutes of the City of Edina for Work Session for Pentagon Park dated April 16, 2013 and minutes — Exhibit C 4. December 6, 2013 Minneapolis /St. Paul Business Journal — Exhibit D 5. January 17, 2014 Edina Sun Current — Exhibit E 6. Open House Presentation from Hillcrest Development September 2013 — Exhibit F 7. FEMA Flood Insurance Map from City of Edina Website February 2014 — Exhibit G 8. Three Rivers Park District Presentation on Regional Trail Edina Section September 17, 2013 — Exhibit H 9. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Printout of Whats in My Neighborhood from MPCA Website February 2014 — Exhibit I 10. US Environmental Protection Agency Total Maximum Daily Load requirements for Chloride for 9 Mile Watershed district -. Exhibit J'. 11. Information from www.savethefred.org 8 See Exhibit B 9 See Exhibit C Page S of Cp 12. Information from www.ec namn.goy.; Conclusion: The applicant is petitioning the Environmental Quality Board to order the preparation of a discretionary Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) so that the full impact of this significant change and physical manipulation of both the project site and City's significant land use conversion in the open space of the Golf Course to a combined, integrated and part of the commercial Pentagon Park development can be thoroughly reviewed for its Cumulative Environmental Affects. This major land use conversion in the use of the City land will significantly degrade the quality of management of stormwater, air quality, traffic and noise, along with other significant factors. In addition the increase in traffic will endanger local auto and pedestrian traffic. Given the City of Edina's involvement in the project the Petitions urge the EQB to consider appointing the 9 -Mile Creek Watershed District as the RGU for this review. Furthermore, this Project by the City:of. Edina. more than meets the threshold for mandatory environmental review as required by Minnesota Rules 4410.4300, Subpart 36 given the land use conversions being proposed by the City. The formal initiation of the EAW. process will lead. to th& establishment of consistent regulatory guidelines that will ensure that.future generations will benefit the community as a whole and the developer and, future developers and: residents of the City. Respectfully Submitted, Ms. Colleen M. Wolf 4408 Guilford Lane Edina, MN 55435 952 - 250 -6669 Page C of City Hall • Phone 952- 927.8861 Fax 952 - 826 -0389 • www.CityorFdina.com I � Exhibit B Date: December 11, 2013 To: Planning Commission From: Cary Teague, Community Development Director Re: Sketch Plan Review — Pentagon Park MEMO oC, �r HBO �y • `'tt°iR°fi''a' The Planning Commission is asked to consider a sketch plan proposal to redevelop Pentagon Park along 77th Street. (See property location on page Al.) The total site area is 43 acres in size; and would likely redevelop over the next 2 -15 years in the future. Proposed uses include office, retail and a hotel. No housing is anticipated at this time, however, that use is currently allowed on the property, and should remain as a potential future land use. (See sketch plans including two development options on pages A3 -Al2.) The site is currently zoned MDD -6, Mixed Development District. (See existing overall development plan for Pentagon Park on page A2.) Anticipated land uses for the site all meet the current zoning regulations. Fallowing the sketch plan review by the Planning Commission and City Council, the applicant will follow up with a request to rezone the site to PUD, Planned Unit Development, to allow greater flexibility of land uses, amenities, setbacks, pedestrian connection, and depending on the future use of Fred Richards Golf Course, potential greater connection and integration in this public space. The goal after sketch plan is to obtain a Preliminary Rezoning to PUD of the entire site, along with approval of an overall master development plan. Final Rezoning would then be sought, along with the first phase of development, which would likely be the property on the south side of 77th Street adjacent to Highway 100. A compliance table is provided on the following page to demonstrate how the proposed plans would comply with the current zoning of MDD -6, Mixed Development District, MEMO A. �Ft En � L Compliance Table " Would require a Variance under the current code The most significant change proposed is replacing the residential square footage with non- residential square footage. Within the context of the Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR), the proposal would shift from Scenario 2, to closer to Scenario 3. (See pages A15 & A35, of the attached AUAR.) Please note on page A35, the square footage proposed, does not exceed the maximum square footage contemplated in the AUAR. City of Edina - 4801 W. 500, St - Edina, MN 55424 City Standard (MDD -6)' Proposed - PUD Setbacks - Buildings Front -Setback 35 feet + % foot for each foot the building *50 feet (77`" Street -12 story height exceeds minimum setback buildings) *35 feet (Viking Drive - 12 story buildings) Rear 35 feet +' /2 foot for each foot the building 50 feet height exceeds minimum setback Side 35 feet +' /2 foot for each foot the building 50 feet height exceeds minimum setback Setbacks - Parking Structures Front/street 20 feet or the height of the structure 50 feet Building Height 4 stories north of 77" Street *5 stories 12 stories south of 77 "' Street 12 stories (Heights over 12 stories Would require a Comprehensive Plan amendment) Parking lot and drive aisle setback 20 feet (street) 20 feet Building Coverage 30% 30% Maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 50% - Non - residential Uses *1,777,560 s.f, total proposed 50% - Residential Uses non - residential (includes, 1,881,134 square foot site Burgundy Place, Walsh Title & a 250,000 s.f. hotel) Parking Stalls — Mixed Non Residential: 1,777,560 s.f. /300 = 5,425 Parking detail has not been Development District stalls required calculated at this time Minimum Lot Size 43 acres 43 acres " Would require a Variance under the current code The most significant change proposed is replacing the residential square footage with non- residential square footage. Within the context of the Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR), the proposal would shift from Scenario 2, to closer to Scenario 3. (See pages A15 & A35, of the attached AUAR.) Please note on page A35, the square footage proposed, does not exceed the maximum square footage contemplated in the AUAR. City of Edina - 4801 W. 500, St - Edina, MN 55424 MEMO �91� 11t o� E) . r,1q /rtl jam. While, the densities contemplated here are still within the parameters of the GUAR, traffic would have to be studied to verify if any, and at what point would roadway improvements would be necessary per the AUAR. PUD GOALS Below are the Code requirements and considerations for PUD. The applicant has pledged to include many of the goals and standards for a PUD. Those include: Sustainable design, living streets concept, improved pedestrian connections, pedestrian oriented design, and lighting, landscaping and creative Stormwater management. D. Procedure for Rezoning to a Planned Unit Development (PUD) District. 1. Purpose and Intent. The purpose of the PUD District is to provide comprehensive procedures and standards intended to allow more creativity and flexibility in site plan design than would be possible under a conventional zoning district. The decision to zone property to PUD is a public policy decision for the City Council to make in its legislative capacity. The purpose and intent of a PUD is to include most or all of the following: a. provide for the establishment of PUD (planned unit development) zoning districts in appropriate settings and situations to create or maintain a development pattern that is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan; b. promote a more creative and efficient approach to land use within the City, while at the same time protecting and promoting the health, safety, comfort, aesthetics, economic viability, and general welfare of the City; c. provide for variations to the strict application of the land use regulations in order to improve site design and operation, while at the same time incorporate design elements that exceed the City's standards to offset the•effect of any variations. Desired design elements may include: sustainable design, greater utilization of new technologies in building design, special construction materials, landscaping, lighting, stormwater management, pedestrian oriented design, and podium height at a street or transition to residential neighborhoods, parks or other sensitive uses; d. ensure high quality of design and design compatible with surrounding land uses, including both existing and planned; City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 MEMO O e e. maintain or improve the efficiency of public streets and utilities; preserve and enhance site characteristics including natural features, wetland protection, trees, open space, scenic views, and screening; g. allow for mixing of land uses within a development; h. encourage a variety of housing types including affordable housing; and ensure the establishment of appropriate transitions between differing land uses. 2. Applicability /Criteria a. Uses. All permitted uses, permitted accessory uses, conditional uses, and uses allowed by administrative permit contained in the various zoning districts defined in Section 850 of this Title shall be treated as potentially allowable uses within a PUD district, provided they would be allowable on the site under the Comprehensive Plan. Property currently zoned R -1, R -2 and PRD -1 shall not be eligible for a PUD. b. Eligibility Standards. To be eligible for a PUD district, all development should be in compliance with the following: where the site of a proposed PUD is designated for more than one (1) land use in the Comprehensive Plan, the City may require that the PUD include all the land uses so designated or such combination of the designated uses as the City Council shall deem appropriate to achieve the purposes of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan; any PUD which involves a single land use type or housing type may be permitted provided that it is otherwise consistent with the objectives of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan; iii. permitted densities may be specifically stated in the appropriate planned development designation and shall be in general conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; and iv. the setback regulation, building coverage and floor area ratio of the most closely related conventional zoning district shall be considered presumptively appropriate, but may be departed from to accomplish the purpose and intent described in #1 above. As highlighted above in bold, the City may require housing to be incorporated into the City of Edina - 4801 W. 50th SG - Edina, MN 55424 MEMO ti�Jf E �d ,2 development to achieve the purpose of the MDD -6 zoning and the Comprehensive Plan which calls for housing within the development. The applicant has indicated that housing may be a possibility in future, but does not anticipate it in the short term. City of Edina - 4801 W. 5001 St. • Edina, MN 55424 1 e Y �i • ,i ��. � �� '�r -�'"� t..l • Y `�' �� w � R�r-i ��'�. -•;i Cenrennrof Lokes Purk, DAMONFARBERASSOCIATES 77TH AVENUE BRIDGE BOB CLOSE STUDIO, LLC _ EDINA, W-1 - NOVEMBER G, 2013 1L PARK STO RMWATE R OTT, Docksfde. IC hamma Upper Landing, Sr. Paul. MN Lv L LL' 7- DAM ON FARBER ASS OCIATES BOB CLOSE STUDIO, LLC FRED.PJCHARDS RECONFIGURATION 7; A niaf La jr -- -- . �- J- gli VIVI :Can STORMWATER MANAGEMENT EDINA, I'VIN - NOVEMBER 6, 2013 -JIL: 7- Lergnniol L.Q.kes Pork, Edina, —N INTERNAL STREET CONCEPT PLAN - -- -- -� KEY ELEMENTS r �� o' Sdewall: QOUIeVDrd Side -walks i E' oeulevard . DeCOiative lighting Shade trees :;reel Trees ti • Parking bays • _ s Farking Bay ��►> Decorative Lighlinp �(. " _ r• u I � r INTERNAL STREET CONCEPT SECTION _ � . � � r^.0. y� �+r Y .• T _ 1 � . i o 6' 12 10' 0 ' 0 12' 0 10' c 0 6 O boulevard parking travel lane travel lane parking boulevard sidewalk S r,, 44, roadway 62' R.O.W. DAMON FARBER ASSOCIATES ROADWAYTYPES 806 CLOSE STUDIO, LLC - - -- • EDIfdA, IVI`J - NO` /EMBER 5, 2013 GREEN STREET CONCEPT PLAN fill P-kinq Bay 7 Boulevard Trees KEY ELEMENTS rTM� .1 Parallel parking 61boulevards/6'sidewalks - Decorative lighting W& -Street trees ILI GREEN STREET CONCEPT SECTION 06ti 6, 6' bou]Lcv-iird� slde7,falke Sidewalk bouFovard* P�rlLdng i.r. travel lane P 44! roadway ko.w. DAMON FARBERASSOCIATES ROADWAYTYPES BOB CLOSE STUDIO, LLC EDINA, MN - NOVEMBER 6, 2013 SUPPORTING STREET CONCEPT PLAN i• - 6' Sgdew:G. :0' 6oW_va•o Decrruve L,gncn7 Z7 - 1 KEY ELEMENTS n��•� �_., _•4 ' �? - _ -,..� - P «ra'1ei;larl:in a T -� _• -'IO / boulevards /iJ sidewa!I<s l C ,:.� -' • Decorative lighting =* - l • S-ireet trees ^•i �. 47. aiwi i -•i N6 �tr SUPPORTING STREET CONCEPT SECTION roadway 76' R.Q.W. DAMON FARBER ASSOCIATES ROADWAYTYPES 808 CLOSE STUDIO, LLC __ _ EDINA, IVIN - NOVEMBER o, 2033 i 6' 10' O 10 ®— S2` 12' 6 10' m 10' D v' sidewalk bou[e'2rd parking trove lane travel lane parking boulevard sidewalk roadway 76' R.Q.W. DAMON FARBER ASSOCIATES ROADWAYTYPES 808 CLOSE STUDIO, LLC __ _ EDINA, IVIN - NOVEMBER o, 2033 PARKWAY CONCEPT PLAN I KEY ELEMENTS Decorative lighting 4 Street trees 6'sidewalk with I O'boulevard 411 eet Trees One lane of traffic in each direction Parking bays for parking —10' Sculmrd PARKWAY CONCEPT SECTION M" Fmd RWU& CAN clam DAMON FARBERASSOCIATES BOB CLOSE STUDIO, LLC 10, 12, 12' 10, 10' a — 0 '_ L_ ♦ V Zi regional trail boulevard travel lane travel lane b.;12.-d ,i1W. roadway R.O.W. ROADWAYTYPES EDINA, MN - NOVEMBER b, 2013 77TH CONCEPT PLAN Center Mediae rr 6' Sidev+aG; awTransit Shelter ~a, J e - ,0 Bouwvard Street Trees —Street Light Left Turn Lane F Decorative Lighting 77TH CONCEPT SECTION KEY ELEMENTS - Center median with small accent trees -Left turn lanes • Boulevard /sidewalks • Decorative lighting • Shade trees - Transit shelters • Street lights - Pedestrian lights 7 61 e 10' 12' 12` varies' Y 17 10' ® 6' sidewalk boulevard travel lane travel G. medtan travel lane travel lane boulevard slde.val'r, erlstIng 0 1LO.W. DAM 01N FARBER ASSOCIATES ROADWAYTYPES 608 CLOSE STUDIO, LLC _ EDINA, MN - NOVEMQEa 6, 2013 Key Statistics Land Use Structured Parking South Parcel: Hotel- 375 - 425 Rooms A 1,400 STALLS Office - 500,000 GSF 8 1,400 STALLS Retail - 25,000 GSF C 800 STALLS North Parcel: Office- 900,000 GSF D 800 STALLS Retail - 15,000 GSF E 800 STALLS Retail /Medical/Office - 20,000 GSF F 1,200 STALLS Building Heights "12+ Story p 12 Story '— 5 Story 4 Story 2 Story 'Pofcnttalriuildirtg Hcghf f light 6e Gicare� than 1� $(odo. FRED RICHARDS GOLF COURSE u O � o a0 BURGUNDY PLACE �— - -- - - -- -- - - - i -- -- W 77TH ST ViALSH -nTLE I I - t BARR ENGINEERING 3.1 - W 77TH ST �F DAMONFARBERASSOCIATES BUILDING HEIGHTS BOB CLOSE STUDIO, LLC EDINA, PAN - DECENIBER 6, 2013 w 3g a6 a 4N 76TH ST �Y RegionalTrail © Parkway [� 77th © Supporting Streets c Green Streets o Intemal Streets Parking D Building Water Open Space "Underpass 0' 250` SOG' OTransitSheiter O Monuments Key Statistics Land Use Structured Parking South Parcel: Hotel - 375 - 425 Rooms A 1,400 STALLS Office - 500,000 GSF B 1,400 STALLS Retail - 25,000 GSF C 800 STALLS North Parcel: Office - 900,000 GSF D 800 STALLS Retail - 15,000 GSF E 800 STALLS F 1,200 STALLS m J �6 o F FRED RICHARDS GOLF COURSE - ai 7. BURGUNDY` PLACE 1D F�w I i 1Yµ5MTF1 I � f a 1. l BARRENGINEERING W d V DAM ON FARBER ASSOCIATES PRELi AINARY PLANNING COMMISSION BOB CLOSE STUDIO, LLC TIF DIAGRAM ,- - -- EDINA, MN - NOVEMBER &, 2013 Regional Trail Traif Connection ;21 Parkway IIIIIIIII 771h .'Supporting Streets —Green Streets -' Internal streets %= Parking O Building Water Open Space Underpass n Transit Shelter r) Monuments N/ 76TH ST �L) r 0' 250' S00' �i Key Statistics Land Use Structured Parking South Parcel: Hotel- 375 -425 Rooms A 1,400STALLS Office - 500,000 GSF 8 1,400 STALLS Retail - 25,000 GSF C 800 STALLS North Parcel: Office- 900,000 GSF D 800 STALLS Retail - 15,000 GSF E 800 STALLS F 1,200 STALLS 0 2 I FRED RICHARDS GOLF COURSE �4 G6 '� 2 �6 4 o- W 76TH Sr C2 G IL BURGUNDY _ ,..........� __' . PLACE �"'�� WALSH TITLE rL t� f BARRENGINEERING� -' El' - `- -Regional Trail iy TrailConnerion MParkway _ 77th Supporting Streets � Green Streets Internal Streets L ^yjGDR Parking p Building -1 Water v --1 Open Space Underpass 0' 250' 500' L"3 Transit Shelter O Monuments 'ww D_ AMONFARBERASSOCIATES PRELIMINARY PLANNING COMMIS5ION1 808 CLOSE STUDIO, LLC TIF DIAGRAM C3 = +, > EDINA, MN - NOVEMBER 6, 2013 >'v7 } r� c � +�- ' i ' � +.- 'p` It 6 ?�. yr� ;'r:, i -•� -.I _-� ..;rte _ `'`, r. `.4 �• _ - - 1113 _ _ �^ •.;j� -:.:F 1 �_�rAa.��e -r. '�' .•.;p• - . •1i r. ! '� �� `, _ a `•� rJ�r M J �� ..v_�W �,.,�+•n�' ' T J}�^ .T - _ _ �� • y�,j��. �w r� �''jj�Il.��JJ�JJJ�1 •z��1,j�� }j �� '��- T'Ji��](�'j]'�� y f�. • 1 �' � yr �M- - �' i dfF_" ! • 11.. i + - � _ I� _� �1� __]�.= v = _f T" I � � � _ �'�; •, .S I f• � 1 ._ k +�� \!��_ �__ icl I �� r� -- � _ l O _ I -,�, -- tlla i — f �I�t.�. yy.. • 1- � � � I � ! 'Y `R i�.�^ , `I.�[^•�;.- ....-ec 1 j U �I'.� � .� ti'� I � I � %_ ;.i2✓, r� �' \y — i.�..r''�'i'iiGi;) i �. O ( -- -- - - - ,:. - .. __ `— !�_s -^�= - (^--- • --..d. fir-- _ . jo Nr. �i ,`, 5 � - r - �• _ _`_ ..- I� - s••r ram t .. u ,' ^, t� _ - .. I I :.%JFiel os ! I 11rrt 4 i.- • ACTIVE PHASE PROPOSED BUILDING EXISTING BUILDING 00`JO rte\ - l{�{�{aar I _ _.. SCALE IN � r. r f. r_ -•!� ti`iIl I'5wa �°im' r 1 A. LOFT HOTIE {�^l WEST PARKING EAST BUILDING (4 -11 STORIES' OVIMALL uF V E to PmEAs T 150 ROOMS I,2 LEVELS STALLS 36D,000 gsf i �u bl EASTPARIlING �o 15 7G00 PARKLAWN n CU TOWNHOME 1 TOWNHOME 2 6 LEV€LS 85,632 sf S 18 UNITS 18 UNITS 1.200 STALLS m `I g m F� l.�ayi 17 BURGUNDY PLACE w Q INDEPENDENT LIVING 1 INDEPENDENT LIVING 2+ ASSISTED LIVING 2 N 122 UNITS 122 UNITS 103 UNITS 3G UNITS ( IXED USE) a � 1 G,560 gsf n o ASSISTED LIVING 1 TOWNHO S 3 (U I S T Im - -' — 1 B WALSH TITLE 103 g 21,000 gsf (OFFICE) WEST BUILDING (4-10 STORIES) INDEPENDENT LIVING 3 377,375 gsf (OFFICE) 122 UNITS milterdunwiddie 1-'jF71 MuNeydlom 1�' S e.�4 ne ^n w..,,,n, me ouanac t:m na. if11tll[CIVMF afl\4 i�550C181Q5, Inc. C.111i. H0.r INMnfil�. EDINA GATEVUP,Y .nr.• �t..wunar zaan 125 NOrlh-,h,d R-1 Sale la: Pentagon Park Rcdcvc(Dpmeni PROPOSED SITE PLAN !!�s �•f+ _ ML— t MN 55401 i6R Wa .lu .,: 40 EDINA GATEMY- COMPLETE PROJECT S-2. P P. pzua P. op0r414rr, LLC.- Re- Zoning and Overall Plan I201� � 'Ll, 'i S 96 Mi Atli I c 4l C: Po I �tj� I c 4l C: Po Original AUAR: September 2007 Update 1: June 2013 Prepared By: WSB & Associates, Inc. City of Edina 701 Xenia Avenue.- Suite 300 4801 West 50th Street Minneapolis, MN 55416 Edina, MN 55424 763 -541 -4800 952- 826 -0460 FinalAlternadve UrbaeAreawide Review Update GatewayStudyArea City of Edina, MN WSR Project No.1686.37 TABLE OF CONTENTS TITLE SHEET TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction and Purpose .......................................................... ..............................1 II. Approved Development /Current Conditions ......................... ..............................2 III. Areas Remaining to be Developed ............................................ ..............................2 IV. Update to the Environmental Review ...................................... ..............................2 V. Mitigation Summary and Update ................................................. ..............................7 VI. AUAR Update Review .................................................................. .............................14 List of Figures Figure 1 Location Map Figure 2 USGS Location Map Figure 3 Aerial Photo Figure 4 -1 Scenario 1 Figure 4 -2 Scenario 2. Figure 4 -3 Scenario 3 Figure 4 -4 Scenario 4 Figure 5 Adjacent Developments Appendix A - Figures Appendix B - Agency Correspondence Ffnal Alternative UrbanAreawlde Review Update Gateway StudyArea City ofEdinq, MN WSB Project No. 1686 -37 /� i L Introduction and Purpose The Gateway Study Area (Study Area) is approxiniately 135 acres. The Study.Area is bounded by Minnesota Trunk Highway 100 (TH 100) on the west; France Avenue on the east; 76th Street West and Fred Richards Golf Course on the north; and Edina's Border with Bloomington on the. south. The area is shown on Figures 1, 2, and 3. The Study Area currently contains 'a mixture of light industrial / warehouse, commercial, office and residential uses, There is a total of 1,904;000 gross square feet (gst) of these uses in the existing conditions. i The City of Edina adopted the Final AUAR on November 5,'2007. Pursuant to j Minnesota Rules 44.1.0.3610 Subp. 7, for the AUAR to remain valid as the j environmental review document for the area, the document needs to be updated every five years until all development in the study area has received final approval. Since redevelopment has not occurred in the study area and the AUAR expired in November 2012, the purpose of this document is to Update the AUAR pursuant to Minnesota j Rules. The 2007 AUAR included an analysis of the following development scenarios (Figure 4 -1 to 4 -4): Scenario 1; Comprehensive Plan Scenario 2 — Master Plan Scenario Scenario 3 — Maximum, Commercial Build Scenario Scenario 4 — Maximum Residential Scenario Tahie 1: Stimmary of Red eveloninetit Scenarios In 2008, the City updated their Comprehensive Plan. However, Scenario 1 is still consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.. This AUAR Update serves as an update of the 2007 AUAR, and includes a review of the areas that have and have not developed, an update to: the environmental analysis as needed, and a review of the mitigation measures. The original 2007 AUAR is available Fina[Aiternative Urban Arearvide Revlesv Update GatetivayStudyArea City of Edina, MN WSBProject No. 106131 fune 2013 A' S Page 1 Existing - Scenario 1: Scenario 2: Scenario 3: Scenario 4: Conditions Comprehensive Master Plan Maximum Maximum Plan Commercial Residential Office 1,546,000 1,862;000. 3,261,000 1,094,000 Commercial / 15,000 174,000 151000 15;000 Retail Hotel 1,873,000 Office& Light 1,296,000 1,296,000. 1,296,000 1,296,000 Industrial Mix Residential 31,000 31,000 914;000 31,000 1,581,000 TOTAL: 1,904,000 2,888,000. 4,246,000 4,603,000 3,986,000 In 2008, the City updated their Comprehensive Plan. However, Scenario 1 is still consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.. This AUAR Update serves as an update of the 2007 AUAR, and includes a review of the areas that have and have not developed, an update to: the environmental analysis as needed, and a review of the mitigation measures. The original 2007 AUAR is available Fina[Aiternative Urban Arearvide Revlesv Update GatetivayStudyArea City of Edina, MN WSBProject No. 106131 fune 2013 A' S Page 1 for review on the City's web -site at http:/Jedinamn,govfindex.plip ?section= commuliiiyr evelopment=-lahning, 11. Approved Development /Current Conditions No redevelop'ineiit.has,occurred within the study. area. Figure 3 shows the aerial photo for the`site, In 2008, the City up dated their_ Comprehensive Ban. However, Scenario I is still consistent with the Comprehensive' Plan. III. Areas Remaining to be Developed No redevelopment has occurred within the siudyarea, The initial potential redevelopmentillat triggered the initial ALTAR in 2007 did not come to fruition. Recently, there has been renewed interest in redevelopment of the area.. The redevelopment plans are within or below the densities analyzed in the AUAR. Timeline: The 2007 ALTAR anticipated redevelopment of the.Pentagon Towers and Pentagon Quad areas (approximately 39 acres) to begin in 2008 and be completed within 5 -7 years. The remaining 96 acres did not have a specific timeline for redevelopment. This redevelopment has not occurred. The current estimate for redevelopment timeline for the area is 5 -10 years. I IV. Update to the Environmental Review Wildlife: The DNR Natural Heritage. Database was reviewed to provide an update for any threatened and endangered species. -This review and DNR correspondence is included in Appendix B. There are no new incidents of rare or endangered species within the study area, j Contamination and Past Land Use: Public MPCA database information was reviewed to update this section of the AUAR'to identify verified or potential hazardous substances and petroleum release sites associated.with the project- area or surrounding area. The following databases were reviewed as part of this investigation: i a MPCA "What's in My Neighborhood ?" website search O MPCA Storage Tank Leak site website search Twenty -nixie database listings were identified for the project area. Some of the identified sites were listed on more than one database and the majority of the listings I were for small quantity hazardous.waste generator (15) and tank sites (7). Inclusions on these databases do not directly indicate an environmental hazard and no spills or mishandling of hazardous waste was identified during the review. However, the following database listings for the project area were deterniined to directly indicate historic or current environmental contamination: Final Alternative UrbanAremvide Review Update Page 2 Gateway Study Area City of Edin a, MN WS9 Project No. 1686.3r jnne 2013 {(i_ Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Sites ci MPCA Leak #4105 _ Pentagon Office Park located at 4930 West 77th Street, . Edina, MN,SS435. This site has been issued site closure by the MPCA. Site. closure indicates that the contamination, if present,' has been investigated and determined to not pose a threat to human health or the environment. Note; site .closure does not indicate that the site is free of contamination. . a MPCA Leak #627 - Pentagon Office Park located at West 7701 Street, Edina, MN 554351 This site has been issued site closure.by the MPCA. a MPCALeak # 617 -- Roberts. Automatic Products located at 1,451 West 76th Street, Edina, MN 55435. This site has been issued site closure by the MPCA. Voluntary Investigation and Cleanup (VIC) Sites MPCA VIC #28660 - Hillcrest Development located at 4530; 4540, 4550, 4570, 4600, 4640, and 4660 West 7701 Street, Edina, MN 55435. ' o MPCA VIC 929410 - Hillcrest Development located at 4510, 4815, and 4,901 West 77th Street and 7600 Parklawn Avenue, Edina, MN 55435. 4 MPCA VIC #2890 - Parklawn located at 7625 Parklawn Avenue, Edina, MN,\ 55435. O MPCA VIC #13540 - National Rental Ca_ r located at 77.00 Feance Avenue, Edina, MN 55435. Petroleum Brownfields Sites • MPCA P13 #4182 - Hillcrest Development located at 4530, 4540, 4550, 4570, 4600, 4640, and 4660 West 7701 Street, Edina, MN 55435 (also a VIC,site). • MPCAPB. #4239 - Hillcrest Development located at 4510, 4815, and 4901 West 77th Street and 7600 Parklawn Avenue, Edina,.MN 55435 (also a VIC site). Wastewater System: The AUAR analyzed the Wastewater system in the area, including the Metropolitan Council's interceptor, BN -499; Since the 2007 AUAR, a wastewater project was completed in the area. Asa result of the AUAR and potential re- development anticipated within the study area, the City of Bloomington, in conjunction with Met Council, upgraded Lift Station 10 (MCES L-55) to a near -term capacity of 1.8 million gallons per day (nngd). Project improvements also involved constructing a new 16 -inch forcemain to replace the existing 12 -inch forcemain in West 84th Street in. Bloomington providing a long -term capacity in the forcemain of 4.8 mgd. Inter - community flows from Edina have been- redirected to the new forcemain, essentially bypassing the gravity portions of MCES Interceptor BN -499 to provide additional capacity for re- development in Bloomington. Water Supply System: No changes to the water supply system have occurred in the area. Finat Alternative Urban Areamvide.Neview Update ' Pade 3 Gateway 5tudydrea City of Edina, AIN WSB Project No. 1686.37 Ja►1e 2013 All Storm Water Management: The Nine Mile Creels Watershed District adopted updated rules in 2008. Based on these rules, if a redevelopment project disturbs more than 50 percent of the existing impervious surface on the parcel (or increases the imperviousness of the entire parcel by more than 50 percent), retention of one inch of runoff from all the impervious surface will need to be provided, Also, peak flow runoff rates cannot exceed the existing conditions for the 2-year, 10-year, and 100 -year storm events and the runofffrom a 2.5 -inch storm event from the parcel will need to be treated to remove at least 60% of the phosphorus and 90% of the total suspended solids. Additionally, Edina Lake, which is north of the project area, was added to the impaired waters list in 2008, Edina Lake is Impaired for n utrients/eutroph icati on. No TMDL study has been completed to date. Transportation: The AUAR completed in 2007 analyzed the impacts of the four development scenarios for the years 2014 and 2030. The analysis for both years assumed a 1% per year growth. in general background traffic, the approved development in the Cities of Bloomington and Edina (see Cumulative Impacts) and the proposed Gateway Development traffic. Updated traffic counts were conducted the week of April 1, 2013 at selected intersection Iand roadway segments on 77th ,Avenue. The updated traffic counts weie then compared to those assumed in the 2007 AUAR to determine if the analysis and recommended mitigation measures were still valid. The peak hour traffic counts ranged from 5% to 15% less than those counted for the base year in the AUAR in 2007. In addition, the 2013 counts were 65% to 75% less than the 2014 Scenario 1 condition, which had the smallest associated trip generation. The Average Daily Traffic (ADT) counts used as a baseline in the AUAR were fr6m the 2005 MnDOT State Aid counts. In 2009 these counts were updated and in general, these counts were at or slightly lower than those in 2005. The 2013 ADT counts compared to the 2009 ADT counts showed a slight increase (10 %) on the section of 77th Street from TH 100 to Parklawn Avenue. Based on the facts that 1) no Gateway Development has occurred in the area, and 2) the majority of the additional development has been in Bloomington and Cdina and their traffic generation included in the new 2013 traffic counts, and 3) the area traffic levels have not changed significantly from those assumed in the AUAR for the baseline conditions (see Cumulative Impacts), it can be concluded that the future year analysis and recommended mitigation is still valid. Cuumulative impacts: The Study Area and its surroundings are within a first -ring suburb of Minneapolis that is generally fully developed. Cumulative impacts will generally be driven by either individual parcel redevelopment or area -wide redevelopment. To analyze cumulative impacts for the StudyArea, the information Final4ttemative Urban Areawlde Revlew Update Page 4 Gateway Study Areo city of Edino, MN WSS ProjeetNo. 1696 -3.7 June 2011 i UU from the 2007 AUAR was updated to reflect known or approved redevelopment projects within or near the TH 100 and I -494 area. Table 2 summarizes the known redevelopment plans and updates the 2007 AIJAR in the area and Figure 5 shows the location of these projects, Table 2. Summary of Adjacent Redevelopment Proposals C. Development Sulnmaiy o , Im ants Dtdce -Weeks Realty Linrited Phase 1 and 2 completed Phase 3 to add an additional 312,000 sq. it. of office in Partnership the future Norman Pointe Walser Real Estate 11, LLC 50,000 sq. ft. car dealership project completed. Walser Toyota Addition of 19.2,000 W ofinedical office space completed Ryan Companies US,1irc. phase 1 and 2 completed. Phase 3 to add an additional 250,000 sq. ft. of office in (Marketpoin t) the rtuure. fi Hilton Hotel 256 room hotel and adjoining restaurant completed Normandale Investments, LLC 122 space parking ramp to meet demand for existing offices completed Bloomington United Properties 285,000 square foot office buiidingat 8200 Norman Center Drive completed Covingtolr 250 Apartment units — Approved, under construction. Apartments 8104 Office Toiver 255,000 ftz of office - Future Hotel 100 Robins — Future Luxenihoray Apartments 282 Apartment units - Approved, under construction OA 77 Office /Data 100,000 W of office - Future Center Venture B!6nk Office 37,000 W of office — Completed 2009 FinalAlternalive UrbarrAreawideReview Update Page GateivaySiddyArea City ofBdina,117N WSB Project No: 1686-37 p� June 2013 I r1halAlternative UrbanAreaWldeRevieiv Update Pane 6 GateivayStudyAied City ofEdtrta, MM TYSit Project No. 1686-37 � 11 June 2013 nN! flotel 257 Rooms - Future 1101-1nan Pointe 111 312,000 ftz Office - Future Office Tower Marketpointlli 250,000 ftz Office - Future Office Tower 6500 Fiance 209 Unit Senior Housing / Sidlled Care - In review process Avenue Cypress Properties Redevelopment of 40,000 ftz of movie theater to 86,000 ftz of retail development. (Not Yet Completed) Approved increase of retail space from 154•,000 ftz to 196,500 ftz by 2008. Target (Completed) ' Approved construction of an 18 storybiulding with 79 condominiums, a 225 Westin room hotel, and 7,000 ftz restaurant (Completed) York Place Approved construction of 49,000 IV of retail space and 86 senior apartments. Development Replaces 52,750 ftz of office space. (Development Completed as CVS) TE Miller Development (7380 Net increase of 2,000 gsf of office space (Completed) France 0 ice Edina 6956 France 3,000 ftz Retail and 5,000 ftz Office- Completed Avenue Centennial Lakes 2,000 ft Coffee Shop - A pp roved under construction Coffee Shop FairviewSouthdale' 30,000 ftz Emergency Room expansion- In review process Expansion Southdale 232 Units - Approved under construction Residential Whole Foods 32,000 ftz Whole Food Grocery store- Completed YMCA 21,000 ftz Expansion - Completed r1halAlternative UrbanAreaWldeRevieiv Update Pane 6 GateivayStudyAied City ofEdtrta, MM TYSit Project No. 1686-37 � 11 June 2013 nN! V. Mitibation Summary and Update Many of the mitigation measures outlined in the 2007 AUAR. still remain valid. The updated mitigation measures are outlined below iiid either :remain in effect froin the 2007 AUAR or have been updated based on new analysis as noted. A. hand Use Compatibility and Ferin fitting . Al. The proposed change iii land use of Scenarios 2, 3, and 4 at the Pentagon- Towers and Pentagon Quads site will require a Comprehensive Plan. Amendment. A2. Any redevelopment will be required to meet Edina zoning requirements. A3. Any project proposers will be required to obtain any necessary approvals and permits: A4. If components of a proposed project exceed Edinna City Code requirements, variances froth the City's requirement will need to be applied for by the developer. The City will review these variance requests and make a determination as to the approval or denial of the project as part of the review process. A project proposer could also seek to amend the City Code. This request would also be reviewed by the City. B. Geologic Hazards, Erosion Control, and Hazardous Material B1. Prior to demolition an asbestos surveyshall be completed by a project - proposer. At the time of demolition, any necessary asbestos abatementwill need to, be completed by the project proposer its compliance with MPCA requirements: B2. The management, containment, and cleanup of any spills that niay occur Mthin the Study Area during construction will be addressed by the permit holders of the MPCA NPDES /SDS Storm Water Construction Permit and its accompanying Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan preparation. B3. If a neighborhood convenience store and gas station is proposed, the project proposer will be required to adhere to State regulations for containment of underground petroletun tanks and an annual license would be.needed. B4. The Storm Water.Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), including temporary and permanent seeding and staging plans, will be required to be submitted by each project proposer and reviewed by Edina. B5.- The project proposer will need to develop an erosion control plan and submit this plan to the Nine Mile Creels Watershed District for review and approval. PlualAlternative Urban Areawide Review Update Gateway Study Al 'ca City, of E'dhm HN NVSB Projeet No. 1686.37 June 2013 A,( Page 7 B6. -During construction, the project proposer and their contractor will implement Best Management Practices as needed to prevent erosion and sedimentation of downstream water resources. B7. Edina will develop a SWPPP and obtain an NPDES permit for the construction of any public. infrastructure improvements (sanitary sewer, storm sewer, water main) that disturb one acre of land or more. 88. Edina will conduct erosion control. inspections during construction. B9. Project proposers will make environmental hazard investigation doctImeirts, such as Phase I Envirotunental Assessments, available to Edina.. B10. Project proposers will be required to remediate any contaminated soils encountered in conformance with MPCA regulations. 1311. Project proposers will be required to remove and properly dispose of trash and debris located within a project site, including all demolition materials that may include asbestos. Bit. Municipal waste hauler companies will make residential and commercial recycling programs available to the Study Area: General municipal waste will be removed by these waste hauler companies. B11 The NPDES Construction Site permit requires a site specific SWPPP to be completed for the construction by the project proposer. This SWPPP is required to include pollution prevention management measures for solid waste and hazardous material spills that occur during construction. 1314. Mitigation includes conformance with the Edina spill response plan. Spills will be reported to the Fire. chief and /or applicable City Staff. The fire chief and /or applicable City Staff will in torn notify any other appropriate officials depending on the nature of the spill. B15. Project proposers will be required to develop a temporary dewatering plan. for construction activities, review this plan with Edina and Nine Mile Creels Watershed District for approval, and conform to the dewatering requirements of the Department of Natural Resources ().DNR) and NPDES Construction permit. B16. If a r•edevelopl-nent project involves permanent dewatering for underground facilities, a detailed-dewatering plan is required to be developed by the project proposer. This plan would include anticipated dewatering amounts, direction. of discharge, analysis of impact on adjacent ponds and downstream receiving waters, and impact on the organic material within the Study Area for the Final Alternative Urban Areaivide Revie►v Update Page 8 GatewayStudyArea City ofEdfna, NN WS8Projeciko.1686 -39 A June 2013 't potential for subsidence,. The plan will need to be submitted to Edina, Nhie Mile Creek Watershed. District, and DNR for review aTld /or approval.. C. Fish, Wildlife, Wetlands, and Ecologically Sensitive Resources C1. BuiIdings to be removed as part of redevelopment will be field checked by the project proposer to determine if there are nesting Peregrine,laalcons on the structure. If.falcons arb noted nesting on the structure, the site cannot be disturbed until the juvenile birds have fledged and left the nest. C2. The project proposer will be requited to delineate wetlands within their project - boundaries, if any, and review these delineations with the Nine Mile Creek 'Watershed District and Edina to determine jurisdictional status. The Nine Mile CreeIc Watershed Dist- ict is the Local Government Unit for the Wetland Conservation Act- and will review and verify any wetland delineations. C3. If wetland impact is proposed, the project proposer will be required to minimize impact to the maximum extent possible and mitigate-for any unavoidable impacts in conformance with the Wetland Conservation Act. D. Municipal Water Use and Service D 1. Edina will work with Bloomington to determine the needs for water system capacity improvements, water main upgrades, and future service to the Gateway Study Area. D2. In conjunction with their Comprehensive Plan update, Edina will complete an update to the 2002 Water Distribution System Analysis for the entire city to determine what current and future water system improvements may be necessary to continue to serve the City's water'-needs and maintain. a water system firm capacity above the maximum.daily water use within the City.. D3. As redevelopment occurs, Edina will complete an analysis of the water mains within the Study Area to determine if performing water main replacement is necessary and if it should occur in conjunction with other potential infrastruetuue improvements, such as sanitary sewer, storm sewer, and transportation improveiilents. D4: Any abandoned wells found within the Study Area will besealed in accordance with Minnesota Department of Health guidelines.. This will be the responsibility of the project proposer. D5. In accordance with Edina's Wellhead Protection Plan, continued protection of the existing Drinking Water Supply Management Areas located within the Study Area will be required for redevelopment projects, final Alternative Urban Arenivide RevteiV Update Page 9 CateivayStudyArea City ofCdIna, MN WSB Project No. 1696.37 ]� Jane 2013 �j D6. There is potential for areas that redevelop within the Bloomington service area to request to be served by Edina. If this occurs, additional analysis and water main improvements will need to be completed by Edina in coordination with Bloomington, D7. Individual redevelopment may require the installation of service pumps to serve multi -story buildings and to provide adequate fire protection. The size and type of pumps will vary based on individual building characteristics, should meet the existing local building and fire protection codes, and will be the responsibility of the developer. E. Water Quality and Quantity ,E1. Redevelopment projects will be required to be designed to meet- the policies of the most current Edina Comprehensive Storm Water Management Plan. E2. Redevelopment projects will be required to be designed to meet the policies of the most current Nine Mile Creek Watershed District requirements. E3. Redevelopment within the Study Area will be required to Iimit peals runoff rates to at least existing conditions and reduce the runoff volume so as not to negatively impact the existing storm sewer system. E4. Redevelopment needs to reduce the amount of impervious surface within the project limits or develop a site specific storm water management plan that shows that the project will not impact downstream pollutant or volume loading. ES, If warranted by Edina's Nondegradation Plan, project proposers will need to include storm water management strategies that reduce the total suspended solid loadings, total phosphorous pollutant loadings, and storm water runoff volumes. from the, Study Area. E6, Any redevelopment project that disturbs more than one acre of land is required. to develop a SWPPP and obtain an NPDES permit from the MPCA.. E7: Edina and project proposers) will investigate the expansion of the existing ponding areas within the Fred Richards Golf Course to provide additional storage and treatment as outlined in Edina's Water Resource Management Plan, E8. The Cities of Edina and Bloomington will petition the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District to expand the South Pond (SP_1) pond to provide additional storm water treatment for the area. E9. As Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) studies are completed for Nine Mile Creels, the results of these studies will be reviewed by Edina. Redevelopment in Final Alternative UrbanAreatvide Revlew Update Page 10 GatervayStudyArea City of Gdlna, MN WSB Project No. 1686 -3T 1(�. June 2013 0� l I i the Study Area will be required to meet any mitigation acrd pollutant load i reductions thiatn Gybe outlined within the TMDL.studies. � Update: This mitigation measure also :applies to Edina halve. i i E10: The project proposer will review and determine.w1*11 Low Impact Development (LID) practices are feasible.to be used for each parcel. Edina will review. the LID techniques and encourage their use to the greatest extent i possible, i F..11, A maintenance plan is required to be reviewed and approved by the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District for privately constructed and maintained storm water management facilities: F. Wastewater Mitigation Plan i F1. Any redevelopment activities that may increase the total sanitary sewer flows within Service Area A beyond threshold'hinits for peals capacity will require upgraded facilities within the Gateway Study Area (Computer Avenue sanitary sewer) and Bloomington (MCES Bloomington Gift Station No. 10) to accommodate increased flows. Update: Bloomington Lift Station No: 10 is also denoted at MCES Lift Station L- 55. In 2011, the pumps in the existing lift station were upgraded to provide a near -term peak capacity of 1.8 million gallons per day (mgd). Future increases in flow for re- development will need to be evaluated as the final lift station site is proposed to be relocated with the proposed future realignment of I -494. F2. Edina, Bloomington,. and Metropolitan Council Environmental Services will continue discussions and analysis regarding proposed rapacity upgrades to Bloomington Lift Station No. 10 and the MCES BN -499 Interceptor along West 801 Street in Bloomington. Update: Capacity to L-55 (Bloomington LS 10 was increased to a peak flow of 1.8 MDG as previously discussed. Also in 2011,The MCES BN -499 interceptor was replaced with a 16 -inch forcemain from L -55 southerly and westerly along W. 84 -1h Street to a gravity sewer approximately 600 feet west- of France Avenue. The forcemain was designed to carry peak flows for the proposed redevelopment area, F3. Edina will complete its update to their Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan. F4. Edina will upgrade Lift Station No. 22. Final Alternative Urban Areatvlde Revleiv Update Page 11 C6teway Study Area CftyofEdina, AIN WSB Project No. 1696-37 A ) June 2013 /(Q6 FS. In conjunction with redevelopment activities, Edina will determine the condition of the existing sanitary sewer pipe within the Gateway Study Area to determine if repairs or replacement is necessary based on in. -place pipe condition and infiltration potential, G. Traffic and Transportation G1. Scenarios 1 and 4 The following mitigation strategies are needed for Scenario 1 and 4 to accommodate future full development traffic projections: Intersection: France Avenue / West 7601 Street Improvement: Extend one southbound thru lane on France Avenue to create a total of four thru lanes Intersection: France Avenue / West 78th Street Improvement: Eastbound dual right turn lanes on West 7811, Street Southbound lanes approaching the 1 -494 ramps rest► iped. to provide exclusive lanes to both westbound 1 -494 and eastbound I -494, The right lane will drop at the westbound 1 -494 ramp providing an exclusive ramp Iane. The second lane will also be an exclusive lane leading to 1- 494 eastbound, reducing the weaving and stacldng of vehicles that occur today. The County has expressed interest in participation. Intersection: Edina Industrial Boulevard / West 7811, Street Improvement: Eastbound dual left turn lanes on West 78th Street Intersection: Edina Industrial Boulevard / Metro Boulevard Improvement: Add southbound right-turn lane on Metro Boulevard, restriping the existing two southbound lanes to accommodate an exclusive left turn lane, and a thru/left- lane, providing dual left turn lanes. Add 300 foot eastbound left turn lane on Edina Industrial Boulevard Intersection: Northbound TH 100 / West 77th Street Improvement: Add 150 foot northbound right turn lane on Frontage Road Westbound dual right turn lanes on West 7701 Street Final Alternative Ur bar Areavida Reviety Update Catetvay Stur(yArea City oJEdtna, NN WSB Profece Me. 1686.37 June 2013 ARA Page 12 G2. Scenario 2 Scenario 2 will require all We improvements listed above in addition to the following: Intersection: Minnesota Drive/ France Avenue. Improvement: Dual-westbound left turn lanes on Minnesota Drive Eastbound dual left turn lanes.on Minnesota Drive Intersection, TH 100 / West 77th Street Inlprovem nt: Add 150 foot eastbound right turn lane on West 7711' Street: Intersection: Computer Avenue / West 77th Street Improvement: Northbound dual left turn lanes on Computer Avenue Intersection: Minnesota Drive / West 77th Street / Johnson Avenue Improvement: Southbound dual left turn lanes on West 77th Street G3, Scenario 3 Scenario 3 will require all the above improvements listed under Scenarios 1, 2, and 4 in addition to the following: Intersection: Minnesota Drive / France Avenue Improvement, Eastbound dual right turn lanes on Minnesota Drive Intersection: France Avenue / West 78111 Street Improvement: Westbound dual right turn lanes on West 78th Street Interchange: TH 100 / West 77d' Street Improvement: Six -lade section from Metro Boulevard to Computer ,Avenue Dual left turn turns atboth TH 100 Ramps (Hence an eight- lane bridge) G4. General The mitigation measures discussion above (G1— G3) are needed to address full build -out of the site and surrounding area. Specific mitigation measures required for proposed development plans will be established through traffic and transportation studies required for each development proposal. These proposals will need to document compliance within the AUAR and mitigation plan, G5. Transit /Non- Motorized Transportation As redevelopment occurs in the Study Area, consideration of site - specific improvements needs to be included as developments are proposed. These Firtal plterrraUve UrLmr Areawtde Review Update paje 13 Gateway ShaV Area CltyofEdhia, AN RUB Project No. 1686 -37 jurreloV /� J would include upgrading the existing transit facilities, i)icluding bus shelters; to become ADA compliant and improving the sidewalk and /or path connections ill and around each redevelopment. H. Odor, Noise, and Dust H1. During construction activities, the project proposer and contractor shall observe all dust control Best Management Practices for' fugitive dust. 142.. Edina will limit construction activities and any Other activities that produce noise audible outside the perimeter of a property to between 7:OOAM to 9:00M Monday through Friday and between 8,,OOAM and 7:OOPM on Saturday, Sunday, and holidays, H3. Noise mitigation will be necessary if any residential units are constructed near Receptor 2, located in the southwest quadrant of TH 100 /West 7711, Street. Any residential buildings should be constructed using noise abatement methods. Noise abatement requirements to conform to state standards can be found in Minn. Rules 7030.0050, subp..3. 1. Archaeological, historical, or architectural resources 11. Prior to redevelopment of the Pentagon Towers and Quads sites thatwould require razing of the existing structures, an evaluation and documentation of the historical and architectural significance ofthe sites will be needed by the project proposer. This information will need to be submitted to Edina. J. Cumulative Impacts )1. Edina will work with Bloomington and potentially participate in a regional traffic study that will assist in anticipating future potential redevelopment within the TH 100/1 -444 area and plan for infrastructure improvements. Edina will also coordinate with other entities to address cumulative impacts. These items have been addressed in other areas of the AUAR and include mitigation plan items D1, D6, G$, F1, and F2. VI. AUAR Update Review This AUAR Update has been reviewed pursuant to Minnesota Rules 4410:3610 Subp. 7. The CatewayStudy Area AUAR will remain valid for an additional five years from the City Council adoption date. F1na1A11ekngt1ve Urban Alvaivide Review Update Page 14 CatewayStudyArea City ofEdina, MN [NSD Project No. 1686.37 fune2013 Appendix A e Figures b.1 n /+ I ' 1p•' 1 Y o r!•�7 •.w ;Its ��' V ,F ,t _ rr qL —t J/ *. •� • I%Ob ate- —•- ,t =�- % 2, ` u ,�4 '' ! • a �� _ 4 " 0 4 s A Location Map t Froject Location Miles wSB Gateway AUAR 430 �:r` Figure 1 Legend 0 Figure 2 it A USGS Location Map WSB o .y Gateway AUAR 500 0 Feet s &.4-dares. r „e. _ end va,Kn.e.,y Figure 3 Le g � GalewayAUAR Study Area � Aerial Location Map ® pentagon Quads 0 500 1'0 Feet WSI •b'�'`�• GatewayAUAR ® Pentagon Towers A3 o, V , I Al- 2.14 Ac 15,000 GSF Non-Res 31,000 GSF Res (36 Units) 'y r -. k)'�'!7 L 141 ` k•t .v f rr n• _" fW IS y 'M r : Myw� .f-T L • _I - sp N'UM O>( IN L W, KAM, IS A 27.03 Ac 0 C 55a,000 G3F Mun-Res 174,200 SF. on-Res V —1 72 _ W IN 7 m� Z x P.y Z P Uwb up, L% �_- M' t "Ell O ; I .i. At m , 0 Na X Aj r /. � JJ j}j�Q��','� Figure 4-1 Legend GatewayAUAR MatewayAUAR POD-1 PCD -3 0 500 1'000 Scenario 1: PID POD-2 Feet WSB Comprehensive Plan GSF= Gfoss Square Feet A -S3 + � i ',.�„� "- r 11 i• � r � 'F rt t Q • -.. t f 16 � T • � '� �j�j1 Lit. b �.�.rr• "t 70TH STYI•• .tA -ti^�� t r >•i71 -(wY1 r , :' � tc.. �'`� :t `, - ..�•C'ny ��, >�- 1` � ra'LI �i�T?�Fb a :, ��r.Fr ar lh r.. � �T .. �. ..i 5 i�lj�ri�J(iV�r i ��s} (`c ��i .Y-0A{ ,' °� � ,��,3 .C.s: ,� .� ..:•f^. .��j' _ ��.;5((►►j(((,�(J��1 ' = (I .,'� 1i, Rt. ll 74flti;,yi�'py icy 1'.�• _ �, -`[4 :fit _ `I14 ,;1 !'', ;•ti- lr.,r�'r� 1 E +---. (� I 1 '1�'� a •1�1r - - -- i�1�4,t�.;:�s�':��: ! , rv� 15��.. ,.i,►�t•.�'>- 1"c'll]�� i%��.^t,!..LJ "..,1�� *:� !!:• ?• a ;a��l�,',� -• s- _ �,� - `�� r w�' °�.�+tr��'�ra'�1 , ��,. ��•�-r�} ��;Igi� �-i-Xr�`- ;:nr ' .�� ,'.s �• t �• �- �� # ±�{i�ziE�l It[��L� `p. i'�1r� r) �rr' — r� ��L °.,. �� •J1�► 't ��e ,r, 11,1 � ��. � :'i.:r. r�I,��i'3t�r' :Ifs`.. •_ 1i4 I t ai;1;:� 1` r - /'r t ( • f l: — s�t� t_ � •-.� �a L. � ..}uj Sao .. .9 9,.Z -h t �' ,� •= i� ,7u. _ li• 11, , �-��• 1��1�?y��y id �'la".�y`. _ !'•r��'It'�`, {. R t 2.14 Ac e iN of rf jf r r t s Mr _AY P, ;-.e 15,000 GSF Non -Res +t'fr� •° ip 31.000 Res ' J4 ��'' _ _ �. M�' -r (36 Units ) � r r - W11{ rl ri iV�.;;.. 't'`- 1��sli �••t- 4c-- r;: -..� _ ..J - \. !".I V is // 'R .ur.. - - ' 76TH Sbty "t•�'.' • f`� '- IIi*-... ,� �.�•�. _ h - •r C: ,u - __ L IV 27.03 Ac 3 160D6 �tr e ` 8.00 Ac r 213,000 GSF Non -Res g h4ies r. _ (�i_• 174,200 GSF 883,000 GSF Residential n -Res (820 Units) .��1. 12.OBAc. nriisrvi ^ 'r� 15000 GSF Na , �f o 11c1.150 Room H. 1,_ ryry��Tr.TT ,�T��r4i` _ _ ellniiesolrD'w. - -`�- r. ° v rll >. r�'r, .1.-s. 1 s r,'� I :+• n ,,_� / .�_,t.'S7t _�•`, .. \ l�j ILI j. A : .r �r�.• . , a�{ •;. 'gay {. ( ' _ .o ' 1 -nIT!p r..- ��.. , '�� T "' �- ��'ir• (�.f . ,_. '� .� s I ,�/, `�t� y i n. ' a;' ��._ �,� 1 c�`f..� bra -- - "T' 'r •e.3• _ j _ ,�� d' 1,y nr{- rI r 1 = Imo= F�t _' _.. % 1)T i';7ip t {f -L -? :`:' '�'� ` a'-- 7eTH STjw�'F.1�^" ��,. s • "` �., � t'o�TTJE�F .. 7ita _ zL ' -�� l t ��r , }s� 1`' j '%•' �f • r' 1 '�':r''v c:s±t. 6^'><.,. � ,_�` 9 :.,r+• .r i l.. �__' � • .', '��t.`., .. _ _ .s1 +.[ .'.�. A- ••r!' _ �' -� j°r r ri°tY� '1 1-` �;.� a fir• y :�_ . � �i,•Fr C;' �'ra• >�!_t,. i_ - 3 vri � ,'i _A_.' :>T� _ •r ((r�l. �F - ' Jj i 1 r Ci i (il , .,r.r \� � yi .� "� � I t �A' _:a!} -' � I'' �?�� N .,t•,� �I •1.. .1' y �•' S t It T� Figure 4 -2 Legend . 9 + wSB GatewayAUAR �GalewayAUAR POD -1 , PCD -3 0 500 1,000 F Scenario 2: PID POD-2' PSR -4 Feet Master Plan • GSF -Gross square Feet 3 �f i` J I M;,. _Jlc 2:14 Ac w„ - „- 15,000 GSF Hon -Res _ 31,000 GSF Res T 13G Units) TA r ?ii k F wl �YDi� �eY� 4r Y ...� _d A. :f.7 F• ' .�.�, Gr�� _ � � - E� w: t- � L' ( �L '�•,� rir�rr1t�t' �� t -nn. 4.y. - - � �� t•r €�r {�A � IMF i � ' -I�_ . [^- u7�a�:_ ,i L� � +� .4 sr � 1 �-. a}:y3r �3f� � y ,>•s. -ie� r { f � - 't. 1., . i', '' .`.'t+��- '- i!.�rf"L;p 9r�..n7h_ t�9 '� s_�1•'i.C. _ '+tt...��'�� f'� `i' .1�;, �;.}-t�.=�r1,;:��y�, t i�:,�1s ,-- •'°rLyn. �:={� >?�Cy ; 1. .�•A� � .1. +`iR •PARKLALdNA �pria? � %. � � e'1 'i •1i ��,{4�� , aF,' N�.1•t .. �Sp 1�:. � {s�-_ S:. t e', Slsa� : � .. ;� , _ :s�� A' "v. , � - rpn �t. i'• �_°",4� 1't t N }}.. [[�''� i •ra..~ -r''.r , �tTl�, �t�iM+ a --'M � y �•aylmr` �� . tl��l_ [_,•� 4 _ , _..py, :.. \07��ti . _ rT KI %� :r�.. , ' r.. f; 4aI I it f ,,, jj _ • • � • :rte -�. A'�i ,'K :-( IIII �!`'_A7 iii'I�,_, ySii°.I,_�jg;F�,M , +l i.• R I.'t W ( I _' -. `) r :.11' .� ::' •'F� aME.t- F''I`�r�Tlci 'T ,� 11` lsiNERlc %pa �f” : 1d: s :�� F' �[•�-, � i�f. ��'+d1 ...-'rr'�'•� a�Y .l `.1' <' }f•`. ";� r 1j `,• � [+- l ` �•`; � - �'� :I �' - ' _ Cr : ' .J, �. • �� '�T► � _ be _ � lid _- — -'� , r�i �'. - I :�- 'r• y" r�' =rte `°' ;. �• ��' � � � y��'3 p' =�: �!, ,( 2• � •,fit -..5� � � -. Y ,i1'' ``t . ' L`.\' Y. �-m - . � � +�.i— - . wry. [ �' •�y- glry,V.'• —_- - — - sue,. Figure 4 -3 Legend GatewayAUAR F-1Galc%vayALIAR }POD- 1 PCD -2 0 500 1,000 7 t ' Scenario 3 = PID POD -2 � PCD -3 Feet WSB 'GSF =Gross Square feet A 35 r + lqm Figure 5 0 750 1,500 A Adjacent Developments Map - Feet WSB GatewayAUAR 4 Exhibit C MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION OF THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL HELD AT CITY HALL APRIL 16, 2013 5:07 P.M. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Hovland called the meeting to order at 5:07 p.m. in the Community Room of City Hall. ROLL CALL Answering roll call were Members Bennett, Brindle Sprague, Swenson and Mayor Hovland. Planning Commissioners attending were: Ken Potts, Michael Fischer and Kevin Staunton. Mr. Staunton entered the meeting at 5:30 p.m. Staff attending the meeting included: Jennifer Bennerotte, Communications & Technology Services Director; Wayne Houle,. Director of Engineering; Ari Klugman, City Manager Intern; Karen Kurt, Assistant City Manager; Scott Neal, City Manager; Bill Neuendorf, Economic Development Manager; Brian Olson, Public Works Director and Cary Teague, Community .Development Director. City Consultant Bruce Jacobson was also in attendance. Mayor Hovland said the meeting would focus on two topics: a sketch plan review of the Pentagon Park /Gateway District and the Grandview District next steps. PENTAGON PARK SKETCH PLAN Community Development Director Teague noted in 2008 the City Council had approved a rezoning of the 43 -acre Pentagon Park to a Mixed Development District 6 (MDD -6) and approval of an Overall Development Plan for the site. Mr. Teague explained part of that approval process included an Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) environmental study which must be updated every five years: To date, none of the proposed new development has occurred and the AUAR was being updated by Hillcrest Development, current owner of the property. He introduced Scott Tankenoff, Hillcrest Development, who was looking for comments from the Council and Planning Commission on a potential "Density Transfer Concept ", potential revision to the Overall Development Plan and a potential roadway that would connect Edina Industrial Boulevard to 77th Street. Mr Tankenoff explained that Barr Engineering was interested in a particular site and the proposed changes were necessary to accommodate their preferred site. The Council expressed concerns over the proposed height increases, the density transfer and potential roadway along the Fred Richards Golf Course. The consensus among Council was to not allow the shift to happen in a manner that would jeopardize future meaningful residential redevelopment along the ring of land bordering Fred Richards, especially with an entire neighborhood of single family homes just north of the site. The Council did state it would support a denser office use along 77th St, where the infrastructure was already in place to support the use, and where an office park could serve as a "buffer" to the interior ring of residential use along Fred Richards. GRANDVIEW NEXT STEPS Minutes - Work Session /Edina City Council /April 16, 2013 Economic.Development Manager Neuendorf sought direction for a Phase II process for the Grandview District Redevelopment, following up on the highly successful Phase I community -based process that . resulted in the Grandview District Redevelopment Framework. Following discussion of the Council and Planning Commissioners, it was determined that in Phase 11, the plan would be to send out an RFI (Request for Information) allowing developers to submit proposals for redevelopment of the public works site that aligned with the principles espoused in the Framework. Further, a ten - member, Community Advisory Team (CAT) would be appointed to review RFI's and, later, to review development plans. The CAT would consist of one district business owner, one district property owner, two neighborhood representatives, two community at -large representatives, one Edina Transportation Commission member, one Park Board member, and two Planning Commission members. In early 2014, full plans would be developed, followed by the CAT's review and recommendation to the Council. Mayor Hovland declared the meeting adjourned at 6:59 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Minutes approved by Edina City Council, May 7, 2013. Debra A. Mangen, City Clerk James B. Hovland, Mayor • Choose a City • Local Business Directory • Book of Lists • Upstart Business Journal • Contact Us • Sign In • Like on Facebook • Follow on Twitter • Follow on LinkedIn • Follow on Google+ LE xWi b ii Minneapolis / St. Paul Business Journal Search • Home • News • People • Events • Jobs • Resources • Store Subscribe Nowl- invited Time Offer Sign Up for the Minneapolis /St. Paul Business Journal Afternoon Edition Newsletter See all newsletters Enter your email address Sign Up SUBSCRIBER CONTENT: Dec 6, 2013, 5:00am CST Real Estate Is there room for golf in Pentagon Park plan? Hillcrest Development and The Opus Group are redeveloping the 42 -acre Pentagon park office paylk on Ed!nfi� Sam Black Senior reporter- Minneapolis / St. Paul Business Journal Email I Twitter I Google+ Scott Tankenoff has two options for the city of Edina: one that involves keeping the Fred Richards Golf Course, and one that doesn't. Tankenoff, president of Minneapolis -based Hillcrest Development, and business partner Mark Rauenhorst, one of the owners of Minnetonka -based The Opus Group, are redeveloping a 42 -acre office park known as Pentagon Park along West 77th Street in Edina. Tankenoff has met with Edina residents and city officials of the affluent suburb for the past year to talk about how Pentagon Park could be turned into an upscale office park similar to Centennial Lakes in Edina or Normandale Lake Office Park in Bloomington. One of the keys to that plan, however, is improving the connection of the site to the green space immediately north of the office park. That area is now the home of the city -owned Fred Richards Golf Course, a 9 -hole course that also sits on a 42 -acre site. Edina hired a consultant in May to study the performance and operations of all its golfing facilities, which lost money in 2012 and will again this year. Edina officials last month called 2013 the worst year ever for its public courses. (Municipal golf courses across the Twin Cities are having troubles.) Edina hasn't started any formal deliberations about the possible closure of Fred Richards yet, but it is expected to address the question next year. Some of the patrons and neighbors of the course are sure to oppose closing it. There's already a website, savethefred.org. Enter Hillcrest, which will present two redevelopment scenarios for its Pentagon Park office project at a Dec. 11 planning commission meeting. Both plans call for a "several hundred million dollar" business park with a 400 - room "meaningful, signature" hotel on the western portion of the site closest to Highway 100 and about 1.4 million square feet of office space. Hillcrest's two concepts have one major difference. One is status quo for the golf course site and the other envisions the city closing the course and creating a public park, with ball fields, paths, streams and ponds that are better integrated through the entire 84 -acre site. It's seeking tax increment financing assistance from the city for either plan to help improve soil conditions and help pay for infrastructure such as street improvements; the golf course plan would require less TIF. Tankenoff prefers the integrated approach, but said he could live with either. He would like some direction on the two plans this spring and needs a decision on the course by the end of 2014. "There comes a point where we can't wait," Tankenoff said. "Are we integrating our land or not." Sam Black covers real estate, manufacturing and economic development Industries: Commercial Real Estate Trending In Partnership with 9 Matthew Dornquast Cem Erdem 0 Bill George Jon Bloom yell LdgUll idi A UUill:eF L recel v es a favorable review Exhibit E By Lisa Kaczke January 17, 2014 at 7:00 am Tweet Sixteen months of planning to change Pentagon Park into a Centennial Lakes -type of office park are beginning to take shape with an initial favorable review by the Edina City Council. Scott Takenoff of Hillcrest Development has created two working ideas for the site — one if neighboring Fred Richards Golf Course remains a golf course and a second if the city decides to re- purpose the course. Takenoff's plans call for a multi -phase rehabilitation of the 43 -acre office park over a 15 -year period. "It took 25 -plus years to make a wreck out of it and it's going to take a number of years to make it successful," Takenoff told the Edina City Council on Tuesday, Jan. 7. Mayor Jim Hovland noted that Takenoff has helped the city see a vision for the property. "It was state of the art at the time and it can be state of the art again," Hovland said. A sketch plan of the site received favorable comments from the Edina City Council on Jan. 7. A formal vote isn't taken on sketch plans presented to the city council. The Edina Planning Commission also reviewed the sketch plan in December. However, the sketch plan didn't include any building or architectural plans for the site and only included a conceptual plan for thez� - office park, located at 4815 W. 77th St. Planning commissioners and city council L members commented that more specific _ r'I details are needed on the plans going forward. —` -- ek:rr. Takenoff responded that the project is a "unique redevelopment opportunity" and they don't know what the architectural details of the project are yet, but they will be brought to the Planning Commission and city council for approval prior to construction. The site is expected to be rezoned from MDD -6, or Mixed Development District, to PUD, or Planned Unit Development. Takenoff`'~ said the PUD would give him more flexibility with the project, and council members r agreed that PUD is more appropriate for the site. M'r -- The project is expected to return to the Planning Commission in February for preliminary approval of rezoning, which would put it on a council agenda in March. It would then go through the final rezoning approval process through the Planning Commission and city council. In addition, Takenoff said he's committed to returning to the Planning Commission and city council with a sketch plan that includes the architecture of each phase of the project. "We're going to be back here and we're going to be back here many, many times and in the community," he told the council. Takenoff previously held community meetings at Pentagon Park in the fall to gather input from the neighborhood north of the office park. He told the council that 2014 is expected to be a planning year on the project, and on -site action isn't expected to begin until 2015. Takenoff purchased Pentagon Park in two parts in September 2012 and January 2013. The office park was built from the late 1960s to early 1970s, and consists of 11 office buildings, many of which went into foreclosure in 2009. Takenoff touched on the site falling into disrepair during the council meeting and why they're coming forward for rezoning approval at this point. "There are a number of reasons why we are bringing the project forward at this time and one of them is that it has been a monumental effort over the 15,16 months to get the dysfunctional pieces of Pentagon Park together, to actually take these fractured pieces that have been put into a dysfunctional position over the last probably 25 years of dysfunctional ownership and poor choices, and we've got those pieces together and we now have all the pieces that are necessary to actually move this project forward and start looking at actual demolition of structures that are far past their useful life and candidly, just blighted beyond belief," he said. The proposal for the site includes office and retail spaces, along with a hotel on the western edge of the site overlooking Highway 100. The city has asked that the potential for housing on the site be retained in the rezoning. Although housing isn't proposed for the site, Takenoff has agreed to keep it on the table for possible future inclusion on the site, Planning Director Cary Teague said. The conceptual design of the site envisions office buildings around ponds with parking out of sight, and areas where people could sit and relax like they can do currently at Centennial Lakes. The site's future design is being guided by six principles: green streets, integrated stormwater management, a pedestrian - friendly West 77th Street, connection between the eastern and western sides of the site, multi -modal connections and shared parking. They've committed to stormwater management that provides the city with an amenity and an area where recreation activities are at or above the city's standard, Takenoff said. They're also committed to encouraging bike and pedestrian traffic, including providing a facility to lock bikes and provide shower facilities in the buildings to get away from single- occupant vehicles, he said. "We need to do more than hang a bike rack outside the door," he said. They also need to upgrade the existing bus stops along the site to "signature" transit stations, he said. Councilmember Mary Brindle said she hopes they succeed at encouraging multi -modal traffic on the street. West 77th Street also needs to be upgraded and the street currently only has a sidewalk on one side, he said. The site's concept plan calls for a center median with trees, adding left turn lanes and street lights, and widening the sidewalks to encourage walking to the bus stops. Parklawn Avenue also needs upgrades because they want people who bike to use it, Takenoff said. The buildings need to be built to LEED green standards and solar energy is being considered, especially for the buildings facing West 77th Street, he said. In terms of building heights, the plan is to have four -story buildings facing Fred Richards and five -story buildings facing West 77th Street. The proposed hotel could be 12 stories. The council was split on whether it would allow the hotel to rise higher than 12 stories, the maximum height allowed in the city's Comprehensive Plan. A possible restaurant on the site would be something that has a "hometown feel" to it and isn't a chain, Takenoff said. Brindle said she hopes that the potential businesses and restaurants provide some nightlife for the area so that the entire site doesn't go dark at 5 p.m. Councilmember Joni Bennett pointed to the Excelsior and Grand development in St. Louis Park, saying it's been a success at revitalizing the area and is an amenity to the homes around it. She said she appreciates the opportunity for a similar private - public partnership on the Pentagon Park site. Hillcrest Development is working on two different concepts for the site based on the future of the Fred Richards Golf Course, which sits directly to the north of the office park. One concept provides synergy with Fred Richards if the city were to re- purpose it and one doesn't provide that connection, said Tom Whitlock of Damon Farber Associates, which is working on Pentagon Park's land design. If Fred Richards becomes something else, like a park, they envision connecting Pentagon Park via a bridge similar to the bridges at Centennial Lakes Park, he said. A parkway that circles the site and returns traffic to West 77th Street is also planned. No thorough streets are planned that connect the office park to the neighborhood to the north of Pentagon Park. The Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail is also expected to travel along the edge of the site and they want to provide an amenity that brings people from the bike trail onto the Pentagon Park site and vice - versa, Whitlock said. Takenoff concluded by saying their "minds are open, options are open." They have two different preliminary ideas, and knowing the future of the Fred Richards Golf Course is "critical," he said. Hovland said following the presentation on the project that it has "ignited the imagination" of city staff and made the city realize what the area west of France Avenue could become. He pointed out the aerial photo shown during the presentation that shows the neighborhood and Fred Richards to the north of Pentagon Park, "and all of a sudden you hit a wall of gray and its all concrete all the way to 494." Contact Lisa Kaczke at lisa.kaczke @ecm- inc.com Filed Under: edina 2 0 Tweet Related posts- c1nu sung NEWS Edina receives grant Pentagon Park TIF District considered for Pentagon Park developer considering for Pentagon Park PHN — PENTAGON REVIVAL EW Richfield �Bloomington Hondo IROAMPI i ® c ©rnme nts Be the first to comrnent. -, SUM CURRE fi it . :. : Letter: Light rail is too costly Riding trend, e- cigarette stores open in _ . Richfield — All I can say is you must be living in the dark ages! Have you travelled — E- cigarettes have NOT been during Rush hour ? ? ? ?We should have approved as smoking cessation tools, and many health organizations are wary of them. Domestic homicides hit highest levels in Bloomington School District referendum more than a decade passes — In 2003 1 was -- fraudulently -- — How many times are we the tax accused of misdemeanor domestic assault. payers going to get scammed by the Cornerstone's representative attended all education system with these yearly tax Exhibit F (IV6 JW Tonight's Open House is an importantstep in the potential redevelopment of Pentagon Park. Your comments will inform the planning process and help us to unlock the full potential of this tremendous site! Tonight's Schedule: Station 1 Station 3 6:30pm - 7:00pm, Open House Monitor displaying interior and exterior images of Redevelopment Issues and Opportunities - Key 7:00pm - 7:30pm, Presentation the existing buildings within the Pentagon Park Project Goals. 7:30pm - S:OOpm, Open House property. There are five key stations around the room to Station 2 orient you to the site and the effort that has Existing Conditions & Context - Aerial images been accomplished to -date. of site and views of Pentagon Park from the neighborhood to the North of the site. PENTAGON PARK REVITALIZATIOV - Unlocking the Full Po Station 4 Models of alternative redevelopment concepts. Station 5 Comment Station. tential DAM ONFARBERASSOCIATES - r a SOUT,HDALE'. i I,- li I e . ' r •+'~ �'1' --mot _ }} '4.� , r - �'`V _ - � _ .�;; a �. � ju r THEGALLERIA o +r Y 7 • � ', �' 1'' 1 � -! al .. Oth STRE ■ � 1 � ,w ® ,• , a ,�' •1 Q t ('?�'�� 1 � �.J. {j 1„- q4- .y�i.��I t,...1+M1 ,• rt h ^'F}" ii i�1 }■� i, 1 '` t - tkY j. ..) 1.•�i, _may, 1 . CENTENNIAL L Kf' P.,ENTAGON PA V 4w to t f A y[j " tt �`,�� -.S,�T .. t •a ''.° � __ 4P+.+»`'.�1 �'aF�i'f �C ■�? a, I � Cd��, .� 4�;a �''��` �' �' .., as �-�•! t p•� •,� r A� Ct t . � a� t., C} a '�.`"+ <� ra� r};r F .e o " _ a" � ..• f,1, _ .�. '' %�, . � , r r� ro � �7� DAMON FARBER ASSOCIATES MU-7 EXISTING CONDITIONS PEN TA DA EDINA, MN - SEPTEMBER 2013 lrIGOi\j. , r-\RK EXISTING CONDITIONS DAM ON FARBER ASSOCIATES EDINA, IVIN - SEPTEMBER 2013 PENTAGON PARK 2 LOOKING SOUTH TOWARDS PENTAGON PARK FROM FRED RICHARDS GOLF COURSE 3 LOOKING SW TOWARDS PENTAGON PARK FROM FRED RICHARDS GOLF COURSE, FAR EAST SIDE OF PROPERTY IMAGE LOCATIONS -- EXISTING CONDITIONS I� DAMONFARBERASSOCIATES �_�- EDINA, fYiN - SEPTEMBER 20'13 PEN [AGON % WEST PROPERTY BOUNDARY EXISTING PEDESTRIAN SPACE EXISTING SEAM - NE CORNER OF PROPERTY 77-1 H STREET LOOKING EASTTOWARD PENTAGON PARK EXISTING PARKING LOT EXISTING SEAM - NORTH SIDE OF PROPERTY �A EXISTING CONDITIONS M PENTAGON PARK DAMONFARBERASSOCIATES =� EDINA, N - SEPTEMBER 2013 r I 1 I � � � 1 1 - 1 ' I AVE, LAKE EDINA PARK �# ® 00 o - g �♦; I �S - I FRED RICHARDS GOLF COURSE W 76TH ST I t ( t BURGUNDY -. , I - �PLACE r yrlrri,alN > .1 II -' - -�.: .r �.� I ' a. W 77TH S I. I I AIL loopij W77THST 1 INTEGRATED STORMWATER f IMPROVE PARK ACCESS PASSIVE RECREATION BUS STOPS V� ------ 6- UOFM- HENNEPIN _ %ER%ES•FRANCE- SOUTH -LE e578 - EXPRESS- EDINA- SOUTHDALE•MPLS ACTIVE RECREATION - ■ ■ REGIONALTRAIL 1 - ' CONNECTTO GREEN SPACE t7 I BUSTRANSIT 15 587 -EXPRESS - EDINA -VALLEY VIEW RD -MPLS 15540• EXPRESS- RICHFIELD - 77TH-MOA D' 125' 250' 0 4 1 1 1 1 SHARED PARKING PEDESTRIAN FRIENDLY 77TH _ li t1 i [I l3 1111111 NEW TRAIL LINK ISSUES DAM ONFARBERASSOCIATES EDINA, MN - SEPTEMBER 2013 PENTAGON PARK GREEN INTEGRATED PEDESTRIAN CONNECT MULTIMODAL SHARED STREETS STORMWATER FRIENDLY 77 TH WESTTO EAST CONNECTIONS PARKING Fis ; ^: �I `may. '^ '.��_ -. .�� 4A� � �' i 1 Z �� ' =`�'' � , o0or PRINCIPLES DAM ON FARBER ASSOCIATES EDINA, MN -SEPTEMBER 2013 A6 EXISTING DAMON FARBER ASSOCIATES UNLOCKING THE POTENTIAL PENY-�. EDINA, MN - SEPTEMBER 2013 A GON PARK 1 r NAVE 1 ,rr 1 � 1 � 1 i 1 � 1 LAKE EDINA PARK 1 L - RGIONALAIL PARKING ACCESS y� EXISTING VEGETATION PEDESTRIAN FRIENDLY 77THST G' 125' 250' ROAD I STORMWATER PONDS PROPOSED VEGETATION PEDESTRIAN PATH PARKING STORMWATER SWALES - - -• PROPERTY BOUNDARY BIRDSEYE OF DOCKSIDE GREEN LOCATED IN VICTORIA BRITISH COLUMBIA DOCKSID G DOCKSIDE GREEN CONCEPT A continuous linear stormwater amenity connects the development parcels A two -way parkway with parking bays provides a loop around the development, connecting from W 77th St 'Natural vegetation' is planted adjacent to stormwater ponds and buildings A regional trail is located north of the site, with three connections from trail to W 77th St W 77th St to be pedestrian friendly with trees, stormwater management, and improved sidewalks Multiple parking strategies - below- grade, on- street and architecturally integrated with buildings E REEN STORMWATER& PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE LUSH VEGETATION AT DOCKSIDE GREEN STORMWATER AMENITY INTEGRATES BUILDINGS AND CIRCULATION CONCEPT M DIAGRAMS 1 EIN i l� � �+ P I� K K DANIONFARBERASSOCIATES =�• EDINA, MN - SEPTEMBER 2013 !'1 ! V C" I'll \ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ;1 Po°PrW 1 1 BURGUNDY PLACE r _� _ ��j W 77TH ST _��.. _ - �f-�J 'I 1 ' \ `\ BARB ENGINEERING 0' 125' 250' AERIAL OFTHE UPPER LANDING IN ST PAUL, MN I W 77TI l ST =__ l� F3_1 I [� ^ ^ ^"`• REGIONALTRAIL PARKINGACCESS EXISTING VEGETATION ;i PEDESTRIAN FRIENDLY 77EHST ROAD I STDRMWATER PONDS PROPOSED VEGETATION ® PEDESTRIAN PATH --! PARKING •.. ...:i STORMWATER SWALES • - - -- PROPERTY BOUNDARY STORMWATER SWALE BETWEEN THE UPPER LANDING AND TRAILS ROADWAY ADIACENTTO THE UPPER LANDING THE UPPER LANDING CONCEPT Two road loops off of W 77th St - providing connectivity without through traffic Small stormwater ponds are located on the interior of the development buildings Public parking is located between the trail and development Flexibility in block size (market- driven) A regional trail is located north of the site between the park and development W 77th St to be pedestrian friendly with trees, stormwater management, and improved sidewalks Multiple parking strategies - below - grade, on- street and architecturally integrated with buildings LOOP STREETS ALTERNATE WITH STDRMWATER FEATURES PATHWAY BETWEEN BUILDINGS DAM O N FARBER ASSOCIATES CONCEPT DIAGRAMS P ENTAGO N CAR K EDINA, MN - SEPTEMBER 2013 LAKE EDINA PARK G• P 1 a 1 1 1 1 r r r r 1 1 w 76TH sr =__ l� F3_1 I [� ^ ^ ^"`• REGIONALTRAIL PARKINGACCESS EXISTING VEGETATION ;i PEDESTRIAN FRIENDLY 77EHST ROAD I STDRMWATER PONDS PROPOSED VEGETATION ® PEDESTRIAN PATH --! PARKING •.. ...:i STORMWATER SWALES • - - -- PROPERTY BOUNDARY STORMWATER SWALE BETWEEN THE UPPER LANDING AND TRAILS ROADWAY ADIACENTTO THE UPPER LANDING THE UPPER LANDING CONCEPT Two road loops off of W 77th St - providing connectivity without through traffic Small stormwater ponds are located on the interior of the development buildings Public parking is located between the trail and development Flexibility in block size (market- driven) A regional trail is located north of the site between the park and development W 77th St to be pedestrian friendly with trees, stormwater management, and improved sidewalks Multiple parking strategies - below - grade, on- street and architecturally integrated with buildings LOOP STREETS ALTERNATE WITH STDRMWATER FEATURES PATHWAY BETWEEN BUILDINGS DAM O N FARBER ASSOCIATES CONCEPT DIAGRAMS P ENTAGO N CAR K EDINA, MN - SEPTEMBER 2013 r 1 1 1 \ 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 \ iy \ ♦ \ 8 ` BURGUNDY PLACE W77THST ��- -- 0' =25' 250' AERIAL OF THE UPPER LANDING IN ST PAUL, MN �pP .00 r ~PAfI %LAWN AVE LAKE EDUU FARK ,! 1 1 1 O 1 Sy,a FNP� 1 N11 i ____ r ED .7��- - ___ h: fo', T. BARR • ENGINEERING 7 W 77TH ST W MH ST UPPER LANDING HYBRID CONCEPT Two road loops off of W 77th St -providing connectivity without through traffic Small stormwater ponds are located on the interior of the development buildings Public parking is located between the trail and development Flexibility in block size (market- driven) A regional trail is located north of the site between the park and development W 77th St to be pedestrian fi'iendly with trees, stormwater management, and improved sidewalks Multiple parking strategies - below- gracle, on- street parking bays on loop roads and architecturally integrated with buildings �•��- REGIONALTRAIL �] PARKING ACCESS EXISTING VEGETATION PEDESTRIAN FRIENDLY 77TH ST ROAD STORMWATER PONDS a PROPOSED VEGETATION �"" PEDESTRIAN PATH 11111111W- PARKING :, STORMWATERSWALES • - -•- PROPERTY BOUNDARY STORMWATER S WALE BETWEEN THE UPPER LANDING AND TRAILS ROADWAY ADIACENTTO THE UPPER LANDING LOOP STREETS A LTLRNA7 E WITH 5TORMWATER FEATURES PATHWAY BETWEEN RUI LD iNGS DAMONFARBERASSOCIATES - °- CONCEPT DIAGRAMS 1 E v �VIGO N Fn L=DINA, MN - SEPTEMBER 2013 V R K 8 8 i I f 1 f 1 1 1 f f 1 1 f � �Yw r BURGUNDY `�q�•�„�� PLACE 0' 125' 250' AERIAL OF THE CHAIN OF LAKES f /��r PARKI.AWN AVE i LAKE EMA PARK I � 1 � t t i i i o •�••• REGIONALTRAIL �� PARKING ACCESS EXISTING VEGETATION PEDESTRIAN FRIENDLY 77TH ST ROAD STORMWATER PONDS F__] PROPOSED VEGETATION PEDESTRIANPATH -BIBBI PARKING STORMWATER SWALES -• -•• PROPERTY BOUNDARY WETLAND AREA ADJACENT TO LAKE CALHOUN CHAIN OF LAKES CONCEPT Multiple shared amenities A parkway is located north of site, increasing connectivity Multiple water bodies are located north of the site, Separating the neighborhood from the development Small stormwater ponds are located on the interior of the development and manage water in concert with larger ponds to the north Flexibility in block Size (market- driven) TWO -WAY PARKWAYWITH PARKING BAYS ADJACENT OF LAKE CALHOUN STORMWATER SWALE ADJACENTTO PATH A regional trail is located north of the site between the park and development W 77th St to be pedestrian friendly with trees, stormwater management, and improved sidewalks Multiple parking strategies - below- gracle, on- street and architecturally integratecl with buildings STORMWATER SWALE BETWEEN PATHS CONCEPT DIAGRAMS °"�► � DAi�ON FARBER ASSOCIATES EDINA, MN - SEPTEMBER 2013 g L— C , 1 , , 1 1 1 , 1 1 , t BURGUNDY PLACE / y W 77TH ST BARR I q^\ \ ENGINEERING F / VK/ W 77TI1 ST LAKE 10M PAN [J W 76TI I ST ly - ��•�� REGIONALTRAIL (^] PARKING ACCE55 EXISTING VEGETATION PEDESTRIAN FRIENDLY 77THST V 12S' 250' ROAD I STORMWATER PONDS PROP05ED VEGETATION _ PEDESTRIANPATH .. PARKING STORMWATER SWALES •.• - -- PROPERTY BOUNDARY AERIAL OF LAKE NOKOMIS ONE -WAY LOOP WITH PARKING RAYS NATURALVEGETAT[ON CENTENNIAL LAKES CENTENNIAL LAKES CONCEPT A central water feature is located north of the site separating the neighborhood from the development Stormwater ponds are natural amenities within the development A parkway provides public access and bay parking to the park A Flexible grid of streets (market driven) with parallel parking connects W 77th St to the parkway north of the site A regional trail is located north of the site, with two connections from trail to W 77th St W 77th St to be pedestrian friendly with trees, stormwater management, and improved sidewalks i Multiple parking strategies - below - grade, on- street and architecturally integrated with buildings 5TORMWATER LINKS TO DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT DIAGRAMS 0�r �� DAMONFARBERASSOCIATES ~='" EDINA, MN - SEPTEMBER 213 ENTGON ARK t 1 1 1 1 1 1 E 1 1 E { 4P `-------- .,,,y__ _ BURGUNDY PUCE 'PCE W7TTN5T DAgq ENGINEERING 8 LK lf. Pngxuwa wE LANE EDINA ►ARK a i 1 W 77TH ST �6 �f. 1 j - - - ^- REGIONALTRAIL �] PARKING ACCESS EXISTING VEGETATION PEDESTRIAN FRIENDLY 77TH ST O 0' W MATER PONDS ��, 725' 250' ROAD STOR PROPOSED VEGETATION PEDESTRIANPATH -ONEIr- PARKING ... -.i STORMWATER SWALES . - -_ -. PROPERTY BOUNDARY MINNEHAHA CREEKTHROUGH EDINA COUNTRY CLUB DISTRICT COLORPLAST US HEADQUARTERS IN MINNEAPOLIS PEDESTRIAN PATH OVER MINNEHAHA CREEK PARKWAY ALONG MINNEHAHA CREEK '. , 1 N {��-y,1� I' �•. MINNEHAHA CREEK CONCEPT A naturalized corridorwith vegetation and a spine of water is located north of the site separating the neighborhood from the development Small stormwater ponds are located on the interior of the development buildings A parkway with parking bays is located between the naturalized corridor and new development A flexible grid of streets (market driven) with parallel parking connects W 77th St to the parkway north of the site A regional trail is located north of the site, with two connections from trail to W 77th St W 77th St to be pedestrian friendly with trees, stormwater management, and improved sidewalks Multiple parking strategies - below - glade, on- street and architecturally integrated with buildings PATH ADIACENTTO PARKWAY CONCEPT DIAGRAMS DAM ONFARBERASSOCIATES EDINA, MN - SEPTEMBER 2013 PENTAGON P 0 r unj - - 6 STREET PARKING -DIAGONAL 11� � THREE PRONGED APPROACH TO PAWNG: r 1. Below -grade (1 level) 2. "Embedded" deck (maintain great addresses at perimeter) r 3. Street Parking Parallel Diagonal Parking Bays STREET PARKING-DIAGONAL STREET PARKING - PARALLEL TUCKUNDER PARKING TUCK UNDER PARKING STREET PARKING- PARKING BAYS AT FRED RICHARDS -- a I: STREET PARKING- PARALLEL STREET PARKING- PARALLEL J - PARKING STRATEGIES DAM ONFARBERASSOCIATES - EDINA, MN - SEPTEMBER 2013 NOTES TO USERS En tZ ,=,Rd =Z-1... I 14Z M z V po')",—E, awtwiex N -.y d.l.. =:d —P vl °ovary mode S I".. I —d gaporj dt- w,.lem .1 1. -Y .1 ...d P.— ---F (1-1 — .11) or vba 1. FE namao Ft !Exhlbt G� LEGEND ROOSS—ASSTS. —It. OmG I— A.— be......... E-IN ............. It FN— =41I WoUldl PANEL -211 11[titi FIRM NAINUMBIR 27053CG452F FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP MAP REVISED HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA .n (ALLJUMSDICTIONS) PANEL 0.52 OF .. (SEE NAP — FOR Fl- Rt— —.n it po "IV 901� NAINUMBIR 27053CG452F it MAP REVISED ? r7li ThreeRivers PARK DISTRICT M ' 1/� y 1 �• 1 44 �` 4 � ply �� '� 1� .�� •r ` C.I Y Section IV I Trail Description & Background [Edina stgm ent Location and Status The 7.38 -mile segment of Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail is generally unbuilt through Edina. The Edina segment may be implemented in two phases and as. such, the Edina segment is broken into West (Figure 13) and East (Figure 14) segment efforts. rdesit Segment From TH 169, the trail continues east along the southern bank of Nine Mile Creek through a wetland complex owned by Edina. The trail follows a small sliver of upland through the wetland complex to the Lincoln Drive cul -de -sac. At Lincoln Drive, the trail extends south between the road and Nine Mile Creek. The trail will be located partially on right -of -way and partially on parkland associated with Nine Mile Creek. The trail crosses Bren Road /Londonderry Road before extending east along the southern bank of Nine Mile Creek through a large wetland complex to Londonderry Drive. The trail will cross Nine Mile Creek within the wetland complex in an effort to utilize available upland and make its way to Londonderry Drive. At Londonderry Drive, the trail follows the south and east right-of-way to Walnut Ridge Park. At Walnut Ridge Park, the trail parallels the Nine Mile Creek and stays along the southern limits of the park's developed area continuing east to Vernon Avenue via a third wetland complex. The regional trail will replace the existing trail along the park's southern boundary. The trail crosses Vernon Avenue at an existing controlled crossing and then follows the eastern right -of -way of Gleason Road to the existing trail access point of Bredesen Park. The trail utilizes the existing Bredesen Park trails to TH 62. The main trails through Bredesen Park separate walking (pedestrian) and biking activities. Since the regional trail will utilize these trails, the regional trail is planned to also separate uses. This will be further evaluated in conjunction with Edina during the design phase. At TH 62, the trail continues to follow the Nine Mile Creek across TH 62 to Creek Valley Elementary School via a new pedestrian /bicycle bridge located between Gleason Road and Tracy Avenue. At Creek Valley Elementary School, the trail extends east, still paralleling the southern creek bank, across parkland and property owned by the Edina School District. The trail passes the Valley View Middle School and Edina High School and continues east to Tracy Avenue. East Segment I The trail crosses Tracy Avenue at Valley View Road and follows existing parkland along the Nine Mile Creek corridor to the intersection of 70th Street West and Metro Boulevard. There is one segment near Brook Drive along the creek in which parkland does not exist. For this short segment, the trail is located east of the Nine Mile Creek corridor on parkland associated with existing utility lines and immediately west of the Canadian Pacific Railroad (CP Rail). This trail segment, as originally envisioned, passes through or is adjacent to, Heights and Abercrombie Parks, likely incorporates at least two creek crossings, and requires a new crossing of CP Rail. As part of the design phase, the crossing of CP Rail will be further studied and an alternative route would be determined in conjunction with Edina, if necessary. The exact location of the trail along Nine Mile Creek will be determined in the design phase and will take into consideration the challenges associated with amount of available parkland, wetlands, flood plains, Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail Master Plan, September 11, 2013 31L Section 1V I Trail Description & Background 9 3A NO1d0 ,# ; 93AV r4oldn -? . • F3• -I , N S 3AY 1N3b N1A m • N N .. ' 0 6 3AV AN33NIA S N' rZ• m .S 3" NaAONSYM o - r6.3AY Nan9NSYM h SHAW S3%a7X . , II I �' 6 HAW 63ib'U AT 1 { I • 'I ' � II'� .. r � :r I ,, tl31 tlaDA•� ... tl13A' i .�. NX N°,JIIOHOONIO3 5.. _ Ile �, b „ •'•, = 7 Q /� C '•�, ( 1. 3AV 71Jf4Vazj •j r AA', `I - 7 0 A. 1 HAW 133CINVS - 0 LYNMPfl L11 n I i 'iDrlivo '' i pO A OpLG IID. F it � 41 0s } .'dhlO 161SIHB VALLEY v` -C %0 J sib 'kbO 010 I . 1 ••r. ! NO V113NHO0 1,1 ;dal 1 POINT bit Y - fe S OI ¢ 3A I, 37vo ooM r j. 1 r. 3 ,o. R I ill t f K', y 3 1• _per .+ , 1 �I o. 'EgT gMO +: h•, 4 �♦ ) NT Op x R - ,1 3AV TT3NNVd, I. I t , 3` ' LC �.• '�N ? 'OSF iI s, '1 ' F 3AY NYAH a! ,dtl ANY111aU ' _ _ .}9PU -.,J 16 i 1 Oa 3TYONVWHON - - .. 3nv 3NINd350f ,, r � . % y � 11• -� � �. _ � ' '7AV ^I r•'3AY 91YO01111 ` l �� 'di'm _>✓"-• - -. ! .a Ce 3AY dloH -�..H {V, 3 r -.. f• aO IWOYNQ'.POO 'k ``�O .•q��' r6y?I �I I - I ii 3AYN3aHVM _ , 7 Oy 1 111 Ixj aOG�V1i - ! r • •` OH 331v TINSOPI ►"1Y3t11F'��5�4 : jell 'r_ _ a� - - -34V Nosdq, I .yY • , r 1 r c l r W ca' 'OH I1114VD ' 1�7i� a cr 1'` LN NIL r6 }1 �Y, i11�,�AYA9YH /•� 1{S • Y. ._� � .. „v .�� 2: .Ir ..I I�•�DZ -tF_.r . �. 37�Wi ;4 p o'�e. .'0 1 �1 �In �= t f:W�t,•y l _-�•�•� 17ffi jl” Fi y l Pml v G �• q'n� F � Hp aooAtts I � W > p r ' ��`�`� �i..��'��3])SO`.1 � W r4 }7r W h °, . s, :i i ° 1 . 1i�+ .>• Figure 14 Edina East Segment of the Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail Source: Three Rivers Park District 22 Three Rivers Park District M W M �C LU Lo M 10 W L U giml Z W U •? tk �y F Mrf., 4� rz a ,0 7 A zi In O a N C5 O .Hyjo•S'wk N (�ww-m5 t� Sni. C V 9`pc b2 x;q y> y O i9 Nu�g�� and Nine Mile Creek as well as the opportunities of providing public access to public land. At the intersection of 70th Street West and Metro Boulevard, the trail will continue south along the west right -of -way of Metro Boulevard to a new grade - separated pedestrian /bicycle bridge over TH 100. The bridge will occur somewhere between 72nd and 74th Streets, and will connect to existing parkland located on the western shore of Lake Edina. From Lake Edina, the trail continues south and east to and along the southern border of Fred Richards Golf Course. A small portion of this trail segment is located within MnDOT right -of -way and Burgundy Condos property. Similar to other trail segments within Edina, the exact location along /across the Fred Richards Golf Course will be determined during the design phase and in conjunction with redevelopment efforts of the Pentagon Park area, located immediately south of Fred Richard's Golf Course. It is possible that an alternative to avoid the golf course entrance will be established. From Fred Richards Golf Course, the trail continues east along the western and northern right -of -way of Parklawn Avenue to Gallagher Drive. The trail Section IV I Trail Description & Backgrocrnd An existing Edina West trail segment along Vernon Avenue. The Edina East trail segment incorporates existing parkland in which the trail is planned along Valley View Road. is located within the eastern and southern right - of -way of Gallagher Drive and continues east over France Avenue. The regional trail segment along Gallagher Drive was designed and constructed in 2012 as part of a road reconstruction project. This segment was designed to meet regional trail standards to the greatest extent feasible within the road right -of -way; therefore, no immediate improvements are proposed at this time. From France Avenue the trail utilizes an existing trail connection to Edina Promenade between the Macy's Home Furniture Store on the north and a retail complex and Centennial Lakes Park on the south. The trail continues east through the Edina Promenade and Yorktown Park trail system between Centennial Lakes and Adam Hill Park (Xerxes Avenue). This segment of trail is designed as a linear park with separate walking and biking trails. The existing trails will serve as part of the regional trail corridor but remain under the jurisdictional control of Edina. The existing trails do not meet regional trail standards and incorporate roundabout features which help reduce speed through a potentially congested area. When and if this area is reconstructed, the Park District will work with Edina to design and upgrade this trail segment to meet regional trail standards without significantly changing the character and intent of the Edina Promenade and Yorktown Park. At Yorktown and Adam Hill Parks, the trail extends south along the western right -of -way of Xerxes Avenue for two blocks to 75th Street where it connects with the existing trail segment in Richfield. Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail Master Plan, September 11, 2013 33 Section 1V I Frail Descrij.�tlon & Background Context and Destinations The Edina trail segment is located through and adjacent to a wide variety of land uses. The trail segment between TH 169 and TH 100 is primarily located on parkland surrounded by low density residential uses with a few pockets of medium residential density and commercial /office /industrial land uses. East of TH 100 the trail is located adjacent to and through office, residential (low, medium, and high density), and mixed uses. To the greatest extent feasible, the trail is located within parkland adjacent to Nine Mile Creek. In addition, the trail corridor passes three schools (Creek Valley Elementary School, Valley View Middle School, and Edina High School), several parks (Walnut Ridge, Bredesen, Creek Valley, Heights, Abercrombie, Centennial Lakes, and Yorktown Parks, Edina Promenade, Fred Richards Golf Course), France Avenue Business District ( Southdale Hospital, Southdale Mall, and many other office /retail employment centers), and Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail corridor through Edina will provide opportunities to interact with Nine Mile Creek. 34 Three Rivers Park District several churches. The parks located adjacent to the regional trail provide an impressive diversity of recreational offerings including, but not limited to; ice rinks, walking, biking, and cross country ski trails, soccer fields, baseball diamonds, play areas, bathrooms, nature areas, tennis courts, gardens, fishing, concessions, picnicking, golf, a band stand, and a skate park. Many of the adjacent parks offer public bathroom facilities, water, and parking and by the nature of their location, support the regional trail corridor. Natural Resources The Nine Mile Creek corridor through Edina is a hidden gem. Prior to development, Edina took steps to preserve public land along the creek corridor and associated wetlands and floodplain. With the development of the Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail, this land will be available for public use and enjoyment. The Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail corridor is a mix of both wooded and open areas, upland and lowland, and developed and undeveloped areas. The area immediately adjacent to the regional trail and Nine Mile Creek are classified as forests, wetlands, open water, shrub lands, and herbaceous landcovers by the MLCCS (Appendix C). The greater surrounding landscape and adjacent areas of the Edina segment are predominantly artificial surfaces and cultural vegetation. It provides a little bit of everything creating diverse and desirable opportunities for regional trail users. The location nextto the Nine Mile Creek and its associated wetlands and floodplains provide a wonderful opportunity to provide access to engage with nature while fully immersed within a first-tier community. While the corridor is a pleasant contrast to the heavily urbanized and populated area of Edina, it has been impacted by adjacent development and urban land uses. The quality of the natural resources of the regional trail corridor is the direct result of urbanization. The Park District will maintain the 16 -20' wide corridor to account for both trail user safety and the adjacent natural resources. While the Park District will not be responsible to manage or otherwise improve the adjacent natural resources, the Park District recognizes that the health of the greater landscape plays an important role in the value of the corridor and enjoyment of trail users; therefore, the Park District will promote environmental stewardship through its own operation and maintenance practices. Species of Special Concern Most wildlife species found within the regional trail corridor have already been introduced to human activities (e.g., existing trails and sidewalks, adjacent land uses, etc.) and are not anticipated to be negatively affected by the regional trail. However, there are a few species within a one -mile radius of the Edina segment that are classified as Threatened or Special Concern Species within Minnesota and warrant special consideration. • Two Blanding's Turtles (Emydoidea blandingii) - Threatened Species • One Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrines) - Threatened Species • One Common Moorhen (Gallinula chloropus) - Special Concern Species • One Forester's Tern (Sterna forsteri) - Special Concern Species The Peregrine Falcon, Common Moorhead, and Forester's Tern are not anticipated to be impacted by the project. The Blanding's turtle is also not anticipated to be impacted by the project as the Park District will construct the regional trail in accordance with Minnesota Department of Natural Resources best management practices and recommendations for this species. Section TV I Trail Description & Background -- J The Park District will construct the regional trail in accordance with Minnesota Department of Natural Resources best management practices and recommendations for all Threatened or Special Concern Species present. Acquisition Needs The Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail master planning process identified the need for several new trail easements. The potential new easements are located through: • Former United Health Complex (southeast corner of Lincoln Avenue and Londonderry Road) • Edina middle /high school • Creek Baptist Church (southwest corner of Tracy Avenue and TH 62) • Burgundy Condos • Fred Richards Golf Course area An existing easements along Macy's Furniture Store property may be amended to allow for regional trails uses and /or increase the easement width. It is possible that additional regional trail easements may be identified during the design phase. If this occurs, the Park District and Edina will work together to obtain the required easement while minimizing any potential impacts to private property to the greatest extent possible. In addition, limited use permits are required from MnDOT for the crossings of TH 169, TH 62, and TH 100. Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail Master Plan, September 11, 2013 35 Contact x M Re: Go- x M inbox i x ® Google x _, https: /j x x ®Google p 2/22 DL x [] MPCA - x Q wild life x Q water t. x Minns x edinam x I °l j _ I C7 pca- gis02.pca. state ,mn.us /'vvimrl2/`inde,c.htmI 1f■ieuiltworks UntiopracU 8 Rthab .nlemrional Dairy Weeynl ConAgraFoods - Edina Ana city of Public Workr I i ?`ppy f;; ...PakLTa,nEctales HeallenonOTEWlw r' or - - -- ♦- ♦ Park Lawn Apanmen Mesna Pla,ucSurtiery CRL Imaging Edu/,+ Wycau Insurance Bldg A. MMK Plastic Sur ■ gaY Ynl oaayood.-Edin. Alhna Medical Clinic - Edii Fast / Hour Folo Inc ■ 1uQ Adc Telecom mriucatioinsFry_ 8 LarsonDDSi F ieJ Rikhzird, ■ ■ + � � . oil �: our � . Nomwndale veterinary Hcsptd ■ t,r1�YYLlW liltml -M11uli lice Bldg I ♦ Mcp awfillln c SprI tMetropolitan Piano Gallery eSa Woods: Gra■hte I FumTa Corp - Mmnw Pentagon 011ce Park S PCw,on I himn eapdl ♦General Motors Service PamPamUpd ♦ 7'25 Budding tParklauni Apt; Inc Pentagon C111- -e Parl. ■ ■ Peter's BlllltrdSupplvTllextan Manutaclurnq Twin Cites Pain tunic - France Ave Fll+a O1IU,e 61dy; S TGrapcu MetoDe ialr-ae Edna StudioGne Im: Pentagon Office Parks II Filch Cornpatry Mlrol�tdis Servr.e Centel ■Kramer CNropra fi , ■ ♦Pinta on Ofice park ■ - -- r - - • g ♦Pentagon S1t1�.e Para; FFt`, 6usuness Development Center West 77 Pentagon Park LLC UPpg Industne: Inc Location 1611 Edina 355ervicr Pentagon Uttice ParkPentagon Cl(IicePa kFdnWgon {Jt1te Park ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦Pentagul Of11 {e Park ♦Pent gon OMrce P:i'k Centennial Lakei, �;uslom Creation Commercial Residential Redevlopment _ ` Pinta ■ intery Inc The Co nenn ial Lake; 11 Pentagon Crfti..e Parts American HSvl A:sO�laton Mn Mri 111 A -1 Fnnler: Ir>:■ ■.Broadvitw Media Inc ♦ :w I r tl: 52 • ■ A'Iphar tli �! yraWl.ic -Edna MinnesotaCentetlot j Chemrex Inc Milrr�oW Conway Fire 8 Safety Inc eta Tdexal7 Ij * -, JL � ■ u AG FA ; orp - R atY t�l on 61ooi1rn yf o1M11r s to Car LY .ch i 1I DentalCare - Edna SeecIinli tat Blao»tngton■ Conrnatial6uddin Seagate Technology LLC - Bloomington a� VeecoMirneapolm Trcltndogy " select Iron Of Bloanungton = Seagale Tech P.xking Lot Improvement, ♦ We:tem National Mutual Ire urary :e Co' Former Cadle Co ;Zlympir. Gfapinlcs 11111111GGtenler Corp - Cotrpula Ave _ 400•m t =' Markepoinie 1 � ComputexAve Genrdinal and Level 1000 ift i ognal l ire Ur ADC Tetecommunicatont faitional rar Rental�Natary • ,r Rental At& Wirelesr. ♦ Markelpoinle II Office FarkMarkepante OutlotsA & 6 MarkeRtante OullolA 2nd AdditolMmnecota Canter aQMulne ala :a+id JL Inductiee 0Mlchad's Store !39 West 7611 i:irde Site FrzinceAve ueDump Uon - OutlotA&B (see Crctrt City • � + :, 6obbrc 8 Steve. uloiv i t-,76th Street Office Park TwoMarkepantaParki• ■ E''Ct. DeLomle HER iPC. Interma p IJS3S 'NASA, EpAU85W, sFrancsAv'IN Exhibit J TMDL: Nine Mile Creek Watershed Chloride TMDL, Hennepin County, MN Date: November 29, 2010 DECISION DOCUMENT FOR THE NINE MILE CREEK WATERSHED CHLORIDE TMDL, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and EPA's implementing regulations at 40 C.F.R. Part 130 describe the statutory and regulatory requirements for approvable TMDLs. Additional information is generally necessary for EPA to determine if a submitted TMDL fulfills the legal requirements for approval under Section 303(d) and EPA regulations, and should be included in the submittal package. Use of the verb "must" below denotes information that is required to be submitted because it relates to elements of the TMDL required by the CWA and by regulation. Use of the term "should" below denotes information that is generally necessary for EPA to determine if a submitted TMDL is approvable. These TMDL review guidelines are not themselves regulations. They are an attempt to summarize and provide guidance regarding currently effective statutory and regulatory requirements relating to TMDLs. Any differences between these guidelines and EPA's TMDL regulations should be resolved in favor of the regulations themselves. 1. Identification of Waterbody, Pollutant of Concern, Pollutant Sources, and Priority Ranking The TMDL submittal should identify the waterbody as it appears on the State's/Tribe's 303(d) list. The waterbody should be identified/georeferenced using the National Hydrography Dataset (NHD), and the TMDL should clearly identify the pollutant for which the TMDL is being established. In addition, the TMDL should identify the priority ranking of the waterbody and specify the link between the pollutant of concern and the water quality standard (see section 2 below). The TMDL submittal should include an identification of the point and nonpoint sources of the pollutant of concern, including location of the source(s) and the quantity of the loading, e.g., lbs /per day. The TMDL should provide the identification numbers of the NPDES permits within the waterbody. Where it is possible to separate natural background from nonpoint sources, the TMDL should include a description of the natural background. This information is necessary for EPA's review of the load and wasteload allocations, which are required by regulation. The TMDL submittal should also contain a description of any important assumptions made in developing the TMDL, such as: (1) the spatial extent of the watershed in which the impaired waterbody is located; (2) the assumed distribution of land use in the watershed (e.g., urban, forested, agriculture); (3) population characteristics, wildlife resources, and other relevant information affecting the characterization of the pollutant of concern and its allocation to sources; q (4) present and future growth trends, if taken into consideration in preparing the TMDL (e.g., the TMDL could include the design capacity of a wastewater treatment facility); and (5) an explanation and analytical basis for expressing the TMDL through surrogate measures, if applicable. Surrogate measures are parameters such as percent fin_ es and turbidity for sediment impairments; chlorophyll a and phosphorus loadings for excess algae; length of riparian buffer; or number of acres of best. management practices. Comment. Location Description /Spatial Extent: The Nine Mile Creek Watershed (NMCW) (AUID 07020012 =518) is located in southwestern Hennepin County, Minnesota (MN). The watershed is southwest of downtown Minneapolis, and directly west ofthe Minneapolis -Saint Paul (MSP) Airport. The NMCW is 44.5 square miles in area -and lies within the Minnesota River basin. The NMCW is divided into three reaches, the North Fork of Nine Mile Creek, the South Fork of Nine Mile Creek, and the Main Stem of Nine Mile Creek. The North Fork and South Fork converge north of Normandale Lake in the central portion of the watershed (Figure 1, page 2 of the final TMDL document). The Main Stem of Nine Mile Creek flows in a southeasterly direction from Normandale Lake toward the watershed outlet in Bloomington, MN.. Land'Use: The NMCW is an urbanized watershed with a mix of residential, commercial/office /industrial, parkland, open water (lakes), and wetland space. Figure 1 of the final TMDL document displays the land use delineations within the NMCW. Table 2 of the final TMDL document contains land use calculations, by percentage, of each land use within the MMCW.. The NMCW lies in .suburban Minneapolis southwest of downtown Minneapolis and directly west from the MSP Airport. Due to its location in suburban Minneapolis, the NMCW has two.interstate.highways (I494 & I -35), state and county highways, county roads, and suburban access roads all within its bounds. These.roads do not comprise a significant portion of the actual land area, but are a source of chloride inputs to the NMCW. Problem Identification: Nine Mile Creek was originally listed on the 2004 Minnesota 303(d) list for chloride. The NMCW TMDL had a target start date of 2005 and is projected to be completed by 2010. Nine Mile Creek is currently on the draft 2010303(d) list for impaired aquatic life use. Priority Ranking: The NMCW was given a priority ranking by Minnesota for TMDL development due to the impairment impacts on public health and aquatic life, the public value of the impaired water resource, the likelihood of completing the TMDL in an expedient mariner, the inclusion of a strong base of existing data and the restorability of the water body, the technical capability and the willingness of local partners to assist with the TMDL, and the "appropriate sequencing of TMDLs within a watershed or. basin (Section 1.0, page 1 of the. final TMDL document). The NMCW is a located within the lower. portion of the Minnesota River Basin and may contribute high chloride loads under critical conditions to the Minnesota River. Surface waters 2 within the NMCW are also popular for recreational use, such as fishing, canoeing/kayaking, and swimming. The water quality degradation has lead to efforts to improve the water quality conditions of this watershed, and to TMDL development for chloride impairments. Pollutant of Concern: The pollutant of concern is chloride. Source Identification (point and nonpoint sources): Point Source Identification: Road salt usage by municipal operators and road salt applied by commercial and private applicators (e.g. private citizens and commercial contractors salting parking lots, sidewalks and other pedestrian/automobile usage areas) are the two main sources of chloride in the NMCW. Road salt from these sources is carried into the surface waters draining the NMCW by impervious surfaces (ex. highways, roads, and other paved areas) via municipal storm drains during snowmelt or rainfall runoff events. The potential point sources to the NMCW are: - Minnesota Department of Transportation (MNDOT) Metro District Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4) (MS400170) - Hennepin County MS4 community (MS400138) - City of Bloomington MS4 community (MS400005) - City of Eden Prairie MS4 community (MS400015) - City of Edina MS4 community (MS400016) - City of Hopkins MS4 community (MS400024) - City of Minnetonka MS4 community (MS400035) - City of Richfield MS4 community (MS400045) - Commercial and private applicators (combined into a Wasteload Allocation (WLA)) - Industrial stormwater (combined into a Categorical WLA - Permitted Construction activities (combined into a Categorical WLA, determined to be a minor source of chloride because the NMCW is nearly fully developed and construction work typically occurs in the warmer months when salting is not necessary) - Stormwater from Normandale Community College (combined into a Categorical WLA) Nonpoint Source Identification: The potential nonpoint sources to the NMCW are: - Background chloride or irreducible chloride load - Runoff from non - regulated salt storage facilities (all of the municipal storage areas are covered in the NMCW) Future Growth: Future Growth/Reserve Capacity information can be found in Section 3.3.4 (pages 22 -23 of the final TMDL document). Significant development is not expected in the NMCW and therefore existing conditions can be considered as the "ultimate" land use condition for setting the allocations of the NMCW TMDL. The allocations set for point (WLA) and nonpoint sources (Load Allocations, LA) are for all current and future sources. Any expansion of either point or nonpoint sources will need to comply with the respective WLA and LA in the NMCW TMDL. The U.S. EPA finds that the TMDL document submitted by the MPCA satisfies the requirements of the first criterion. 1. Description of the Applicable Water Quality Standards and Numeric Water Quality Target The TMDL submittal must include a description of the applicable State/Tribal water quality standard, including the designated use(s) of the waterbody, the applicable numeric or narrative water quality criterion, and the antidegradation policy. (40 C.F.R. §130.7(c)(1)). EPA needs this information to review the loading capacity determination, and load and wasteload allocations, which are required by regulation. The TMDL submittal must identify a numeric water quality target(s) — a quantitative value used to measure whether or not the applicable water quality standard is attained. Generally, the pollutant of concern and the numeric water quality target are, respectively, the chemical causing the impairment and the numeric criteria for that chemical (e.g., chromium) contained in the water quality standard. The TMDL expresses the relationship between any necessary reduction of the pollutant of concern and the attainment of the numeric water quality target. Occasionally, the pollutant of concern is different from the pollutant that is the subject of the numeric water quality target (e.g., when the pollutant of concern is phosphorus and the numeric water quality target is expressed as Dissolved Oxygen (DO) criteria). In such cases, the TMDL submittal should explain the linkage between the pollutant of concern and the chosen numeric water quality target. Comment: Designated Uses: The designated use for the NMCW can be found in Section 2.1 (pages 4 -5 of the final TMDL document). The Nine Mile Creek waters are designated as Class 2B or 2C, 313, 3C, 4A, 4B, 5, and 6 (according to Minnesota Rules Ch. 7050.0470). The quality of Class 2B waters, relative to aquatic life and recreation, "shall be as to permit the propagation and maintenance of a healthy community of cool or warm water sport or commercial fish and associated aquatic life, and their habitats. These waters shall be suitable for aquatic recreation of all kinds, including bathing, for which the waters may be usable. " Standards: The assessment of aquatic life impairments by chloride requires the use of the numeric water quality standard in Minnesota Rules 7050.0222. The numeric chloride standard is represented as a "chronic standard" (230 mg/L) and a "maximum standard" (860 mg/L). The chronic standard is based on a four -day average while the maximum standard is based on an individual sample. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) determined that violations of the chronic standard occur when two or more exceedances of 230 mg/L are recorded in consecutive three year periods during the most recent ten year period. MPCA determined that violations of the maximum standard occur when there is one exceedance of 860 mg/L in a three year period of recorded data. Tablel : MPCA Chloride Water Quality Standard and Basis for Determining Impairment Standard Standard Based on Violation Resulting in Impairment Description Limit (mg / L) Chronic Standard 230 4 -day average 2 or more exceedances in a 3 year sampling period Maximum Standard 860 Individual sample 1 exceedance in a 3 year sampling period MPCA set the target for this TMDL to the chronic standard of 230mg/L based on the reductions needed to meet the standards. A 60% reduction is needed to meet the chronic standard and a 47% reduction is needed to meet the maximum standard. Further discussion of the loadings required to meet the chronic standard are discussed in the following sections of this document. The U.S. EPA finds that the TMDL document submitted by the MPCA satisfies the requirements of the second criterion. 3. Loading Capacity - Linking Water Quality and Pollutant Sources A TMDL must identify the loading capacity of a waterbody for the applicable pollutant. EPA regulations define loading capacity as the greatest amount of a pollutant that a water can receive without violating water quality standards (40 C.F.R. §130.2(D). The pollutant loadings may be expressed as either mass - per -time, toxicity or other appropriate measure (40 C.F.R. § 130.2(i)). If the TMDL is expressed in terms other than a daily load, e.g., an annual load, the submittal should explain why it is appropriate to express the TMDL in the unit of measurement chosen. The TMDL submittal should describe the method used to establish the cause - and - effect relationship between the numeric target and the identified pollutant sources. In many instances, this method will be a water quality model. The TMDL submittal should contain documentation supporting the TMDL analysis, including the basis for any assumptions; a discussion of strengths and weaknesses in the analytical process; and results from any water quality modeling. EPA needs this information to review the loading capacity determination, and load and wasteload allocations, which are required by regulation. TMDLs must take into account critical conditions for steam flow, loading, and water quality parameters as part of the analysis of loading capacity (40 C.F.R. § 130.7(c)(1)). TMDLs should define applicable critical conditions and describe their approach to estimating both point and nonpoint source loadings under such critical conditions. In particular, the TMDL should discuss the approach used to compute and allocate nonpoint source loadings, e.g., meteorological conditions and land use distribution. Comment: The determination of the loading reductions necessary to meet the chloride standards in the NMCW were completed by utilizing a mass - balance approach for the chloride sources in the watershed. The watershed loading capacity is based on the loads estimated by a long -term relationship between the chloride concentrations and a mass balance. There is a long term relationship between field measured conductivity and chloride concentrations at all four Watershed Outlet Monitoring Program (WOMP) stations (seepage .10 of final TMDL document). Using this information, the:existing chloride levels measured in Nine Mile Creek were compared against the Minnesota chloride standards to calculate loading reduction percentages necessary to meet the chloride standards. The reductions in the concentration were equivalent to the'load reductions needed. The necessary loading reductions were then applied to the loading capacity for the NMCW TMDL. In 2003, the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District.(NMCWD) began a more intensive water quality monitoring program within the NMCW. The NMCWD aimed to supplement the data already collected in the NMCW by the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) at the WOMP stations. The combined data collection efforts of the NMCWD:and the VICES resulted in continuous water quality measurements at several WOMP.stations within the NMCW. For,this TMDL, historical water quality monitoring data were used, as well as conductivity measurements (conductivity was used as a translator to chloride), from the 106th Street WOW station to better understand the chloride loadings in the watershed. The 106th Street WOW station was chosen because: it is representative of the entire assessed reach, it integrates all of the upstream sources of chloride, it has the longest period of recorded water quality data, it maintains open water (i.e. does not ice over) through the.winter months, and it exhibits the highest 4 -day average chloride concentrations. The NMCWD and MCES monitoring efforts showed that chloride levels typically peaked in the winter months (between January and March). Certain runoff events, during the winter months, exceeded the chloride standards during "critical conditions" (Section 3.1.1 on page 9 of the final TMDL document). The critical conditions corresponded with large snowmelt or precipitation events within the NMCW. Flow conditions in the surface waters of the NMCW during critical conditions can influence chloride concentrations as well. The surface water levels in Nine Mile Creek are also lowest during the winter months, resulting in decreased dilutive capacity throughout the water column. The MPCA completed regression analyses linking snowfall (days) in the NMCW and chloride concentrations (from conductance measurements). The chloride concentrations were based on the maximum 4 -day average and 15- minute values collected at the 106'' Street WOMP station. The snowfall measurements were collected at the MSP airport, which is approximately three miles east of the NMCW. Snowfall was measured as any day where 0.01 - inches of snow or greater fell at the MSP airport. The average annual snowfall value from the MSP airport, based on climate records from 1950- 2008, was 31 days of snowfall. This resulted in a maximum 4 -day average chloride concentration value of 572 mg/L and a maximum 15- minute chloride concentration value of, 1625 mg/L. Chloride reductions were calculated based on the chronic (230 mg/L) and maximum (860 mg/L) chloride values. The 4 -day average (chronic standard) reduction was set at . (1 - (230/572)) = 60% reduction.in chloride. The 15- minute (maximum standard) was set at (1 - (860/1625)) = 47% reduction in chloride. . 6 The chloride loads for each MS4 community were estimated based on road miles within the MS4 community, the application rate of salt per road mile, and the mass fraction of chloride in road salt. Chloride loads (tons /year) were calculated for each MS4 community, for Hennepin County, and for the MNDOT (Table 2 below). An example calculation explaining the calculation of chloride loads for each MS4 community was shown in Section 3.2 (page 19 of the final TMDL document). The chloride load for the City of Bloomington was shown in Section 3.2 (page 19 of the final TMDL document) and is presented below. Table 2: Nine Mile Creek Watershed Existing Road Salt Chloride Source Loads (modified) Source Estimated Existing Chloride Load TMDL Designation tons/ ear Percentage MNDOT 413 6% Individual WLA Hennepin County 761 12% Individual WLA Commercial /Private Applicators 2,339 37% Categorical WLA - Bloomington 692 11% Categorical WLA Eden Prairie 128 2% Categorical WLA Edina 1,085 17% Categorical WLA Hopkins 421 7% Categorical WLA Minnetonka 278 4% Categorical WLA Richfield 42 1% Categorical WLA Background LA 198 3% LA Total 6,357 100% City of Bloomington: Chloride Load (tons /year) = 5.94 tons per 2 -lane road mile per year (Road Salt Application Rate) x 384 miles (road miles in Bloomington) x 0.607 (chloride mass fraction of road salt) / 2 lane miles per road mile (assumption of 2 lane miles per road mile in Bloomington) = 692 tons of chloride per year used by the City of Bloomington. Chloride loading from commercial applicators was estimated based on literature values. The literature values estimated that 19% of the total salt used in the Twin City Metropolitan Area (TCMA) was contributed by commercial applicators and 5% from private applicators. The commercial and private applicator values were combined 19% + 5% = 24 %. The TCMA value of 24% was adjusted based on the unique characteristics of the NMCW. The adjusted loading values for commercial applicators was 34.6% and the private applicators was 3.1% (34.6% + 3.1%=37.7%). These percentages were used in the formulation of the estimated existing WLA for commercial/private applicators (Table 2 above). The percentage attributed to commercial and private applicators in Table 2, (37 %) is approximately 1% less than the adjusted loading value (37.7 %) because in the calculations for Table 2, the commercial and private applicator percentage (37 %) includes the background load in its calculation. This issue was clarified by the MPCA in an email to the USEPA dated 11/7/2010 (Exhibit #10 in the Administrative Record). Individual WLA were assigned to the MNDOT and Hennepin County. The remaining, point sources were combined as a categorical WLA. The categorical WLA included the MS4 communities identified in Table :2 above. Average annual MS4, road salt application. rates (tons /mile /year) were calculated based omtotal road miles (miles) within each MS4 community and road salt application rates (tons /year). The proposed salt application rate reductions were shared with municipal,and private applicators (i.e. public works employees) and MNDOT. supervisors. These groups shared their technical expertise on the application rate adjustments and expressed their concern that reducing road salting activities could impact public safety. The MNDOT calculated that they could reduce their road salt application rate by 30% without compromising public safety.. The MNDOT application rate was reduced.by 30% and set at 5.05, tons /mile /year. Hennepin County was also adjusted to the MNDOT application rate of 5.05 tons /mile /year. WLAs for each MS4 community were then calculated from the "adjusted" road salt application rates (tons /mile /year). The WLA for MNDOT and Hennepin County, based on their salt application rate, did not account for any salt usage from commercial or private applicators. A WLA was assigned to a lumped, or "categorical ", allocation for: the remaining MS4 communities in the NiVMCW, the commercial and private applicators, the Normandale Community College, and construction and industrial stormwater chloride inputs (See Tables 2 & 3 of this Decision Document). Table 3: Nine Mile Creek Chloride Budget and Wasteload and Load Allocations The U.S. EPA. finds that the TMDL document submitted by the MPCA satisfies the requirements of the third criterion. 8 TMDL Daily TMDL Percent Existing Wasteload Wasteload Reduction Watershed Chloride Chloride Allocation Allocation of. Existing Sources Loads Chloride (tons /year) (WLA) (tons /year) (WLA) (tons /day) I Load (Percent) Hennepin County MS4 761 169 0.463 78 Categorical MS4s 4,985 1,885 5.164 62 MNDOT MS4 413 291 0.797 30. Total WLA Sources 6,159 2,345 6.425 62 TMDL Daily TMDL Percent Existing Load Load Reduction Natural and Background Chloride Allocation Allocation of Existing Sources Loads Chloride (tons /year) (LA) . (LA) Load - (tons /year) (tons /day) (Percent) Natural and Background Sources 198 198 0.542 0 Total LA Sources 198 198 0.542 0 Overall Source Total 6,357 2,543 6.967 60 The U.S. EPA. finds that the TMDL document submitted by the MPCA satisfies the requirements of the third criterion. 8 4. Load Allocations (LAs) EPA regulations require that a TMDL include LAs, which identify the portion of the loading capacity attributed to existing and future nonpoint sources and to natural background. Load allocations may range from reasonably accurate estimates to gross allotments (40 C.F.R. §130.2(g)). Where possible, load allocations should be described separately for natural background and nonpoint sources. Comment: The LA section is found on page 21 of the final TMDL document. The LA for the NMCW TMDL was based on background chloride measurements from the Mississippi River and from literature values in a chloride identified in the final TMDL document. The empirical measurements from the Mississippi River demonstrated that background chloride was approximately 8.0% (18.4 mg/L) of the chronic chloride standard (230 mg/L). MPCA estimated the background chloride in the TCMA at 18.7 mg/L (8.1 % of the chronic chloride standard of 230 mg/L). The MPCA set the LA for the NMCW TMDL at 8.0% of the loading capacity. The LA was calculated after the WLA had been determined for the NMCW TMDL. The LA was determined to be 0.542 tons/day (see Table 3 of this Decision Document). The LA is not expected to be reduced because the LA is considered as an irreducible /background chloride load. The U.S. EPA finds that the TMDL document submitted by the MPCA satisfies the requirements of the fourth criterion. 5. Wasteload Allocations (WLAs) EPA regulations require that a TMDL include WLAs, which identify the portion of the loading capacity allocated to individual existing and future point source(s) (40 C.F.R. § 130.2(h), 40 C.F.R. § 130.2(i)). In some cases, WLAs may cover more than one discharger, e.g., if the source is contained within a general permit. The individual WLAs may take the form of uniform percentage reductions or individual mass based limitations for dischargers where it can be shown that this solution meets WQSs and does not result in localized impairments. These individual WLAs may be adjusted during the NPDES permitting process. If the WLAs are adjusted, the individual effluent limits for each permit issued to a discharger on the impaired water must be consistent with the assumptions and requirements of the adjusted WLAs in the TMDL. If the WLAs are not adjusted, effluent limits contained in the permit must be consistent with the individual WLAs specified in the TMDL. If a draft permit provides for a higher load for a discharger than the corresponding individual WLA in the TMDL, the State/Tribe must demonstrate that the total WLA in the TMDL will be achieved through reductions in the remaining individual WLAs and that localized impairments will not result. All permittees should be notified of any deviations from the initial individual WLAs contained in the TMDL. EPA does not require the establishment of a new TMDL to reflect these revised allocations as long as the total WLA, as expressed in the TMDL, remains the same or decreases, and there is no reallocation between the total WLA and the total LA. Comment- The WLA section is found on pages 20 -21 of the final TMDL document. The WLAs were . calculated in order to reduce, the chloride inputs into the NMCW from the two main chloride sources: road salts applied by municipal operators (i.e. town or city public works departments) and salt applied by commercial and private applicators. The MPCA determined that a 62 percent reduction in chloride load would meet WLA requirements to meet water quality. standards ,in the NMCW (see Table 3 ofthisDecision Document). The WLA reductions were applied to the Hennepin County MS4 community (78 % reduction in chloride load), a Categorical MS4 (62% reduction in chloride load) and the MNDOT MS4 (30 % reduction in chloride load). The NMCW TMDL recommends decreasing chloride usage by municipalities and commercial and private applicators. The U.S. EPA finds that the TMDL document submitted by the MPCA satisfies the require_ ments of the fifth criterion. 6. Margin of Safety (MOS) The statute and regulations require that a TMDL include a margin of safety (MOS) to account for any lack of knowledge concerning the relationship between load and wasteload allocations and water quality (CWA §303(d)(1)(C), 40 C.F.R. §130.7(c)(1) ). EPA's 1991 TMDL Guidance explains that the MOS may be implicit; i.e., incorporated into the TMDL through conservative assumptions in the analysis, or explicit, i.e., expressed in the TMDL as loadings set aside for the MOS. If the MOS is implicit, the conservative assumptions in the analysis that account for the MOS must be described. If the MOS is explicit, the loading set aside for the MOS must-be identified. Comment- The Margin of Safety (MOS) section (Section 3.33 on pages 21 -22 of the final TMDL document) outlines how_.the MOS was determined byMPCA. The Nine Mile Creek watershed TMDL utilizes an implicit-MOS that utilized several conservative assumptions during the TMDL development process. The MOS was determined based on a conservatively high number (31 events).of deicing events which were used to calculate loading reductions for the LA and WLA. The 31 deicing events were significantly, greater than the number of deicing events observed in any of the other years which were monitored. Water quality measurements, used in the development of the loading capacity, also employed conservative qualities. Water quality measurements were taken at the most downstream monitoring station. This station reduces the level of uncertainty because: it is located the furthest downstream and integrates all of the upstream sources .of chloride, it has the longest period of recorded water quality data; it maintains open water throughout the winter, and has the highest chloride concentrations relative to the rest of the monitoring stations. The U.S. EPA finds that the TMDL document submitted by the MPCA contains an appropriate MOS satisfying the requirements of the sixth criterion. 10 7. Seasonal Variation The statute and regulations require that a TMDL be established with consideration of seasonal variations. The TMDL must describe the method chosen for including seasonal variations. (CWA §303(d)(1)(C), 40 C.F.R. §130.7(c)(1)). Comment: Seasonal variation was considered in this TMDL as described in Section 3.5 "Critical Conditions and Seasonal Variation" (pages 24 -25 of the final TMDL document). Water quality monitoring suggested that chloride concentrations in the watershed vary significantly throughout the year. Chloride concentrations typically exceed the water quality standard between January and March (Section 3.1 on pages 8 -15 of the final TMDL document). Elevated chloride concentrations during these "critical conditions" exceed the MPCA's state water quality chronic standard of 230 mg/L. The critical conditions are those instances where large snowmelt or precipitation events liberate chloride through surface runoff processes, and wash the chloride into the surface waters of the Nine Mile Creek watershed. Seasonal variations of chloride concentrations were accounted for in the TMDL development process by calculations that estimated daily loading capacities of chloride under critical conditions. The daily loading capacity calculations were based on the relationship between total load and peak streamflow concentrations (large snowmelt or precipitation events). Daily loading capacity values were averaged into 4 -day average chloride values over the entire year, and then used to calculate maximum stream concentrations relative to the MPCA water quality standards. The U.S. EPA finds that the TMDL document submitted by the MPCA satisfies the requirements of the seventh criterion. 8. Reasonable Assurances When a TMDL is developed for waters impaired by point sources only, the issuance of a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit(s) provides the reasonable assurance that the wasteload allocations contained in the TMDL will be achieved. This is because 40 C.F.R. 122.44(d)(1)(vii)(B) requires that effluent limits in permits be consistent with "the assumptions and requirements of any available wasteload allocation" in an approved TMDL. When a TMDL is developed for waters impaired by both point and nonpoint sources, and the WLA is based on an assumption that nonpoint source load reductions will occur, EPA's 1991 TMDL Guidance states that the TMDL should provide reasonable assurances that nonpoint source control measures will achieve expected load reductions in order for the TMDL to be approvable. This information is necessary for EPA to determine that the TMDL, including the load and wasteload allocations, has been established at a level necessary to implement water quality standards. EPA's August 1997 TMDL Guidance also directs Regions to work with States to achieve TMDL load allocations in waters impaired only by nonpoint sources. However, EPA cannot 11 disapprove a TMDL for nonpoint source - only.. impaired "waters, which do not have a demonstration of reasonable assurance that LAs will be achieved, because such a showing is not required by current regulations: Comment: The Nine Mile Creek watershed TMDL outlines reasonable assurance activities in Section 6.0 (page 29 of the final TMDL document). The reasonable assurance practices will be implemented over the next several years. Methods'for 'reducing chloride inputs to the Nine Mile Creek watershed'include: Best Management Practice,(BMPs) installation and chloride reduction educational programs have been effective in reducing pollutant inputs to surface waters in other watersheds. The MPCA is confident that these practices will be useful in decreasing chloride loadings in the Nine Mile Creek watershed. A technical advisory committee (composed of commercial, local government, state government technical experts) provided input on the proposed implementation efforts. This conimittee will provide feedback through the duration of the implementation efforts in the Nine Mile Creek watershed. Water quality monitoring will be completed by the NMCWD and MCES to track the progress of BMP efforts. Depending on the progress made toward reducing chloride inputs into the watershed, implementation strategies or BMP placement could be altered to best.reduce chloride loads into Nine Mile Creek. The review of Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans ( SWPPP) for construction and industrial sites within the basin. Permittees who have SWPPP for their sites must demonstrate that stormwater generated from their site meets the WLAs targets set by the TMDL. If the SWPPP does not meet the WLA requirements of the TMDL, the SWPPP must be modified to meet these requirements. The U.S. EPA finds that this criterion has been adequately addressed. 9. Monitoring Plan to Track TMDL Effectiveness EPA's 1991 document, Guidance for Water Quality-Based Decisions: The TMDL Process (EPA 440/4 -91 -001), recommends a monitoring -plan to track the effectiveness of a TMDL, particularly when a TMDL involves both point and nonpoint sources, and the WLA is based on an assumption that nonpoint source load reductions will occur. Such a TMDL should provide assurances that nonpoint source controls will achieve expected load reductions and, such TMDL should include a monitoring plan that describes the additional data,to be collected to determine if the load reductions provided for in the TMDL are occurring and leading to attainment of water quality standards. Comment Section 4.0 (page 26 of the final TMDL document) outlines the planned water quality monitoring efforts by the-NMCWD and the MCES in the Nine Mile Creek watershed. Water quality monitoring efforts will continue at the three Watershed Outlet Monitoring Program (WOMP) stations within the watershed. Post TMDL data will be used to assess chloride improvements in the Nine Mile Creek watershed and test the efficiency of BMP phosphorus removal strategies. 12 j Habitat and fish surveys will monitor aquatic health in the stream environment during the installation and tracking of chloride mitigation efforts. These surveys will aid watershed managers in their understanding how BUT chloride removal efforts are impacting the ecological community in the watershed. Additionally, the MPCA outlines other efforts in the watershed designed to collect specialized data through a series of small projects in the Nine Mile Creek watershed. These projects will generate data toward a better understanding of water quality and quantity (flow) data under storm and baseflow conditions, surface water chloride concentration and lake bottom chloride concentration measurements, chloride source identification information, and linkages between weather /road conditions to salt usage by each MS4 community. The U.S. EPA finds that this criterion has been adequately addressed. 10. Implementation EPA policy encourages Regions to work in partnership with States/Tribes to achieve nonpoint source load allocations established for 303(d)- listed waters impaired by nonpoint sources. Regions may assist States/Tribes in developing implementation plans that include reasonable assurances that nonpoint source LAS established in TMDLs for waters impaired solely or primarily by nonpoint sources will in fact be achieved. In addition, EPA policy recognizes that other relevant watershed management processes may be used in the TMDL process. EPA is not required to and does not approve TMDL implementation plans. Comment: Implementation strategies are outlined in Section 5.0 (pages 27 -28 of the final TMDL document). The Nine Mile Creek Watershed District and various MS4 communities within the Nine Mile Creek watershed were identified as partner groups which would take responsibility in providing guidance /information to local citizens and organizations on BMP installation. BMPs would include: cost - sharing programs to retrofit and upgrade salt application equipment, greater oversight of local SWPPPs to reduce chloride inputs, and improvements in public works maintenance practices. Other implementation efforts include strategies to: reduce salt applied to roadways in the basin, decrease the use of packaged salts and other chloride based deicers by commercial/private entities, and encourage communication and coordination between municipal public works officials and private citizens with the goal of lowering salt usage. Information exchange, between commercial chloride applicators and MS4 staff; and public education efforts emphasizing chloride reduction strategies would also be included in the implementation plan from MPCA. The U.S. EPA finds that this criterion has been adequately addressed. The U.S. EPA reviews but does not approve implementation plans. 13 11. Public Participation EPA policy is that there should be full and meaningful public participation in the TMDL development process. The TMDL regulations require that each State/Tribe must subject calculations to establish TMDLs to public review consistent with its own'continuing planning process (40 C.F.R. §130.7(c)(1)(ii)). In guidance, EPA has explained that final TMDLs submitted to EPA for review and approval should. describe the State's/Tribe's public participation process, including a summary of significant comments and the State's /Tribe's responses to those comments. When EPA establishes a TMDL, EPA regulations require EPA to publish a notice seeking public comment (40 C.F.R. §130.7(d)(2)). Provision of inadequate public participation may be a basis for disapproving a TMDL. If EPA determines that a.State/Tribe has not provided adequate public participation, EPA may defer its,approval action until adequate public participation has been provided for, either by the State/Tdbe or by EPA. Comment: The public participation section of the TMDL submittal is found in Section 7.0 (page 30 of the final TMDL document). Various efforts were made to engage public interests during the development of the Nine Mile Creek TMDL. The MPCA organized a- Nine`Mile Creek "advisory group" which was composed of members from: commercial. groups, local and state government officials, and technical experts. This advisory group periodically held meetings, throughout the development of the TMDL, within Hennepin County to discuss the status of the project. The advisory group also solicited input from the Nine Mile Creek .Watershed District Managers group and the Nine Mile Creek Citizen Advisory Committee. The U.S. EPA, the Nine Mile Creek advisory group, the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District Managers group, and the Nine Mile Creek Citizen Advisory Committee provided comments to the MPCA throughout the development of the TMDL and during the public comment period. The draft TMDL was posted online by the MPCA at http: / /www.pca.state.mn.us /water /tmdl. The 30 -day public comment period was started on July 26, 2010 and ended on August 25, 2010. The MPCA received 2 public comments and adequately addressed these comments. The MPCA. submitted all of the public comments and responses in the final TMDL submittal packet received by the U.S. EPA on October 27, 2010. The U.S. EPA finds that the TMDL document submitted. for the Nine Mile Creek watershed by the MPCA satisfies the requirements of this eleventh element. 12. Submittal Letter A submittal letter should be included with the TMDL submittal, and should specify whether the TMDL is being submitted fora technical review or final review and approval. Each final TMDL submitted to EPA should be accompanied by a submittal letter that explicitly states that the submittal is a final TMDL submitted under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act for EPA review and approval. This clearly establishes the State's/Tribe's intent to submit, and EPA's duty to review, the TMDL under the statute. The submittal letter, whether for technical 14 review or final review and approval, should contain such identifying information as the name and location of the waterbody, and the pollutant(s) of concern. Comment: The U.S. EPA received the final Nine Mile Creek Watershed chloride TMDL document, submittal letter and accompanying documentation from the MPCA on October 27, 2010. The transmittal letter explicitly stated that the final Nine Mile Creek Watershed TMDL for chloride was being submitted to U.S. EPA pursuant to Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act for U.S. EPA review and approval. The letter clearly stated that this was a final TMDL submittal under Section 303(d) of CWA. The letter also contained the name of the watershed as it appears on the Minnesota's 303(d) list, and the causes /pollutants of concern. This TMDL was submitted per the requirements under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act and 40 CFR 130. The U.S. EPA finds that the TMDL document submitted for the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District by the MPCA satisfies the requirements of this twelfth element. 13. Conclusion After and full and complete review, the U.S. EPA finds that the chloride TMDL for the Nine Mile Creek Watershed satisfies all of the elements of an approvable TMDL. This approval is for one TMDL, addressing one waterbody for aquatic life use impairments, for the Nine Mile Creek Watershed (AUID 07020012 -518). The U.S. EPA's approval of this TMDL extends to the water bodies which are identified as Nine Mile Creek Watershed (AUID 07020012 -518), with the exception of any portions of the water bodies that are within Indian Country, as defined in 18 U.S.C. Section 1151. The U.S. EPA is taking no action to approve or disapprove TMDLs for those waters at this time. The U.S. EPA, or eligible Indian Tribes, as appropriate, will retain responsibilities under the CWA Section 303(d) for those waters. 15 f� I I t 6T ( /V Gv Page _ of _ L Print Name Address < ft nature Email �g7i�,�c4liL7 2 68 vi dad b.w�1 l�v.. ��, VA- -Ibo a 3 kr c a� �iti✓�i,lj ��✓�- v ` 4 5 th C�a, e-Sc h N� so 5 108 VO, Vc izZ. 6'� ll . M�- C.�k(� . Gar �.(�k �nbh,4,00hta,as6•G sf a V►�e..6. ,�lso� 6 /&"1f /�� 7 $ IM 10 P Je. `CO C.1 o�e 13 �-WAA IYPL 14 15 f� I I t 6T ( /V Gv Page _ of _ L Page — of — �-9-7 Print Name Address Signature Email 1 `-)Mc4son Liz Inw • -7 qG Wash- share Dr. 1 2 &WWW44 qZJ-(3 Nt 3 `� i1 �_):'1+n C Ll m mb . 4 Lovi S;Oi�ho� 5--10°1 S\Q)S� �i �i��J ��S1I9 �CG1C,,�;� ' 5 r4etA VVY-11IC� 6 -� -� 7oU *ev, n 'r- 7 �' r� �t 8 WW G-7 0 1:&r. 9 .. -- 10 AVLL �,-- 11 S-4rp csa k, ,- 12 Ar 14 (� /X 15 :5bji Tj C , 1k, l � �reS� S` , CT IF- @ kj Page — of — �-9-7 5 �,, Ao ' Page — of _ Ct>� Print Name. Address Signature Email 2 �� l �1 � ��f x(10 WOU 3 4 JJAc,KI - Cl IC r &14W L 6 8 eci -7140 ke�[ ®; � c� c1i/ec� 4 Gz g 10 /3AJLT,- kLL;N��'. i q q -- 12 v '13 14 14 vV l 15 lwmk 60eydA� r SL$ G -tjoc -u VAAJet vdd CCC, n 5 �,, Ao ' Page — of _ Ct>� I /�-C( fJc-'� /(/k--/ v Page —of - e. Cam / -C='V� -Sw It ME ff 702 �-FMIEW-MMAM0. I 1110 % WAA I Wjjf •fiL� I: I -�- M6 � ME - ME MUM,pp Or � wo— MON. "W-F-v F NNW OR, in W p AM pi i wo M. NO I 'M 2 - OUR WISAA 1� F - - I /�-C( fJc-'� /(/k--/ v Page —of - e. Cam / -C='V� L ■ Print Name i•• - , - , F , I Win . lff� MIA , v I " wd fflil"le'Ro, ME mi / ` 1 1L1ILm. MA I'M KONA m I I / mr�ml r, a 9 rifa- W, Page of 0� C '�% fir, V✓ `'� E Wood �� . Page — of 1 i 14&. 1. 4f� 6&�4a,L- S� e,ee--- pl� "L c4-, Ml immul I r / pirl ITIMEM IN fA d wmlf m I mmm MOM ��M M. � 1■iIIIC,�w 1 Em - MWIM, A y 1 IN Mae! ® , mist IN f! ` Page — of 1 i 14&. 1. 4f� 6&�4a,L- S� e,ee--- pl� "L c4-, :4A Ca r. c� Pint iVarne Address Signature _ Email 2 � S� ! Le - 5 5- 5N1r� -mot C� iii ! G 3 %MS�,- / �-�- -i1a�� 4 r 6k�- �`'�i,1.nf 5 6 X\j t BOSS L+67,0 o , 7 1"llG 9 (MA, Z 5rvi Al 10 6Z(6 311 [ TTAII- - �-P 13 V�-; v li C 14 i.i n a j 15 24 Cry Pr��,' I ( b" LYI :4A Ca r. c� A f (poi <e%x- IwItIl Page _ of_ Print Name Address Signature Email -T q wr Pz/ 2 o 1,'�p "E5D-zo uryceAn f 5 6 (",J D"-\- %�� CJIe CA -' 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Page _ of_ Page _ of _ LIP 1Aj , n won , cil r 1., a D Page of �r Miry a D Page — of — r r� SJ a� r Print Name Address t l e 2 ge(UVA-aded04 6WO 3 . J�,. k 6 6>17 7 a LAL)i s 9 APOO lkrd k. 10 V J 0 0 CL( i 13 14,5°` 15 �. Page — of — r r� SJ a� r �V1C�c� e -cvA c cz a Lem - CN &A- - e, f .j :. RToRc.iro) �Gki-lp,e ®fs . J�,. k Page _ of VL5,L-d Leyv, [o 2 0 � r 'C' LyP �ll /LiC %� r r/ An Print Name Address ftnaWije 4 Email 1 I�na(� �•G� i� GI VI !(Dj 4: Ag 2 A A/ 3 �'(N�C, -e, iZ� I �► C2 1 l.� N uY11A uu o , �r � �o t ✓� '��nn u� \ G� 4 � S �6 k �, V "W l.` T 5= 'c.'��12S"+ �^ 1 10 I �I�U W ��► t kt n-Et 11� P �2YU.11 7 V-2 12 dj r / l`YI-� f A ce-' C. C 13 La � Lun LcA 14a�1� --v9�i 15D�i Page _ of VL5,L-d Leyv, [o 2 0 � r 'C' LyP �ll /LiC %� r r/ An /U Page _ of � P Cam. i Print Name Addax Signature, Email 1716 4� Z" Id, 3 Deg 1 L, T L)itm Iq ly-d . b !1'1 v zw � (� , e GU�tem: ca�, cl :�,e r r C, t&-, 4�// .7 � i�t vi (� I �� (A M $ �7 sd 101 11 9c By� Lfsoq W et M 12 9tvt Q Gt,�r "7 G M tnrs 91 �1 o;nie C�-. S� M � vv✓L S�eU-c�� 6� 13 [15 �-A ba. /U Page _ of � P Cam. i p, I � Fc4yNa- IV�tl Page _ of 1/1 Print Name Address Signature Email 2 ot�t� (�.�'�� i Z �--rc �� .� �t�vr1 ae _ 4 t -mil ( F'"q ' s% C o;MCON Lw- /�� /s��, 62,U �s�� s`d�s' t,vhcr� o 6m 6 jlc (k 7 1 MO -K 1I6 to C $ �. 9 ✓A ULj l( -6 5-66 Lj - �D j . �� -�-�� I �► 10 l�� r .I al�Gt • K 11 50 .�� 12 14 �� r�� (� V r v r 15 1 v+�OICaU�� p, I � Fc4yNa- IV�tl Page _ of 1/1 /-�J� f4�-"�rv/v Page + o£_ i lc VL �J Paint Name Address Sl nature Email 2 (%I:F, M11 r L1f AA c 1,I)II A dWe rv%fv� vf- "�%RA I V" rd, -1 5 t5 6 A-1 ( r� 8 ..�C 9 es c�(c �, Z: 5 �, Vv1'totillG cc 10 Z- 11 AftWeM P.- e� 44 7a,�5 t, 1 3 ` I 14 v � Il 12, (et. S � % - . C YS v i i Coo 15 �� b �i I Q � Lz' Kv /-�J� f4�-"�rv/v Page + o£_ i lc VL �J Page — of_ •Grlr� —c,.r5 % "� Print Name Address ignaturq Email // 2 C�;m T a �► n L �( ��i �1 �A 4�� j��/>1�� 0 od Gl, V km.,t LA �2k \ S ' Ao ) MOtdon . 6 7 '�I v `;�1/1i1r'/�ti'� ell s �� ,�--� 5 �� o4i o �0 12 L 'C lr\ (I� oJ 13 �� I 9&-cQ rT "� �oMrTn gle , �J& a t14Z � 15 W 12=-- �C� ��1� -v f %. A4 MU'UA A,�� Page — of_ •Grlr� —c,.r5 % "� To: Mayor and City Council From: Ann Kattreh Parks & Recreation Director Dater March 18, 2014 Subject: Golf Course Operations Study o e • ��Rroxn'��o • ,aaa Agenda Item #: VIII.B. Action Discussion ❑ Information ❑ Action Requested: Provide direction to staff regarding the golf operations proposal including the recommended closing of Fred Richards Golf Course. Information / Background: At the March 4,.2014 City Council meeting the findings of the staff golf operations study were presented. The City Council held a public hearing regarding staff's six point proposal, including closing of the Fred Richards Golf Course. The City Council directed staff to respond to additional options presented by the Save the Fred Association and to answer additional questions that were posed at the council meeting. Staff prepared a list of questions posed at the meeting. The questions and staff responses are as follows: I. Are there unique maintenance requirements pertaining to instability of soils at Fred Richards Golf Course? The course is built over swampy organic soils. These types of soils are highly compressible and are susceptible to settlement. Please see the attached Fairway Rehabilitation Analysis recently completed by SEH (Attachment B). 2. What are the numbers of golf holes in neighboring cities? The Minneapolis /St. Paul metro area has 2,610 holes of municipal golf, ranking 1 186 nationally with 1,281 residents per hole of golf. Only 13 of the 2,451 municipal courses nationally have 45 or more holes of golf. Edina is one of the 13 municipal courses to have 45 holes of golf. In surrounding communities: St. Louis Park has 18 holes of municipal golf (owned by Minneapolis Park Board), Bloomington and Golden Valley have 27 holes of municipal golf, Minneapolis has 81 municipal holes (in Minneapolis), and Hopkins, Richfield and Eden Prairie have none. City of Edina • 4801 We 50Th St. • Edina, MN 55424 REPORT / RECOMMENDATION Page 2 Some recent course closings are: Hidden Creek — 18 (Owatonna, 2010), Pine River — 9 (Pine River, 2010), Parkview — 18 (Eagan, 2012), Lakeview Golf of Orono — 18 (Mound, 2013), Red Oak Executive — 9 (Mound, 2013), Elm Creek — 18 (Plymouth, 2013), Sundance — 18 (Maple Grove, 2014) Mississippi National — 36 (Red Wing, course closed with future undecided). 3. What were the renovations done at Hyland Greens in Bloomington and why? Bloomington had two executive courses at Hyland that were not operating near capacity and it did not have a solid driving range. The.range was small, uphill and hit only off mats. Hyland eliminated one of their 9 hole executive courses and expanded their driving range and training facilities. Hyland is also going to modify the remaining nine holes to accommodate Footgolf, where players kick soccer balls from hole to hole where 20 or 22" cups are added. 4. What are the recommended course closings in Minneapolis? Why? The Fort Snelling nine hole course has 2 par 3's, six par 4's and one par 5. It is a shorter course that should have appeal to seniors, kids and. beginning golfers, but because of the redundancy and tremendous needs at all of the courses, it has been recommended to close this course. The Theo Wirth Park Par 3 is a nine hole par 3 course. It is in bad shape, along with the 18 hole course at this location. It is recommended to turn this facility into a training facility with a 9 or 18 hole entry level course, a driving range, short game practice facility and putting course. 5. Explain the process that staff went through to come up with the staff recommendations? In July 2013 staff began to study the operation of the City of Edina golf enterprise. The goal of the operational study was to make golf operations cover 100% of its operational costs including future bonding needs so that the city is able to improve its facilities to ensure our ability to provide high quality golf facilities along with superior service to our customers. The expectation of the municipal golf operations in Edina is that it will cover not only its own operating expenses, but its capital expenses as well. The staff approach started with a comprehensive evaluation of all aspects -of golf operations including the grill, banquet facility, pro shop, driving range, golf dome, current pricing structure, current patron card program, programming, leagues, lessons and the conditions, utilization and revenue per round of the courses. Information provided in the NGF report along with the report from Matt Fulton were also considered. Staff reflected on current golf trends and future predictions of the golf industry and generated numerous pro formas that included multiple assumptions to formulate our recommendation. Options were considered that would increase golf operational efficiencies, including equipment, maintenance, staffing, registration, POS, and marketing. Potential revenue generated by the.new practice range is crucial to the success of the plan. Creating the largest and best maintained practice range in Minnesota will drive customers to Braemar, thus potentially increasing the interest in golfing at the Braemar golf complex. /1 1+ REPORT / RECOMMENDATION Page 3 Staff believes that the recommended six step plan gives the golf course operations the best chance to cover 100% of its operating costs and also fund its own future capital improvements. Explain strategies to accommodate junior golfers at Braemar. How are you going to make it more welcoming to girls, women and juniors? In anticipation of the new operational changes which include the closing of the Fred Richards Executive Course, Braemar is looking at creating more inviting spaces for both adult and junior golfers:.at the Executive Course /Par 3 area and in the clubhouse.; For adults, the expansion of food options (including some beer and wine), planned redesign of building furnishings /layout and the addition of outdoor seating should make the area more appealing: Staff will meet with Fred Richards' leagues to work on options for their leagues to be at home at the Braemar Par 3 for the 2015 season. New programming to attract these groups will include Family Twilight Zone, Fore and Pour, Glow Golf, Movie Night, and'Women's Night at the Dome. Staff is also creating new junior group lessons for kids aged as young as six. This year a successful junior promotion was offered on Martin Luther King Day and President's Day at the Golf Dome in addition to the Kids Kamps that have been in place for over 10 years. In 2015 additional times and age group offerings will be provided for juniors at our courses and at the golf dome. The minimum age for these programs was lowered to age six. Parents are looking for more options for kids in this age group. The Executive Course will be open to kids as young as six this year during new Family Twilight Zone specials during non -peak evening time on weekends this season. Other proposed programs for 2015 are: Adult Player Development Series — A program similar to the Junior Development Program with two different levels. The program will focus on every aspect of the game in a small class ratio as well as playing time with the teaching pro on the course. Girls Golf League — A short lesson followed by playing on the executive /par 3 course. Women mentors from the women's leagues will walk with the girls on the course to focus on golf rules and etiquette. Adult/Youth Golf Lesson — This is intended to introduce a child to golf. Adults and their children /grandchildren can learn to enjoy golf together. The class will teach rules and etiquette, full swing, short swing and putting. Women's Golf Camp — A women's only camp will be offered at Braemar. Staff is also pursuing more non -golf programming options for Braemar and the Golf Dome such as offering the space as a play area during the fall before the dome opens for golf. One customer service training focus will be providing welcoming and inclusive service and attention to people of all ages and abilities. When facility remodeling is being considered, youth participants will be consulted to determine how to make the facility most comfortable and welcoming for them. REPORT/ RECOMMENDATION 7. What changes are being recommended to the clubhouse? Page 4 Staff recommends a renovation of the grill area to provide new food prep and storage area as well as a new service counter, menu boards, etc. Access to the restrooms on the upper level needs to be improved, and clubhouse furniture replaced. New carpet, paint, curtains and light fixtures should be considered and would provide a brighter and more updated look without high cost. Eventually, more significant changes are needed including renovating the spaces in the lower level. 8. What changes can be made to the Clunie 9? Without completing a master plan, it is difficult to say today exactly what can or should be done to the Clunie 9 (19 — 27), or to the Castle (1 -9) or Hays (10 — 18) nines. Some options for consideration are to shorten the nine to create a "short course nine ", change sand traps and greens to make the course play easier and implementing a Tee It Forward program. This nine is a likely candidate for changes to provide a shorter and easier experience to replace the executive course experience and to make the nine more enjoyable for kids, women and seniors. It is beneficial to the golf operation to have 27 holes of regulation golf, so having a "multi use" nine would be ideal. Walking distance may be increased from green to tee in order to shorten holes. 9. Will we be able to achieve our revenue projections when the Braemar Executive Course is renovated to a par 3 course? The Braemar Executive Course is popular for many golfers, but many also feel that it is too difficult. It currently has two par 4 holes and the remaining 7 holes are par 3. The proposed renovation would create an improved play experience, especially for golfers looking for an easier and more casual experience with a shorter time commitment. This course will provide a perfect introductory experience for kids as well as a fun course experience for less competitive leagues. Staff believes that there will be no drop in rounds. We plan to aggressively market the renovated course while providing programming to feed players into this course. We believe that we will be able to achieve our revenue projections with a renovated par 3 course. The trend is for a faster, easier and less expensive golf experience. The decrease in length /distance will be offset by a better course design, playability and conditions. This offers a potential for increase in play by juniors, seniors and family play. The following chart provides a comparison of the existing executive courses to the renovated Par 3: Hole 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Yardage Par Executive White 190 110 142 152 326 113 295 144 157 1,629 29 Richards White 119 137 254 130 142 168 168 299 158 1,575 29 Richards Blue 131 164 298 147 150 200 175 320 182 1,767 29 Par 3 White 160 165 125 110 160 120 175 135 185 1,335 27 REPORT / RECOMMENDATION Some benefits of the change from Executive to Par 3 Course: Page 5 C The most difficult bunkers are currently on the executive course. This is a challenge for casual golfers. The new design eliminates most of the bunkers and makes the remaining ones much more playable. Staff has witnessed people hitting three or more times and still not getting out of the Executive bunkers. • #1 on the Executive Course is long and difficult. The new #I is more playable. • -The two weakest holes ( #2 & #3) on the Executive Course are eliminated. New #3 and #4 look scenic, providing a better experience. • #8 on the Executive Course is a difficult hole over water. The new #9 provides a better finishing experience and eliminates the carry over water from the forward tees. • Experienced golfers can work on their short game and novice golfers will have plenty of challenge. It will be a good stepping stone to a longer course experience. • A shorter course might offset the hills for walking. • The renovation provides opportunities to create more playable tees and greens. • Fred Richard's yardage from the white tees is 1575 yards. The proposed par 3 is 1335 yards. The difference is not significant. 0 A par 3 takes less time to play. ® The new par 3 course is more appropriate for novice golfers and young kids. O The par 3 eliminates the driver for many adults which provides the most likely opportunity for an errant shot. . Y Driving range netting increases safety for golfers on the regulation and par 3 courses. • The longest holes on the proposed par 3 course still surpass most of the regular executive course customers driving abilities (they can't hit the ball 175 or' 185 yards off the tee) and will consequently not alter their initial club selection. 10. What is the revenue comparing Braemar Executive Course to the Fred Richards Executive Course for the past several years? What is the revenue per round? Braemar Executive Course Fred Richards Executive Course Revenue Revenue Rounds Revenue Per Round Rounds Revenue Per Round 2007 22,510 2007 26,499 2008 22;038 2008 25,875 2009 22,856 $231,191 $10.12 2009 25,965 $217,749 $8.39 2010 18,578 $189,873 $10.22 2010 21,965 $203,595 $9.27 2011 16,631 -. $153,310 $9.22 201.1 19,073 $175,542 $9.07 2012 17,617 $202,734 $11.51 2012 19,361 $188,550 $9.74 2013 15,377 $176,242 $11.46 2013 15,934 $170,628 $10.71 2014 2014 TOTAL 135,607 $953,350 $10.50 TOTAL 154,672 $956,064 $9.43 Average 19,372 Average 22,096 Rounds Rounds REPORT / RECOMMENDATION 11. What are the revenue projections if we convert the Braemar Executive Course into a par 3 and keep Fred Richards open? Page 6 Staff assumes that this is the baseline scenario. The premise of this question is that golfers won't play the renovated par 3 course like they played the executive course. Staff does not agree „with that premise. 12. What was the capacity before the addition of the Clunie 9? What are the financial projections if we close the Clunie 9? The largest number of rounds played prior to the addition of Clunie was 54,500.. The'course was crowded and rounds were taking 5.5 hours. Golfers were not happy. The impact of the elimination of the Clunie 9 would affect open play, group outings and approximately three evening leagues. In 2013 the three evening leagues generated approximately $34,000 and two 27 hole tournaments generated $25,000. When we host 18 hole tournaments we utilize the open 9 holes for league play or for open play. The Friday mornings junior regulation leagues play Clunie which allows open play to begin when the course opens for the day. Without Clunie, open play would begin at approximately 8 a.m. on Fridays. The evening leagues probably couldn't be accommodated on;the original 18 as there is already little room for public play in the late afternoon and early evening hours. Demand would also exceed supply on weekends and holidays. junior league, tournament scheduling and open play would have to be re- visited. Approximately 25% of rounds are played on Clunie. 13. Are there benefits to doing a master -plan before closing Fred Richards? The master plan suggested is for the 27 holes at Braemar. The goal of the master plan will be to plan for the needed improvements to the original 18, while determining the best utilization and combination of all 27 holes. Staffs plan.is to provide a renovated par. 3 in the executive course location and a.'-'transitional” nine to accommodate golfers who are looking for a more challenging experience than the par3 course, but are looking for a shorter and /or less demanding 9 holes. Staff envisions all golf on one campus at Braemar including premier training facilities, par 3, executive or shorter transitional nine and regulation 18 hole course. With the limitations of the existing executive course and driving range expansion sites, one par 4 hole could be added, but it would not provide the best course configuration for the remaining eight holes. It was determined that the best use of land and course layout would be for a par 3 course, only eliminating two par 4 holes. 14. What are the financial projections if we close the Braemar Executive Course and keep Fred Richards open? As shown in Question #10, between 2009 and 2013 the difference in revenue at the two courses was only $2,714 while the difference in number of rounds was 19,065. This is primarily due to the f REPORT / RECOMMENDATION Page 7 discounting of rounds to market Fred Richards Golf Course. Very little if any discounting of rounds has occurred at the Braemar Executive Course. However, we spend approximately $30,000 per year for new equipment at Fred Richards.At Braemar all of the equipment is shared between the 36 holes. One full time staff person is employed at Fred Richards. We have no full time staff people dedicated to the Braemar Executive Course. Staff believes that there are also advantages to having 36 holes at one location that don't show up., in the raw green fee numbers. A golfer at the Braemar Par 3 might buy range balls and eat at the Braemar Grill. This helps us to create a golf "ecosystem" at Braemar that is better than .having golf on two separate campuses. There is a stronger likelihood that a golfer who starts at the Braemar Par 3 will make Braemar their preferred golf course for the future. 15. What are the financial projections for closing the Braemar Executive Course and Fred Richards during construction? This is accounted for in the City Staff Plan. Revenue losses and expense savings are factored into the City Staff Plan. Actual losses will depend on construction schedules, weather, future decisions about when we open, how we stage the project,. watershed district approvals, etc. However,. this is not a recurring situation that will affect the ending cost recovery goal of 101 % that we believe that we can achieve year after year. It is a one time event that will involve some pain to achieve our long -term goal of a sustainable enterprise. 16. Is it more profitable to delay closing Fred Richards Executive Course until after construction is complete at Braemar? There are many factors to consider, including weather, exactly when the courses would close'and when they would be able to re -open and how many golfers would transfer from Braemar to Fred Richards. Our first goal would be to keep as many golfers at Braemar as possible during construction. This could take place in the golf dome and on the regulation course. Staff believes that the profit for delaying the closing of Fred Richards until after construction is complete at Braemar would be negligible. It will not be any easier to close Fred Richard in 2015 than it is in 2014. It is not ideal, but not uncommon to completely close a course during construction. Staff will work with customers and leagues to prepare them for the inconvenience of the closing, shorten their leagues as needed and communicate with customers and accommodate them as best we can at Braemar and in other golf programs and activities. We experienced a similar situation when our golf dorne was closed for an extended period of time. Customers were not happy with the length of time that it took us to rebuild the facility, but we communicated with them regularly and opened the new facility with an excited customer base which has returned to us while still having other opportunities for practicing golf nearby. 17. What are the financial projections of selling the Clunie 9 and developing the land? Staff did not consider this option. Previous City Council and Park Board direction has not been supportive of selling city owned park and .open space for development. We will explore this option if the City Council would like us to; however, staff does not believe that it is in the best interest of our golf operations REPORT / RECOMMENDATION Page 8 18. What are the financial projections of making the driving range even larger? This renovation will make the largest driving range in the state. Staff does not believe that there would,be significant benefit to making the driving range larger. We do not believe that it would be practical to size the range to meet the highest demand levels when most of the day we are not at capacity. If needed, the driving range could be expanded toward the west, requiring regulation course hole #I to, be shortened. This would be a welcomed change to this long hole. Another option would be to expand the north teaching area into a "members only" practice area. A new parking lot could be added off Braemar" Boulevard for the "members only" practice facility and a higher rate would be charged for this-amenity. Save the Fred Association, Golf Operations Proposal Staff, and the City Council received a Golf Operations Proposal from the Save the Fred Association. It was presented to the City Council on 3/4/2014. The City Council asked staff to review and respond to their proposal. On Friday, March 7 staff met with Rick Ites'(President of the Braemar Men's Club), Colleen Wolfe (Save the Fred Committee- Member), Dave Mooty (Golf Course Management), Paul Kelley (Honorary President, Minnesota Section PGA), Derek Johnson (Save the Fred Finance Team Member) and Wayde Heirigs (Save the Fred Finance Team Member). Staff present_ were Scott Neal, Ann' Kattreh, John Wallin, Eric Roggeman, Susan Faus, Todd Anderson, Tom Swenson, Mary Wooldridge, and Amy Smith. The assumptions that were utilized to prepare the Save the Fred Golf Operations Proposal were discussed along with the City Staff Plan, its assumptions and implementation timelines. The Save the Fred'Association Golf Operations Proposal Option 2 involves creating a lot of new revenue at Fred Richards through "marketing" and rate increases. This might be difficult to achieve while the city still operates 45 holes of golf open at two campuses. This option does not invest any additional dollars in marketing but counts on the same return at Fred Richards as staff projected with 36 holes concentrated at Braemar. These revenue increases from marketing are more optimistic than staff assumptions. Option 2 also includes all City Staff Plan staffing reductions, which will not be possible while keeping all courses open. The Save the Fred Association Golf Operations Proposal Option 3 assumes that closing the Braemar exec is roughly equal to closing FR. This could be problematic for several reasons. a We spend approximately $30,000 per year for new equipment at Fred Richards. At Braemar all of the equipment is shared between the 36 holes. o One full time staff person is employed at Fred Richards. We have no full time staff people dedicated to the Braemar Executive Course. Operating expense and equipment savings projected are high. ® Staff believes that there are also advantages to having 36 holes at one location that don't show up in the raw green fee.numbers. A golfer at the Braemar Par 3 might buy range balls and eat at the Braemar Grill. This °helps us to create'a.golf "ecosystem" at Braemar that is better than having golf on two separate campuses. REPORT / RECOMMENDATION Page 9 0 There is a stronger likelihood that a golfer who starts at the Braemar Par 3 will make Braemar their preferred golf course for the future. The concept of closing the Braemar Executive Course might have the same opposition from golfers and neighbors as closing Fred Richards. Future CIP projects are not accounted for in The Save -the Fred Association Golf Operations Proposal Option 2 or Option 3. Staff is more comfortable portraying these options as different visions for the future instead of trying to find things "wrong" with the Fred Richards Association assumptions. Staff remains confident in the proposed City Staff Plan which leverages projected savings from the closing of Fred Richards Golf Course and projected Braemar golf and driving range revenues while concentrating all personnel, equipment and financial resources at Braemar in order to fund the driving range expansion project. This will also favorably position the golf enterprise for the future which will allow us to continue to invest in our core golf product at Braemar. What is the demand for golf in the future? We've heard from some that "growing the game" is important, closing Fred Richards is short sighted and if we keep 45 golf holes and provide better marketing that the golfers will come. This is possible, however after studying 15 years of decline in golf operations it is not difficult to come to a different conclusion. Staff believes that now is the time for difficult action in order to best position our Braemar golf enterprise for the future. Recommendation Staff requests that the City Council consider one of the following options: I. Do Nothing A. Keep Fred Richards Golf Course B. Make no improvements at Braemar 2. Staff Recommendation A. Close Fred Richards Golf Course at the end of the 2014 season B. Begin driving range and executive course renovations in the fall of 2014 C. Begin Braemar master plan after driving range and executive course renovations are completed 3. Staff Recommendation with Revisions A. Conditionally close Fred Richards Golf Course B. Begin driving range and executive course renovations in the fall of 2014 C. Begin Braemar master plan in 2014 4. Do Everything A. Keep Fred Richards Golf Course Open B. Begin Braemar master plan in 2014 C. Begin driving range and - executive course renovations in the fall of 2014 D. Improve Braemar per the master plan 5. Save the Fred Association Option A. Make a decision on the future of Fred Richards Golf Course in November 2014 B. Begin driving range and executive course renovations in the fall of 2014 „> REPORT / RECOMMENDATION C. Complete Steps 2 — 6 of City Staff Plan I. Invest in Improvements at Braemar 2. Modify Prices and Discounts 3. Outsourc6 Ancillary Services 4. Expand Marketing .5. Improve Customer Service Staff continues to recommend Option #2: Staff Recommendation. Attachments: Attachment A — March 4, 2014 City Council Meeting Agenda Item # VI.B. Staff Report Attachment B - Fred Richards Golf Course Fairway Rehabilitation Analysis - SEH Page 10 Attachment A To: Mayor and City Council From: Ann Kattreh Parks & Recreation Director Date: March 4, 2014 Subject: PUBLIC HEARING - Golf Course Operations Study �rTA, o e Cn Agenda Item #: VI.B. Action Discussion ❑ Information ❑ Action Requested: Provide direction to staff regarding the golf operations proposal including the recommended closing of Fred Richards Golf Course. Information / Background: In July 2013 staff began to study the operation of the City of Edina golf enterprise. The goal of the operational study was to make golf operations cover 100% of its operational costs including future bonding needs so that the city is able to improve its facilities to ensure our ability to provide high quality golf facilities along with superior service to our customers. The expectation in Edina has always been that th "e municipal golf operations would cover not only its own operation expense, but also the expense of its own capital improvements. The city currently has 45 holes of golf (27 regulation holes and 9 hole executive course at Braemar and the 9 hole Fred Richards Executive Course) with an operating budget of approximately $3.5 million. Staff began working on this project in the spring /summer of 2013. There were no pre- conceived ideas about how a goal of 100% cost recovery would be achieved. Staff hosted two public hearings to present the findings of the golf operations study and the accompanying staff recommendations. The first public hearing was held on January 30, 2014 at the Braemar Clubhouse. The second public hearing was held at the February 11, 2014 Park Board meeting. Over 300 residents were present at each public hearing. The notes from the January 30 meeting and unapproved minutes from the February I I Park Board meeting are attached. Staff has prepared financial pro .formas through 2020 as part of the operational study. In 2013 golf operations recovered 86% of its costs. With no changes, it is anticipated that recovery would increase to 92% in 2014 and 2015 and decline steadily to 83% in 2020. In this "status quo" scenario, the city would invest $4.744 million between 2009 and 2020 in a golf enterprise with a declining cost recovery percentage. In 2020 the Golf Fund cash balance would be - $881,000. There would be no way to pay for golf improvements, assets would continue to decline and a continued significant " subsidy from the liquor fund would be required. City of Edina • 4801 W. 501h St. • Edina, MN 55424 REPORT/ RECOMMENDATION History • J Page 2 In 2014 Braemar Golf Course,will be celebrating its 50`' anniversary. In. 1963 the city purchased the golf course land for $500;000 and constructed the course for $1.3 million. In 1993 the. Clunie nine was added at Braemar at a cost of approximately $3.5 million. The land for Fred Richards Executive Course (FREC) was purchased in 19924or $800,000. Total cost for land and construction, was $2.98 million and total cost including debt was $4.93 million. When the Clunie nine and Fred Richards Executive Courses were being considered, an estimate of golf rounds was prepared anticipating the number of rounds to be played at Edina's 45 hole municipal operation. (See Attachment B). It was anticipated that rounds would be at 1.22,000 in 1994, 140,000 in 1996 and level off at approximately 158,000 in 200'1, through 2016. Projections were correct through 1998 at approximately 150,000 rounds, but then rounds declined annually to 112,000 in 2002 before leveling off at an average of 1 16,000 until 2009 when the economic downturn wreaked havoc in the golf industry. In 2010 101,000 rounds were played, and in 2011 and 2012 we sold 96,000. In 2013 we sold 79,529 rounds, our worst year ever due to poor weather conditions. Nationally the number of rounds of golf declined from 501 million rounds in 2006 to 463` million in 2011. A great weather year nationally in 2012 and the start of economic recovery helped in increase rounds to 486 million in 2012. (See Attachment A, National Golf Round Statistics). This data was collected from the National Golf Foundation. In Edina the number of rounds played was fairly consistent.from 2003 to 2009- after peaking in 1998 and 1999. (See Attachment B, Edina Golf Statistics). The 1992 projection blue line showed the number of rounds anticipated from 1994 through 2016 after the completion of the Fred Richards and Clunie additions. The Minneapolis /St. Paul metro area has 2610 holes of municipal golf, ranking 118' nationally with 1281 residents per hole of golf. Only 13 of the 2451 municipal courses nationally have 45 or more holes of golf. Edina is one of the 13 municipal courses to have 45 hole's of 'golf! In surrounding communities, St. Louis Park has 18 holes of municipal golf (owned by Minneapolis Park Board), Bloomington has 27 holes,of municipal golf, Minneapolis has 81 municipal holes (in Minneapolis)- and Hopkins, Richfield and Eden': Prairie have none. Some recent course closings are: Hidden Creek — 18 (Owatonna, 201 0), Pine River — 18 (Pine River, 2010), Parkview — 18. (Eagan, 2012), Lakeview Golf of Orona — 18 (Mound, 2013), Red Oak Executive — 9 (Mound, 2013), Elm Creek — 18 (Plymouth, 2013), Mississippi National — 36 (Red Wing, course closed with future undecided). /r fj.. REPORT/ RECOMMENDATION Rounds Played on City of Edina Golf Courses between 2003 and 2013 Braemar 18 Braemar Braemar Fred 9 Executive Richards Actual Rounds- Braemar and FR 2003 41,106 27,943 26,587' 28,134 123,770 2004 38,951 25,839 24,638 27,306 116,734 2005 35,915 26,791 23,512 27,461 113,679 2006 .36,478 29,286 23,001 25,995 114,760 2007 34,972 28,840 22,510 26,499 112,821 2008 34,538 30,212 22,038 25,875 112,663 2009 36,590 32,408 22,856 25,965 117,819 2010 32,106 1 28,738 18,578 21,965 101,387 2011 32,464 27,603 16,631 19,073 95,771 2012 29,570 29,948 17,617 19,361 96,496 2013 23,814 24,404 15,377 15,934 79,529 Page 3 i REPORT / RECOMMENDATION Page 4 Determining course capacity involves many factors and assumptions. The Braemar Executive Course and Regulation Courses and Fred Richards Golf Course have the following course capacities: Braemar Executive and Fred Richards Capacity Baseline Course 2013 2012. 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 Average Exec. 48,218 59,518 60,067 60,844 69,283 64,750 63,812 60,927 Rounds 15,377 17,627 16,631 18,578 22,856 22,038 22,510 19,373 Utilization 25.6% 29.3% 27.7% 30.9% 38.0% 36.7% 37.5% 32.2% Richards Rounds 15,934 19,361 19,703 21,965 25,937 25,875 26,499 22,182 Utilization 25.5% 32.2% 32.8% 36.6% 43.2% 43.1% 44.1% 36.7% The assumptions are based on the following: • 9 Hole Course Assumptions • 200 Day Season • 16 Hours of Tee Times • 8 Minute Tee Time Intervals • 4 Players per Tee Time • Total Capacity of 60,000 Rounds Braemar Regulation Course Capacity Baseline Regulation 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 Average Rounds 48,218 59,518 60,067 60,844 69,283 64,750 63,812 60,927 Utilization 36.5% 45.0% 45.5% 46.0% 52.4% 49.0% 48.3% 46.1% The assumptions are based on the following: • 200 Day Season • 10 Hours of Tee Times • 8 Minute Tee Time Intervals • 4 Players per Tee Time "Sample Day" • Tee #1- 18 and 9 hole play, 18 hole play cascades to #10 Tee • Tee #10- 9 hole play for first two hours, the 18 hole play from Tee #1 (second 9) • Tee #19- 9 hole play Capacity • Tee #1- 300 Players • Tee #10- 60 Players • Tee #19 - 300 Players • Total Capacity of 132,000 Rounds REPORT / RECOMMENDATION Presentation of Findings The objectives of the golf operations recommendation are as follows: • Provide financial stability and self - sufficiency • Increase customer service levels • Improve facilities for better play and experience A six step strategy was presented to achieve our objectives: 1. Narrow the Scope of Golf Enterprise 2. Invest in, improvements at Braemar 3. Modify prices and discounts 4. Outsource ancillary services 5. Expand marketing 6. Improve customer service 1. Narrow the Scope of Golf Enterprise Page 5 In order to concentrate our energy, attention and investment on the city's primary golf product, staff recommends the city narrow the scope of our golf enterprise by closing the Fred Richards Golf Course. The recommendation to close Fred Richards` Executive Course is not an easy one. The course is popular with kids and seniors and is a cherished destination for the neighborhood residents who have either played there or taught their kids to play there. It is well maintained and with tee sheets only 33% full, it's easy to play on short notice. The course has a nice layout for beginners, kids and seniors with flat topography and two flagsticks at each green so that players can choose the easier or more difficult pin placement. Access to the course is difficult. It is not easy to find Parklawn Avenue between 76`h and 77th Streets. There is no direct street access or visibility and customers must enter through a parking lot driveway easement from the adjacent property to get to our parking lot and clubhouse. Even with specific directions, it is difficult to find. The property is bordered by the Pentagon Park.office complex and Barr Engineering on the south, and homes and Lake Edina Park on the north. Prior to the Fred Richards Golf Course development, there was a privately owned course ( Normandale) on part of the property and Normandale Park occupied the other 1/3 to %2 of the property. Some of the park amenities were three ball fields, tennis courts and a playground prior to the development of FREC. In 2008 and 2009 approximately 26,000 rounds of golf were played at FREC and that number declined to around 19,000 in 2011 and 2012. In 2013 15,934 of rounds were played at Fred Richards. During the same four year period between 2008 and 2012, Fred Richards declined 25% while the Braemar Executive Course declined 20 %. Staff believes that customers and operations would both benefit from having all golf operations at the Braemar location. With the dome, driving range, clubhouse and 36 holes of golf at Braemar, it is expensive and inefficient to have staff and resources spread out over two facilities between Braemar and FREC. To best meet the needs of all golfing demographics, it would be beneficial for our customers to have a variety of amenities at one location. With just a cursory look at our budget, it is difficult to fully ascertain a full picture of revenues and expenses for each of the REPORT / RECOMMENDATION Page 6 business units. Because of the nature of the management of our golf operations and original budget designations, several items are not being charged to the budget as a FREC expense. For example, between 2009 and 2012,1 Golf Fund budgets show Fred Richards making an average profit of $47,500. However, the ollowing charges are not being coded to the Fred Richards operation and should be considered: • ' $30,000 in equipment from Braemar's CIP fund is dedicated to Fred Richards annually. • $20,000 of commodities from Braemar's budget is consumed at FREC (fertilizer, chemicals, etc.). • Approximately $30,000 of maintenance labor from Braemar's budget goes to time spent at Fred Richards. annually. • Approximately $20,000 in Administrative /Management support from Braemar is utilized at FREC annually (tech support, time cards, invoice payment, hiring and training, management and HR support). After completing a detailed pro forma of anticipated revenues and expenses, it is estimated that $734,000 could be saved by 2020. A detailed description of this savings is below and is also included on Page 15 of the Pro Forma (Attachment D). 2015 — 2020 Cumulative Savings: Closing -Fred Richards $(878,200) Revenue loss from FREC, Net of Braemar additions $1,432,200 Operating expense cash savings $180,000 Equipment savings $734,000 Total Cumulative Cash Savings 2. Invest In Improvements At Braemar For many years golfers and staff at Braemar have been concerned about the quality of the driving range at Braemar. The driving range is too short for today's club technology. With current clubs, it is possible for golfers hitting from the range to hit into the teaching area on the north end of the range and also into hole 2 'on the Executive Course, posing a safety concern for all golfers on the north end of the range. Also, because the lack of depth in the driving range tee area, much of the turf is gone by late spring. This leaves golfers to hit in patchy dirt conditions or off of the much less desirable artificial turf mats. When golfers arrive at the driving range to hit a bucket of balls either as practice or as warm up to a round of golf and they see the signs stating that golfers must hit off mats, often times they leave the facility or skip warm ups to avoid hitting off of mats. Conservatively, an improved driving range will increase driving range revenues by $218,000 in 2016 to $240,000 in 2020, providing a 10 year return on investment. A new driving range.would provide the best range facility in the metro area, retaining existing golfers who are eager for the new facility, as well as attracting new golfers to the Braemar courses, clubhouse, dome.and pro shop. REPORT / RECOMMENDATION Page 7 Part of the driving range expansion would include some modifications and improvements to the Executive Course, converting. it to a Par 3 Course. There are currently 5 holes crowded into the space south of Braemar Boulevard. Two new holes would be added on the north side of Braemar Boulevard, one par. 4 would be converted to a par 3 and one par 4 would be converted to two par 3s. This would improve the playability'and overall experience of the current Executive Course. The entry drive into Braemar would also be improved with more trees and expanded water features. A new driving range with improvements to the Executive Course /Par 3 Course would cost approximately $1.1 to $1.3 million and provide a 10 year return on investment. Staff also recommends updating the grill and clubhouse. The facility is dark and dated, limiting its marketability to golfers and facility renters. Simple changes in paint, carpeting, window treatments and updated furniture would improve the image. The grill is also in need of a significant updates in order to be appealing to a wider customer base, while also giving us the ability to offer a wider menu and better customer service. The appearance and function of the grill and clubhouse do not match the City of Edina or Braemar Golf Course brands and need significant updating. Staff also recommends hiring a professional golf course architect to provide a master plan of the Braemar golf courses. Because of the debt service created by the addition of the Clunie nine (holes 19 -27) and FREC, significant improvements at Braemar have not been possible. Being one of the oldest courses in the state at 50 years old, the course is in need of many updates. Much of the course is in a flood plain and much of the fairway system is peat based. Over the years the fairways have begun to settle and sink and tee boxes have compacted. Greens and bunkers need renovation and in some cases removal of bunkers is needed. We have too many bunkers and most are 3 times as large as they should be, by current course design standards. Drainage and cart paths need to be addressed. Braemar also has the oldest and largest irrigation system in the state. It is in need of replacement in the next five years at a cost of approximately $2 million. It is critical that we study, plan and budget appropriately for the renovation of the course amenities. It is imperative that proper planning determines the need and timelines of projects in order to re -do work completed because projects were not.sequenced properly. The master plan is also critical to ensure that we're providing state of the art training facilities in addition to courses that will meet the needs of all abilities, ages and demographics. Braemar must be appealing and welcoming to kids, young adults and seniors in order to remain relevant and vibrant well into the future. It would be ideal to begin this process immediately. With the recommended closing of Fred Richards, it is critical that we aggressively market Braemar and provide appropriate facilities for beginners, youth and seniors. It is critical that as we plan for course improvements that will enhance Braemar to provide the beginner /intermediate level experience that we provide at FREC. This will involve improvements to the Executive Course /Par 3 and improvements to the Clunie 9, as well as improvements to the original 18 hole course. Staff is also working on a variety of programs to continue to attract golfers and non - golfers to Braemar. REPORT / RECOMMENDATION Page g Current programs: Adults Group lessons with three levels from beginner to advanced. The lessons run mid -April until mid - August. Tee it Up! Fore Golf which is a rules and etiquette program for students who are ready to be introduced to playing on a golf course. Several sessions are offered throughout the summer. . uniors • Group lessons with levels from beginner to intermediate; ages 8 -17. Offered June and July. • Junior Development - Offered. all summer. • Level I is for juniors who have completed levels I and 2 and are ready to be introduced playing on the golf course. It is a 3 day program with instruction on the range as well as on the golf course. • Level 2 is for juniors who play the regulation course and desire to take their game to the next competitive level. It also is a 3 day program with instruction on the range as well as on the golf course. • Junior League is made up of 5 leagues, three on the two executive courses, one regulation 9 hole league and one regulation 18 hole league. The leagues play for 6 weeks beginning right after school is out in June. New programs for 2014: Family • Movies Under The Stars. Outdoor movies on the driving range. A family friendly movie (UP) in August and a more grown up "golf themed" movie (Tin Cup) in June. Complete details have not been completely finalized, but we will offer refreshments, snacks, and games prior to the movie to encourage dinner and entertainment prior to the movie. • Winter groomed trails: In December 2013, staff began grooming 9' wide winter recreational trails at Braemar. The north loop is 1.7 miles long and the south loop is 1.2 miles long. The trails are being used by walkers, dog walkers and cross country skiers. • Family Twilight Zone. Every Saturday and Sunday after 6 p.m. a reduced rate will be offered for up to four players. • Adult/Youth Golf Lesson. Introduce a child to golf with 4 one hour lessons for kids and their parents to learn to golf together. Women m Women's Night Out At The Dome. This is not completely new, but contests and prizes will be added. This will be a night at the dome for women prior to the start of the golf REPORT / RECOMMENDATION Page 9 season. Vendors will be invited for equipment demonstrations. Golf clinics will be given by all our golf professionals. Unlimited golf balls will be offered and food and beverages will be served. • Teach and Taste. Golf clinic for women with wine tasking social event. • Girls Golf League. Short lessons with playing time on the executive /par 3 course. Mentors from the women's league will walk along and help the kids learn the game, rules and etiquette. • Women's Golf Camp. Adults • Nite Glow Golf. Nine holes of golf on the executive course with a glow golf ball with only the tees, flag sticks and holes being illuminated. • Nine and Wine. Two rounds of nine holes and a bottle of red or white wine. • One Hour Golf Clinics. One hour clinics on Saturdays with a different focus each week. • Adult Player Development Series. The program will focus on each aspect of the game in a small class ratio and will include playing time with teaching professionals. Level one will be for the beginning golfer and Level two will be for a more advanced golfer. Other Potential Programs Senior Golf Tournament and lunch at the Executive Course in September. Cookie decorating with Mrs. Claus in early December at the clubhouse. 3. Modify Prices and Discounts We plan to modify our fees by increasing fees during periods of highest demand utilizing yield management techniques. Pricing will be set by demand, with the highest charges at the peak demand times. This is a standard practice in the golf industry. Non -peak times will also be studied and programs will be offered to promote course use during those periods. For example, we could offer a Player Development Program. For a set monthly rate, customers would get a discount for green fees and free range time during specific underutilized times. New programs and classes will also be added. These programs will increase awareness of our course, attract new customers, utilize the course or range during non -peak times and provide fun, exciting and /or challenging experiences for new and experienced golfers. Demand is down nationally for golf because it is too hard, too expensive and takes too much time. Women, kids and young adults are under- represented in the golf market. We plan to target them specifically with our amenities, programming and course structure. The existing patron card'system will be evaluated. This program has declined significantly over the years and needs to' be re- evaluated. Rewards programs are most effective when rewards are frequent, like after the - second or third visit. Increased rewards and customer appreciation programs need to be implemented. We need to attract new REPORT / RECOMMENDATION Page 10 customers while working hard to retain existing customers. There are a Idt of choices for today's golfer. It is critical that we incite golfers to repeatedly choose to golf with,us and to bring their friends, family and co- workers with them. Half of the revenues presented in the pro forma are from increases through new fees or fee structures. Different reward programs will be considered. 4. Outsource Ancillary Services Staff recommends that we outsource grill operations, similar to what the City of Minneapolis has done successfully in its park system with the Tin Fish at Lake Calhoun, Bread & Pickle at Lake Harriet and Sea Salt at Minnehaha Park. We believe that we can improve our customer service by having better food and beverage offerings while generating more revenue to support Braemar operations. This would also provide an opportunity to remodel the grill and clubhouse areas and potentially offer a full service catering kitchen to better meet the needs of our banquet operations. We want to provide a family friendly environment to entice our customers to stay after a round of golf to socialize, consider attending an event at the clubhouse or bring a client for a round of golf and a casual lunch or dinner afterward. The Grill at Braemar has been operating on a break even basis. We have one full time year round employee and 27 seasonal employees. Outsourcing the grill would save in staffing, cost of goods sold and utilities. Benefits would be a new and improved menu, enhanced service in the grill and on the course and the opportunity to bring in a restaurant with name recognition, which would help to drive food and beverage sales. 5. Expand Marketing The proposed plan increases the marketing allocation by from $67,000 in 2014 to $143,000 in 2020. We plan to build excitement about our golf operations through a robust and professional marketing campaign, both in and outside of Edina. 6. Improve Customer Service Our customers are our number one priority and they need to be treated accordingly. We plan to significantly improve the customer service in all aspects of our golf operations. The golf team will view the golfer experience through a series of "touch points" on the golf course. We will improve customer service at all of these touch points, including making tee times, arriving at the course, checking in, warming up, starting, playing around, making the turn, finishing the. 18 th hole and clubhouse to car. This will involve everything from providing the best access to tee times and class registrations and staying on time, to knowing golfers names. Our customers need to know that we value the time and money that they spend at Braemar and we need to show our appreciation in all customer contact situations. Pace of play will also be a priority of Braemar staff. Similar to what the Edina Liquor Stores did in 2013, we plan to hire a customer service training team to help us hire, coach and train and evaluate our full and parttime staff. We will also conduct REPORT / RECOMMENDATION Page I I secret shopper experiences to accurately evaluate our service -The cost to provide this customer service training for a full season will be $9600. Summary This six step strategy would reduce expenses by $2.3 million by 2020. (Details on Page 1.5 of Pro Forma, Attachment D). $734,000 will be saved by closing FREC. $1,307,900 will be generated with new rates and marketing ($592,500) will be the net spent/earned on an improved driving range $362,800 will be saved by the. reduction of three full time staff and 27 part time staff $522,200 will be generated by outsourcing the grill operations $2,334.400 Total Savings By 2020 The 2013 Quality of Life Survey reported that 76% of Edina residents did not visit Fred Richards Golf Course in the last year. 21 % of residents did not utilize trails, 17% did not use neighborhood parks, 52% athletic fields, 53% Edinborough Park, 36% Centennial Lakes Park, 62% the Aquatic Center, 67% Senior Center, 68% Braemar Arena, and 58% Braemar Golf Course. The biggest financial benefits to the golf fund in this proposal comes from closing Fred Richards Golf Course, improving the driving range and course conditions and increasing rates at Braemar. Additionally, without the $734,000 estimated savings that will come from closing Fred Richards, it w would be extremely difficult to finance the driving range construction. Financing would have to come from not funding other city projects, new debt, or a combination of both. Debt financing comes with additional costs that make the project much less profitable. Also, without the savings from closing Fred Richards,;the Golf Fund would not have enough cash flow to pay the debt service in the future. Due to the existing $1 million debt in the Golf Fund and the annual losses experienced in the Golf Fund, the likelihood of receiving bonding for this project is highly unlikely. If a driving range project is to begin in the fall of 2014, it is critical for a decision on the closing of FREC early in 2014. Final design, watershed approval and the bidding process will take several months. Staff believes that the $734,000 estimated savings from closing Fred Richards is conservative. Our historical financial data shows an average profit (prior to debt service) at Fred Richards of around $5.0,000. However, this excludes at least $50,000 of current expenses in supplies and staffing that aren't being charged to FREC, but are being absorbed by Braemar. It also excludes any future capital improvements, which will be significant. FREC is 20 years old and will start to see significant expenses required to maintain service levels. Some capital projects that aren't currently included in the CIP are: REPORT / RECOMMENDATION Page 12 New Roof 2019 $50,000 Carpet/Furniture 2017 $20,000 Fiber Optic to Clubhouse 2015 $100,000 Point of Sale System ' $1500 Security Camera 2016 $7,500 Bathroom Remodel 2020 $30,000 Outdoor Furniture 2016 $10,000 Golf Car Replacement 2017 $16,000 Irrigation System 2025 $500,000_ Fairway rehabilitation due to soil settlement 2020 $654,000 - $4 million+ Residents expressed concern over a decrease in property values -if Fred Richards Golf Course is repurposed to a park. The Trust'for Public Land conducted a study on the economic value of city park systems and through their sample found that parks can contribute to the value of residential properties immediately adjacent to a park by as much as a 20 percent marginal value. For properties further away from the location of the park, parks still can provide as much as a 5 to 10 percent marginal value. Parks improve the local tax base and increase property values. It is proven that private property values increase the value of privately owned land the closer such land is to parks. This increase in private property value due to the proximity to parks increases property tax revenues and improves local economies. A Texas A &M review of 25 studies investigating whether parks and open space contributed positively to the property values of surrounding properties found that 20 of the 25 studies found that property values were higher. The real estate market consistently demonstrates that many people are willing to pay a larger amount for property located close to parks and open space areas than for a home that does not offer this amenity. Staff recommends the creation of a Community Advisory Team to work with the Park Board to prepare a master plan for repurposing Fred Richards Golf Course to Fred Richards Park. This . could be completed as a project separate from, but related to the park system strategic plan. The best timing for this project would be at the completion of the 2014 golf season. Customer service training and.increased marketing is being incorporated immediately. Outsourcing of the grill would start in 2015. I REPORT / RECOMMENDATION Recommendation Page 13 At the February. 11, 2014 Park Board meeting the board received this presentation and held a one hour public hearing. Residents were allowed to speak for two minutes and all people in attendance had an opportunity to speak if they so desired. After questions for staff and discussion the following action was taken: Member Segreto made a motion, seconded by Member Deeds, that the Park Board recommendation to the City Council that the golf operations proposals, including the recommended closing of Fred Richards Golf Course, be supported. Ayes: Members Jones, Gieseke, Steel, Segreto, Cella, Deeds, Jacobson. Motion carried. The unapproved minutes of the February 11, 2014 Park Board meeting are attached. Because of the integrated nature of the staffs six point strategy, staff requests the City Council consider the set of recommendations as a package and give the packet one of the three actions: I . Recommend (generally support) 2. Do Not Recommend (do not support) 3. Non - Recommend (do not have enough information to recommend or not recommend) Attachments: A. National Golf Statistics Charts B. Edina Golf Statistics Chart C. January 30, 2014 Golf Meeting Notes D. Golf Pro Forma Scenarios — City of Edina Golf Operations Study E. Unapproved Park Board Minutes — February 11, 2014 * V, National Golf Round Statistics Rounds Volume Rounds (in Millions) 7 Year Change: 50o 501 v v 498 r 489 4 v 486 86 475 463 2005 6.7% 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 % Change (year- over -year) M _... , , -1.07o -2.3 °l 2.5% -3.0% 1999 2000 20012002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 20112012 Attachment A Rounds played fell 11 %, or 55 million rounds over the last 10 years. In 2012, almost half of the losses were recovered, providing a reason for cautious optimism. ** Statistics by the NGF, the National Golf Foundation "W40 National Golf Round Statistics Net Change in National Supply of Courses 18 Hole Equivalents Net Change = Openings Minus Closures (in 18 hole equivalents) 252 - 139_141 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 20112012 Since 2006, there has been a cumulative supply reduction of 500 facilities. ** Statistics by the NGF, the National Golf Foundation L.-A +2.0% or higher -2.0% or lower National Golf Round Statistics Rounds Played in 2012 4F &* i Pacific + 1.6 %; Mountain +7 %; West and North Central +7.6% (Including Minnesota) East and North Central +10.8 %; New England - +3.2 %; Mid Atlantic - +10.1% South Atlantic + 2.4 %; South Central + 5.0% Extraordinary weather in 2012 drove rounds up by the largest increase since the turn of the century (5.7% nationally). Playable days were up 6.5% according to the PGA of America (data from PGA Performance Trak) . These results are from a Rounds Played Research Coalition led by Golf Datatech and supported by the PGA of America, the NGF and the NGCOA. Findings are based on rounds played reporting from over 4, 000 golf facilities, most of which are contributing their data through the PGA's Performance Trak reporting system.) tatistics by the NGF, the National Golf Foundation 180,000 160,000 140,000 120,000 100,000 - - 80,000 -- 60,000 40,000 — Attachmen B Edina Golf Statistics 0�' Ob 0� OHO 07 0� O ti y� tiO ti� tiO ti� ti� LO tiO tiO ,p ,0 -0 -0 O -6; —1992 Projections - Total Rounds Actual Rounds - Braemar and FR �i AF Attachment C City of Edina Golf Meeting Notes January 30, 2014 Scott Neal opened the meeting at 7:10pm. A request was made for common etiquette to be observed at the meeting to allow for as much input as possible. It was noted that this meeting was in the beginning stages of golf operations discussions with,the community. The next two opportunities for input on golf operations are Tuesday, February 11`h (Park Board Public Hearing, 7pm) and Tuesday, March 4`h (City Council Meeting, 7pm). A PowerPoint was shown to the audience (see attached) and commentary given by Scott Neal and Ann Kattreh. It was noted that the reason for these discussions regarding golf operations in Edina originated with the request by City Council to look into ways to maintain financial'stability in golf operations. A reminder was given to attendees that all input is welcome and to please contact staff and council members via the mail @edinamn.eov email address. A Question- Answer Period ensued. 1. Tom Wexler, Edina Resident Noted: Mr. Wexler is happy with customer service at Braemar and sees no need for improvements. Questions:. What will happen to.the Fred Richards Golf Course if it is closed? How much is the closing worth and.what will Edina do with the money? Answer (Scott): Fred Richards.was purchased in 1982 for $800,000. The plan is not to sell Fred Richards, but rather to repurpose the area for Edina residents. What to do with the area is an open process and staff wants to have input from the community before repurposing plans are suggested. Nancy Thorvelson, Oaklawn Avenue Questions- What are the projected costs . for the consultants you are utilizing in this process? Answer (Ann): We do not have an exact total number yet as the plan has not been approved and we are still seeking input. One consultant has been used to date (at $5,000) to estimate the driving range plan costs. A customer service consultant is estimated at $5,000 - $10,000 and final figures for the driving range consultant would be less than $25,000. 3. (No Name Given) Question: How did Edina pay for the Fred Richards Golf Course in the first place? Answer (Scott): The money came from the Golf Fund. 4. (No Name Given) Noted: Concerned that Fred Richards is really a course for kids and youth to learn how to play golf. Question: What will happen to the Youth Golf Program at Fred Richards if the course closes? Answer (Ann): The City will work with programming and outreach to draw Youth to Braemar programs for kids, especially the Executive Course. 5. Dan Sleck, 4708 Kellogue Noted: The City should look at -the profit /loss of all golf operations together, not individually. Questions: Has staff looked at any successful Par 3 courses in the Twin Cities? Why has the city decided to evaluate finances of individual golf courses as stand -alone instead of collectively? What has the City done to look into the potential loss in property values of residential sites near Fred Richards? Answer (Scott): We will need to look into these items for the next meeting. E 6. Scott Dorn, Cornelia Neighborhood Noted: Residents appreciate the Fred Richards course as one for beginner golfers. It is an intangible asset to the community. We should consider raising greens fees to'save the course. Questions: Is this an issue about Braemar? Where is the decrease in rounds per year most significant? Noted: Asked for a show of hands in support of the "Save the Fred" effort. 7. (No Name Given), West Shore Drive Noted`. The City needs to have a Master Plan for the Fred Richards course in order to get people on board with the plan. Question: Where is the plan for Fred Richards? Answer (Scott): We do not have a Master Plan because we wanted the repurposing question to be left open to the community for input. We are recommending this plan, not saying what should be done. The park planning process must involve the community. 8. Rob Koop Question: How much would'it cost to repurpose the Fred Richards? Has any thought been given to close the Clunie 9 -hole course at Braemar? Answer (Scott): The Clunie 9 -hole course will be considered in the long -term plan. We'do not have an estimate for the repurposing of Fred Richards as the City wants community input first. 9. Bonnie McGrath Noted: Edina is unique in that, it has a variety of golf courses to suit all types of golfers. We are trying to fix something that doesn't need fixing. Customer service is great. We should look at marketing the courses more to bring in more revenue. The community has not been able to weigh in on the plan and would like to recommend that the public be brought into committee discussions. 10. John Stang, lives at 7th green of Fred Richards Noted: Crestfallen to hear of closing of Fred Richards. Understanding of financial considerations, but supports Bonnie's comments that the suggestion to close Fred Richards without input is unacceptable. 11. Jim Scattergood Noted: Recognizes the declining of golf revenues, but wants to look at other areas that may generate revenues. Stated a complaint regarding the hiring of consultants. Suggests the City approach residents to serve as consultants to save money. 12. Bill Dobbs Noted: Wonders if the City has drawn a comparison between the Chaska Towncourse and Braemar. He would be in support of upgrades for Braemar Golf Course. 13. Dan Olson, Seagate Technology Noted: His company hat -a golf league that plays every Tuesdays at Fred Richards. Wondered if the Pentagon Park refurbishment is linked to the marketing of Fred Richards to new, businesses. He is supportive of the use of Liquor revenue to support golf operations. Question: Why do the golf courses need to be profitable? Answer (Scott): Currently 80% of golf operations costs are covered. The City Council decides on what percentage merits looking into support options. 14. Philip Smith Noted: The decline in golf rounds per year has to do with the weather. Question: What about the golf dome finances? Answer (Scott): The trajectory of the line graph was caused by additional factors to the weather. Not having the golf dome open last year was.difficult on a short term basis, but fortunately we were able to pay for 2.6 million of the 3.5 million cost with insurance payments. 15. Tom Terwilliger Question: How did you come up with the $750 ;000 savings if Fred Richards is closed? Answer (Scott): (needs clarification -The City would not agree that this is a cash -flow positive.... too much chatter throughout room to hear complete response). 16: Nancy Thorvelson Noted: There is hostility towards the City Staff because of past experiences with the Pentagon Park question and Cornelia Park issues. The public has a track record, with the City and it is not positive. Why does Fred Richards need to make money? Equated Fred Richards:to warming houses, ice rinks and other parks. Golf should be an amenity of the City. Recommends a city -wide vote on the issue. 17. Burt Holling, Cornelia neighborhood Noted: The support of the community present surrounding the issue. A reminder to the City that there are people who are missing in the room who need to hear the community, namely, the City Council. 252 people signed the "Save the Fred" petition. Also asked attendees to see the Facebook page and website for Fred Richards. Response (Scott): Encouraged dialogue with the City and Council. Reminded the audience that the Council would like to hear from the public on this matter. 18. Gage Halvi Noted: He supports Fred Richards and Braemar. He moved to Edina so that he could get a t -time at Braemar. Would like the City to define the problem. Question: Why close Fred Richards? What problem is the City trying to solve? Answer (Scott): The City Council has asked staff to look at the long -term sustainability of golf operations in the city. This will be a community choice with community input. 19. Paul Rosenthal, Rep. Question: Is the Fred Richards paid for in full? Answer (Scott): Yes, as of January 2013. Statement by Rep. Rosenthal: If the Fred Richards is paid for in full, where will the revenue come from if not from Fred Richards? One month is not enough time for feedback on the golf plan. The entire community must be involved in the process and he requested more time for the effort. 20. Andrea Keller Noted: With regards to the decline in golf rounds, Ms. Keller started a little girls' league that has grown in the past five years from a membership of 30 to 130. She is concerned about the rush to close Fred Richards and would like to see more focus on ways to grow the game of golf in the community. 21. Hugh Thompson Question: Would like to know what the t -time utilization figures are for Braemar and Fred Richards. Answer (Scott): We will need to get those figures for you. 22. Wayne Noted: He moved to Edina for two reasons: the schools and the amenities;, not money. He believes that the sport of golf will rebound as hockey did and that this plan is presumptuous. 23. Art Lowell, Kellogue Avenue Noted: If the City closes Fred Richards the property will go back to the Park Board. Question: What will the Park Board do to repurpose the property and what will the cost be to maintain the park facility? Answer (Scott): Difficult to estimate costs without knowing the land use. The land use is open to . discussion from the public and no decisions have been made. 24. Leslie Sharp Noted: Has played for 35 years at Braemar, but not at Fred Richards. He likened Fred Richards to a church camp. Even though Fred Richards, operates at a loss, it brings new blood into the game (youth) which is crucial for the.gairie'sfuture. Asked the City to please reconsider the park as an asset to the community. Suggested raising greens fees to earn more revenue to keep the Fred Richards open. 25. Greg Shuster, Minneapolis resident Noted: He is a Fred Richards fan and plays often at Braemar. Question: What is the reasoning behind the closing of Fred Richards? Answer (Scott): The City put together a package which focuses on earning more revenue from golf, operations. 26. San Asato, Edina resident Noted: Thanked the City for hosting the meeting. He likes to golf in Edina and looks forward to making improvements from Braemar as it looks like that is what is best for the city. He does not, however, understand the financial assumptions behind the proposed plan. Question: Will you have the pro -forma information available as part of the prep packet for the Park Board meeting? Answer (Scott): Yes, we will have it available. 27. Pat Shannon, 76th Street Noted: He was disappointed that only one proposal has been given as a plan. Question: Is the City open to additional proposals and the creation of a volunteer committee to Save Fred Richards? Answer (Scott): Yes, other proposals are welcome to be presented at the Park Board, meeting. The City's default mode is to find a way not to close facilities so new ideas are always welcome. 28. Al Grinbrid Noted: He does not want the closing of Fred Richards and he suggests that attendees approach their Council Members about the issue. Question: Is the Fred Richards closing a developer question (based on the two plans developed for the Pentagon Park redevelopment)? Answer (Scott): The Pentagon Park redevelopment firm, Hillcrest Development, has created -two overall plans; one with Fred Richards and one without. The firm is not driving the golf operations project. 29. Bill Richards, Cahill Road Noted: He finds the conversation about the changes to the Executive Course at Braemar very disappointing. He would like to preserve one or two Par 4 courses at Braemar. 30. Michelle Lamson, Edina Realtor & Property Manager Noted: She wanted to note that Fred Richards adds to the property values in the area and keeps the crime rate down for the area. Feels it is very important element of the South East corner of Edina. ri 31. Jim Jenkins Noted: He would like clarification on the allocation method that is causing Fred Richards to lose money. Would like to know how much is being allocated and what the loss is. 32. Tom Wexler Noted: The City is making a mistake about the anticipated Grill revenues. The emphasis on customer service is being misplaced. 33. Tim Nasby, West Shore Drive Noted: This meeting is long overdue and as a life -long resident, has been very disappointed about the process. Recommends that a vote is taken before the plan is enacted. Response (Scott): Provided clarification that the City Staff does not make the decisions about enactment of the plan and that the Park Board will take public testimony on February 11`h 34. Tom Terwilliger Noted: He suggested that the rounds of golf appear to decline in 2008 during the recession. Questions: What if the rounds increase to former levels over the next five years, especially if we go ahead and make these improvements? Is the City open to additional proposals? Answer (Scott): The rounds of golf peaked in 1998 and have had a steady decline ever since. The City is definitely open to additional proposals. 35. (No Name Given) Question: Is the Braemar Golf Course subsidizing the Braemar Arena? Answer (Scott): No, the Liquor fund supports the Braemar arena. Question: Will the City look into various management companies to outsource Grill operations? Answer (Scott): Yes. 36. (No Name Given) Noted: He would like the,City to tap into the community for solutions to this issue; open the books for broader discussion. 37. Rosemary Gellen, Arden Park Noted: Thanks to Scott Neal and his online Blog containing financial figures. She noted that the Braemar Arena receives funds in the amount of $600,000 from the Liquor fund. She also wondered why the City is only looking at one component of the budget rather than the whole. Scott Neal thanked the community for attending the meeting and closed the meeting at 9:07pm. CITY OF EDINA o e CIO o �9. Golf Operations Study Financial Projections Page 1 Rounds of golf over the years Page 2 Baseline projections Page 3 Baseline without Fred Richards (1 FTE staff reduction) Page 4 City Staff Plan Financial Variables Close Fred Richards (1 FTE reduction), Page 5 Rate increases, Page 6 Improved marketing, Page 7 Driving range .expansion Page 8 Grill outsourcing (1. FTE reduction), & Page 9 Staff reduction (1 FTE in addition to 2 others, total of 3) Page 10 Braemar rates vs. competition Page 11 ROI calculations for driving range and grill changes Page 12 Possible future improvements-after successful execution of the plan Page 14 Fred Richards financial history Page 15 Six -point strategy cumulative and annual savings Alternatives for faster physical improvements to Braemar Transfer more cash to golf from other City funds in 2014 or 2015 Sell City assets and deposit some of the proceeds to golf fund Spend Braemar Memorial fund Issue bonds to be paid back with tax dollars Issue bonds to be paid back with future golf revenue (risk of additional City subsidies in the future if golf demand continues to decline) Attachment D NOTE: All plans and variables assume average weather and consistent demand for golf each year of the study. O 0 N 0 _0 N N 0 0 N 0 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1994 I 1995 Lo 1996 N 1997 `�° �* 1998 0 1999 2000 0 0 2001 i 0 2002 CL CL 2003 2004 I2005 CL 2006: 3• su c 2007 Ci C 2008 0 °- 2009 H 2010 H 3 2011 d 2012 -n 2013 2014 2015 2016 Page 2 City of Edina Golf Fund Baseline Scenario January 1 cash (1,086,969) (987,051) (1,106,989) (1,084,247) (453,491) (1,003,440) (260,566) (26,766) (2,001,466) (1,627,166) (1,293,366) (1,064,666) December 31 cash $ (987,051) $ (1,106,989) $ (1,084,247) $ (453,491) $ (1,003,440) $ (260,566) $ (26,766) $ (2,001,466) $ (1;627,166) $ (1,293,366) $ (1,064,666) $ (881,366) Expense recovery 103% 97% .97% 98% 86% 92% 92% 89% 87% 86% 84% 83% Capital Improvement Projects: Assumed inflation 2.50% Driving range expansion 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 . 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 GC -12 -007 Actual Actual Actual Actual Projected . Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Total rounds sold 118,076 101,387 95,771 96,496 80,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 Operating revenues 73,500. 107,700 Irrigation replace phase 1 - GC -13 -004 1,615,300 Irrigation replace phase 2 NEW Liquor sales $ 146,632 $ 144,541 $ 145,492 $ 161,040 $ 151,000 $ 156,000 $ 158,300 $ 160,700 $ 163,100 $ 165,500 $ 168,000 $ 170,500 Retail sales 212,886 218,585 230,865. 230,120 190,000 215,000 221,500 228,100 234,900 241,900 249,200 256,700 Concessions 230,776 213,250 203,598 223,775 185,000 218,000 221,300 224,600 228,000 231,400 234,900 238,400 Memberships 123,761 119,981 108,978 88,555 62,400 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 Admissions 264,671 228,126 313,735 70,049 45,000 282,000 290,500 299,200 308,200 317,400 326,900 336,700 Building rental 81,728 70,726 87,081 74,215 70,000 88,000 89,300 90,600 92,000 93,400 94,800 96,200 Equipment rental 359,277 362,763 335,161 359,484 301,500 340,000 345,100 350,300 355,600 360,900 366,300 371,800 Green fees 1,880,610 1,738,261 1,517,962 1,661,982 1,487,000 1,601,000 1,625,000 1,649,400 1,674,100 1,699,200 1,724,700 1,750,600 Other fees 358,333 346,971 338;353 356,371 284,000 331,250 336,200 341,200 346,300 351,500 356,800 362,200 Total revenues 3,658,674 3,443,204 3,281,225 3,225,591 2,775,900 3,296,250 3,352,200 3,409,100 3,467,200 3,526,200 3,586,600 3,648,100 Operating expenses W COGS 338,248 328,821 320,132 347,752 320,000 366,540 375,700 385,100 394,700 404,600 414,700 425,100 Personal services 1,774,558 1,636,091 1,564,676 1,574,394 1,500,000 1,545,000 1,591,400 1,639,100 1,688,300 1,738,900 1,791,100 1,844,800 Contractual services 580,479 557,828 628,347 489,372 475,000 619,000 637,600 656,700 676,400 696,700 717,600 739,100 Commodities 323,311 479,783 329,006 344,549 320,000 348,000 358,400 369,200 380,300 391,700 403,500 415,600 Central services 110,796 116,958 128,266 134,496 140,000 128,628 132,500 136,500 140,600 144,800 149,100 153,600 Depreciation 414,656 424,077 412,683 395,953 471,000 558,000 562,000 641,000 728,000 747,000 769,000 794,000 Total expenses, 3,542,048 3,543,558 3,383,110 3,286,516 3,226,000 3,565,168 3,657,600 3,827,600 4,008,300 4,123,700 4,245,000 4,372,200 Operating loss 116,626 (100,354) (101,885) (60,925) (450,100) (268,918) (305,400) (418,500) (541,100) (597,500) (658,400) (724,100) Nonoperating revenues, (expenses), and transfers I 80% Interest expense (35,182) (18,015) (12;375) (6,676) (12,000) (33;800) (32,300) (30,300) (28,400) (26,400) (24,300) (22,200) Miscellaneous 90,315 5,222 9,052 2,623,627 - - \ I - - - - - Transfers 170;000 99,329 100,000 100,000 570,000 795,000 485,000 485,000 485,000 485,000 485,000 485,000 Total nonoperating 225,133 86,536 96,677 2,716,951 558,000 761,200 452,700 454,700 456,600 458,600 460,700 462,800 Change in net assets 341,759 (13,818) (5,208) 2,656,026 107,900 492,282 147,300 36,200_ (84,500) (138,900) (197,700) (261,300) January 1 net assets 2,013,091 ' 2,354,850 2,341,032 2,335;824 1 4,991,850. 5,099,750 5;592,032 ,5,739,332 5,775,532 5,691,032 5,552,132 5,354,432 December 31 net,asse $ 2,354;850 .$ 2,341;032 $ 2,335,824: $ 4;991,850° $ 5,099,750 $ 5;592,032 $ 5,739,332 $ 5,775,532 $ 5,691,032 $ 5,552,132 $ 5,354,432 $ 5,093,132 Non -GAAP cash reconciliation 97% 98% 86% 92% 92% 89% 87% 86% 84% 83% Change in net assets $ 341,759 $ (13,818) $ (5,208) $ 2,656,026 $ 107,900 $ '492,282 $ 147,300 $ 36,200 $ (84,500) $ (138,900) $ (197,700) $ (261,300) Depreciation 414,656 424,077 412,683 395,953 471,000 558,000 562,000 641,000 728,000 747,000 769,000 794,000 Capital expenditures (173,180) (173,300) (89,608) (233,670) (3,245,000) (917,800) (425,500) (2,586,900) (204,200) (209,300) (272,600) (279,400) Debt principal (net) (515,000) (280,000) (280,000) (285,000) 809,258 - (50,000 (65,000) (65,000) (65,000) (70,000) (70,000) Other accruals 31,683 (76,897) (15,125) (1,902,553) 1,306,893 610,392 Change in cash _ 99,918 (119,938) 22,742 630,756 (549,949) 742,874 233,800 (1,974,700) 374,300 333,800 228,700 183,300 January 1 cash (1,086,969) (987,051) (1,106,989) (1,084,247) (453,491) (1,003,440) (260,566) (26,766) (2,001,466) (1,627,166) (1,293,366) (1,064,666) December 31 cash $ (987,051) $ (1,106,989) $ (1,084,247) $ (453,491) $ (1,003,440) $ (260,566) $ (26,766) $ (2,001,466) $ (1;627,166) $ (1,293,366) $ (1,064,666) $ (881,366) Expense recovery 103% 97% .97% 98% 86% 92% 92% 89% 87% 86% 84% 83% Capital Improvement Projects: Assumed inflation 2.50% Driving range expansion GC -12 -005 75,000 Braemar: carpeting GC -12 -006 -.26,300 Braemar: slit drainage 3 fairways GC -12 -007 53,800 Braemar: clubhouse roof replacement GC -12 -008 82,000 84,100 $1,500,000 Cart path repair /expansion GC -12 -009 25,000 25,600 78,800 80,800 27,600 28,300 87,000 89,200 Maintenance equipment GC -13 -001 145,000 158,900 162,800 172,300 176,600 181,000 185,600 190,200 Tee renovation GC -13 -003 51,300 73,500. 107,700 Irrigation replace phase 1 - GC -13 -004 1,615,300 Irrigation replace phase 2 NEW 384,700 Golf dome construction NA 3,000,000 600,000 Golf cart replacement NEW 172,300 Total $ - $ 3,245,000 $ 917,800. $ 425,500 $ 2,586,900 $ 204,200 $ 209,300 $ 272,600 $ 279,400 1,039,329 Estimated 2009 -2013 subsidy 3,705,000 Future subsidy assumed 2014 -2020 Construction fund pays capital costs currently in CIP through 2014 After 2014 the only subsidy is from liquor fixed at $485,000 /year Projected rounds fixed at 100,000 /year Driving range expansion not included in baseline scenario 1/28/2014 G:\Budget\2014 -2015 Budget \Golf study \Golf pro forma scenarios v6 for Jan 3014 public meeting '.xlsx Golf Fund Baseline Scenario $1,500,000 Assumed 2009 -2020 Total Subsidy of $4;744,329 110% $1,000,000 105% $500,000 100% F1 $ �w 95 %0 a 1 c M $(500,000) �► // 90% o W $(1,000,000) • 83% 85% 4W OP ® mss I_ $(1,500,000) I 80% do $(2,000,000) I Actual Actual Actual Actual Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected 75% 2009 2010 2011 2012 .2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 c== Expense recovery 103% 97% 97% 98% 86% 92% 92% 89% 87% 86% 84% 83% -Cash balance $(987,051) $(1,106,989) $(1,084,247) $(453,491) $(1,003,440) $(260,566) $(26,766) $(2,001,466) $(1,627,166) $(1,293,366) $(1,064,666) $(881,366) 1,039,329 Estimated 2009 -2013 subsidy 3,705,000 Future subsidy assumed 2014 -2020 Construction fund pays capital costs currently in CIP through 2014 After 2014 the only subsidy is from liquor fixed at $485,000 /year Projected rounds fixed at 100,000 /year Driving range expansion not included in baseline scenario 1/28/2014 G:\Budget\2014 -2015 Budget \Golf study \Golf pro forma scenarios v6 for Jan 3014 public meeting '.xlsx Page 3 City of Edina Golf Fund . Baseline Scenario Without Fred Richards 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Actual Actual Actual Actual Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Total rounds sold 118,076 101,387 95,771 96,496 80,000 100,000 84,600 85,700 86,800 87,900 89,000 89,000 Operating revenues Liquor sales $ 146,632 $ 144,541 $ 145,492 $ 161,040 $ 151,000 $ 156,000 $ 158,300 $ 160,700 $ 163,100 $ 165,500 $ 168,000 $ 170,500 Close FR, net of adds to Braemar (4,900) (4,650) (4,350) (4,050) (3,750) (3,800) Retail sales 212,886 218,585 230,865 230,120 190,000 215,000 221,500 228,100 234,900 241,900 249,200 256,700 Concessions 230,776 213,250 203,598 223,775 185,000 218,000 221,300 224,600 228,000 231,400 234,900 238,400 Close FR, net of adds to Braemar (14,000) (13,200) (12,400) (11,600) (10,800) (11,000) Memberships 123,761 119,981 108,978 88,555 62,400 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 Admissions 264,671 228,126 313,735 70,049 45,000 282,000 290,500 299,200 308,200 317,400 326,900 336,700 Building rental 81,728 70,726 87,081 74,215 70,000 88,000 89,300 90,600 92,000 93,400 94,800 96,200 Equipment rental 359,277 362,763 335,161 359,484 301,500 340,000 345,100 350,300 355,600 360,900 366,300 371,800 Close FR, net of adds to Braemar (9,800) (9,200) (8,600) (8,000) (7,400) (7,500) Green fees 1,880,610 1,738,261 1,517,962 1,661,982 1,487,000 1,601,000 1,625,000 1,649,400 1,674,100 - 1,699,200 1,724,700 1,750,600 Close FR, net of adds to Braemar (140,000) (132,100) (124,100) (116,000) (107,700) (109,300) Other fees 358,333 346,971 338,353 356,371 284,000 331,250 336,200 341,200 346,300 351,500 356,800 362,200 Total revenues 3,658,674 3,443,204 3,281,225 3,225,591 2,775,900. 3,296,250 3,183,500 3,249,950 3,317,750 3,386,550 3,456,950 3,516,500 Operating expenses COGS 338,248 328,821 320,132 347,752 320,000 366,540 375,700 385,100 394,700 404,600 414,700 425,100 . Close FR, net of adds to Braemar (7,000) (6,700) (6,400) (6,100) (5,800) (5,900) Personal services 1,774,558 1,636,091 1;564,676 1,574,394 1,500,000 1,545,000 1,591,400 1,639,100 1,688,300 1,738,900 1,791,100 1,844,800 Close FR (153,000) (157,600) (162,300) (167,200) (172,200) (177,400) Contractual services 580,479 557,828 628,347. 489,372 475,000 619,000 637,600 656,700 676,400 696,700 717,600 739,100 Close FR (18,000) (18,000) (18,000) (18,000) (18,000) (18,500 Commodities 323,311 479,783 329,006 344,549 320,000 348,000 358,400 369,200 380,300 391,700 403,500 415,600 Close FR 50,000 ( ) (51,000) (52,000) (53,100) (54,200) (55,800) Central services 110,796 116,958 128,266 134,496 140,000 128,628 132,500 136,500 140,600 144,800 149,100 153,600 Depreciation 414,656 424,077 412,683 395,953 471,000 558,000 494,000 570,000 654,000 670,000 .689,000 711,000 Total expenses 3,542,048 3,543,558 3,383,110 3,286,516 3,226,000 3,565,168 3,361,600 3,523,300 3,695,600 3,802,300 3,914,800 4,031,600 Operating loss 116,626 (100,354) (101,885) (60,925) (450,100) (268,918) (178,100) (273,350) (377,850) (415,750) (457,850) (515,100) Nonoperating revenues, (expenses), and transfers Interest expense (35,182) (18,015) (12,375) (6,676) (12,000) (33,860) (32,300 (30,300) (28,400) (26,400) (24,300) (22,200) Miscellaneous 90,315 5,222 91052 2,623,627 - (1,600,000) - - - - - - Transfers 170,000 99,329 100,000 100,000 570,000 795,000 485,000 485,000 485,000 485,000 485,000 485,000 Total nonoperating 225,133 86,536 96,677 2,716,951 558,000 (838;800) 452,700 454,700 456,600. 458,600 460,700 462,800 Change In net assets 341,759 (13,818) (5,208) 2,656,026 107,900 (1,107,718) 274,600 181,350 78,750 42,850 2,850 (52,300) January 1 net assets 2,013,091 2,354,850 2,341;032 2,335,824 4,991,850 5,099,750 3,992,032 4,266,632 4,447,982 4,526,732 4,569,582 4,572,432 December 31 net asse $ 2,354,850 $ 2,341,032 $ 2,335,824 $ .4,991,850 $ 5,099,750 $ 3,992,032 $ 4,266,632 $ 4,447,982 $ 4,526,732 $ 4,569,582 $ 4,572,432 $ 4,520,132 Non -GAAP cash reconciliation Change in net assets $ 341,759 $ (13,818) $ (5,208) $ 2,656,026 $ 107,900 $ (1,107,718) $ 274,600 $ 181,350 $ 78,750 $ 42,850 $ 2,850 $ (52,300) Depreciation 414,656 424,077 412,683 395,953 471,000 558,000 494,000 570,000 654,000 670;000 689,000 711,000 Capital expenditures (173,180) (173,300) (89,608) (233,670) (3,245,000) (917,800) (395,500) (2,556,900) (174,200) (179,300) (242,600) (249,400) Debt principal (net) (515;000) (280,000) (280,000) (285,000) 809,258 - (50,000) (65,000) (65,000) (65,000) (70,000) (70,000) Other accruals 31,683 (76,897) (15,125) (1,902,553) 1,306,893 2,190,392 Change in cash 99,918 (119,938) 22,742 630,756 (549,949) 722,874 323,100 (1,870,550) 493,550 468,550 379,250 339,300 January 1 cash (1,086,969) (987,051) (1,106,989) (1,084,247) (453,491) (1,003,440) (280,566) 42,534 (1,828,016) (1,334,466) (865,916) (486,666) December 31 cash $ (987,051) $ (1,106,989) $ (1,084,247) $ (453,491)'$ (1,003,440) $ (280,566) $ 42,534 $ (1,828,016) $ (1,334,466) $ (865,916) $ (486,666) $ (147,366) Expense recovery 103% 97% 97% 98% 86% 92% 95% 92% 90% 89% 88% 87% Capital Improvement Projects: Assumed Inflation 2.50% Driving range expansion GC -12 -005 75,000 - Braemar: carpeting GC -12 -006 26,300 $1,500,000 Braemar: slit drainage 3 fairways GC -12 -007 Baseline Scenario Without Fred Richards 53,800 Braemar: clubhouse roof replacement GC -12 -008 82,000 84,100 Cart path repair /expansion GC -12 -009 25,000 25,600 78,800 80,800 27,600 28,300 87,000 89,200 Maintenance equipment GC -13 -001 145,000 158,900 132,800 142,300 146,600 151,000 155,600 160,200 Tee renovation GC -13 -003 51,900 73,500 107,700 Irrigation replace phase 1 GC -13 -004 1,615,300 Irrigation replace phase 2 NEW $500,000 384;700 Golf dome construction NA 3,000,000 600,000 100% Golf cart replacement NEW 172,300 Total $ - $ 3,245,000 $ 917,800 $ 395,500 $ 2,556,900 $ 174,200 $ 179,300 $ 242,600 $ 249,400 1,039,329 Estimated 2009 -2013 subsidy 3,705,000 Future subsidy assumed 2014 -2020 Construction fund pays capital costs currently in CIP through 2014 After 2014 the only subsidy is from liquor fixed at $485,000 /year Projected rounds drop to 84,600 in 2015, gradually increasing to 89,000 in 2018 as FR golfers migrate to Braemar 1/2812014 G:\Budget\2014 -2015 Budget \Golf study \Golf pro forma scenarios v6 for Jan 30 14 public meeting.xlsx Golf Fund $1,500,000 Baseline Scenario Without Fred Richards 110% Assumed 2009 -2020 Total Subsidy of $4,744,329 $1,000,000 105% $500,000 100% $" 95% m C / m / / c ra U $(500,000) I / / 90% x 'I `�' $(1,000,000) �' `- �', 85% o / 40 I $(1,500,000) � 80% � $(2,000,000) 75% Actual Actual Actual Actual Projected Projected Protected Projected Projected Protected Protected Projected 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 ® Expense recovery 1 103% 97% '97% 98% 86% 92% 95% 92% 1 90% 89% 88% 87% Cash balance. $(987,051) $(1,106,989) $(1,084;247) $(453,491) • $(1,003,440) $(280,566) $42,534 $(1,828,016) $(1,334,466) $(865,9161 $(486,666) $(147,366) 1,039,329 Estimated 2009 -2013 subsidy 3,705,000 Future subsidy assumed 2014 -2020 Construction fund pays capital costs currently in CIP through 2014 After 2014 the only subsidy is from liquor fixed at $485,000 /year Projected rounds drop to 84,600 in 2015, gradually increasing to 89,000 in 2018 as FR golfers migrate to Braemar 1/2812014 G:\Budget\2014 -2015 Budget \Golf study \Golf pro forma scenarios v6 for Jan 30 14 public meeting.xlsx Page 4 City of Edina Golf Fund City Staff Plan Expense recovery 103% 97% 97% 98% Capital Improvement Projects: Assumed Inflation 2.50% 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 GC -13 -003 Actual Actual Actual Actual Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Total rounds sold 118,076 101,387 95,771 96,496 80,000 96,000 70,000 83,000 84,000 85,000 86,000 86,000 Operating revenues 1,615,300 Assumed 2009 -2020 Total Subsidy of $4,744,329 384,700 3,000,000 - Liquor sales $ 146,632 $ 144,541 $ 145,492 $ 161,040 $ 151,000 $ 156,000 $ 158,300 $ 160,700 $ 163,100 $ 165,500 $ 168,000 $ 170,500 Close FR S 105% $500,000 (4,900) (4,650) (4,350) (4,050) (3,750) (3,800) Outsource grill (137,400) (140,050) (142,750) (145,450) (148,250) (150,700) Retail sales 212,886 218,585 230,865 230,120 190,000 215,000 221,500 228,100 234,900 241,900 249,200 256,700 Concessions 230,776 213,250 203,598 223,775 185,000 218,000 221,300 224,600 228,000 231,400 234,900 236,400 Close FR 95% c (14,000) (13,200) (12,400) (11,600) (10,800) (11,000) Outsource grill (205,300) (209,400) (213,600) (217,800) (222,100) (225,400) Memberships 123,761 119,981 108,978 88,555 62,400 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 Admissions 264,671 228,126 313,735 70,049 45,000 282,000 290,500 299,200 308,200 317,400 326,900 336,700 Rate increase 76,000 67,500 58,800 49,800 40,600 31,100 21,300 Building rental 81,728 70,726 87,081 74,215 70,000 88,000 89,300 90,600 92,000 93,400 94,800 96,200 Outsource grill 75,000 76,100 77,200 78,400 79,600 80,800 Equipment rental 359,277 362,763 335,161 359,484 301,500 340,000 345,100 350,300 355,600 360,900 366,300 371,800 Close FR `v (9,800) (9,200) (8,600) (8,000) (7,400) (7,500) Rate increase $(1,000,000) �� 25,000 42,700 64,500 59,200 78,900 73,500 68,000 Green fees 1,880,610 1,738,261 1,517,962 1,661,982 1,487,000 1,601,000 1,625,000 1,649,400 1,674,100 1,699,200 1,724,700 1,750,600 Close FR (140,000) (132,100) (124,100) (116,000) (107,700) (109,300) Rate increase 69,500 153,500 129,100 182,400 157,300 241,800 215,900 Driving range expansion (34,200) (142,500) (28,500) (28,900) (29,300) (29,700) (30,100) Other fees 358,333 346,971 338,353 356,371 284,000 331,250 336,200 341,200 346,300, 351,500 356,800 362,200 Driving range expansion (41,100) (151,100) 218,300 2271000 231,500 236,200 240,900 Rate increase . 80% 3,000 3,000 43,000 43,000 68,000 88,000 133,000 Total revenues 3,658,674 3,443,204 3,281,225 3,225,591 2,775,900 3,394,450 2,888,900.. 3,461,800 3,571,100 3,668,700 3,807,100 3,870,200 Operating expenses $(2,000,000) COGS 338,248 328,821 320,132 347,752 320,000 366,540 375,700 385,100 394,700 404,600 _ 414,700 425,100 Close FR Actual - Act ual Projected Projected Projected (7,000) (6,700) (6,400) (6,100) (5,800) (5,900) Outsource grill 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 (150,000) (153,800) (157,600) (161,500) (165,500) (169,600) Personal services 1,774,558 1,636,091 1,564,676 1,574,394 1,500,000 1,545,000 1,591,400 1,639,100 1,688,300 1,738,900 1,791,100 1,844,800 Close FR (1 FTE) 101% -Cash balance $(987,051) $(1,106,989) (153,000) (157,600) (162,300) (167,200) (172,200) (177,400) Add PT staff for rate increase /programming change at dome $(521,266) $480,534 10,500 10,800 11,100 11,400 11;700 12,100 12,500 Driving range expansion (15,000) (65,000) 20,000 20,600 21,200 21,800 22,500 Outsource grill (1 FTE) (170,000) (175,100) (180,400) (185,800) (191,400) (197,100) Reduce 1 FTE, net of PT adds (50,000) (51,500) (53,000) (54,600) (56,200) (57,900) (59,600) Contractual services 580,479 557,828 628,347 489,372 475,000 619,000 637,600 656,700 676,400 696,700 717,600 739,100 Close FR (18,000) (18,000) (18,000) (18,000) (18,000) (18,500) Increase marketing 120,000 123,600 127,300 131,100 135,000 139,100 143,300 Outsource grill (15,000) . (15,500) (16,000) (16,500) (17,000) (17,500) Commodities 323,311 479,783 329,006 344,549 320,000 348,000 358,400 369,200 380,300 391,700 403,500 415,600 Close FR (50,000) (51,000) (52,000) (53,100) (64,200) (55,800) Outsource grill (12,000) (12,400) (12,800) (13,200 (13,600) (14,000) Central services 110,796 116,958 128,266 134,496 140,000. 128,628 132,500 136,500 140,600 144,800 149,100 153,600 Depreciation 414,656 424,077 412,683 395,953 471,000 576,000 542,000 631,000• 715,000 731,000 750,000 772,000 Total expenses 3,542,048 3,543,558 3,383,110 3,286,516 3,226,000 3,648,668 3,080,500 3,332;900 3,498,300 3,598,000 3,703,400 3,813,100 Operating loss 116,626 (100,354) (101,885) (60,925) (450,100) (254,218) (191,600) 128,900 72,800 70,700 103,700 57,100 Nonoperating revenues, (expenses), and transfers Interest expense (35,182) (18,015) (12,375) (6,676) (12,000) (33,800) (32,300) (30,300) (28,400) (26,400) (24,300) (22,200) Miscellaneous 90,315 5,222 9,052 2,623,627 - (1,600,000) - - - - - Transfers 170,000 99,329 100,000 100,000. 570,000 795,000 485,000 485,000:, 485,000 485,000 485,000 485,000 Total nonoperating . 225,133 86,536 96,677 2,716,951 558,000 (838,800) 452,700 454,700 456,600 458,600 460,700 462,800 Change in net assets 341,759 (13,818) (5,208) 2,656,026 107,900 (1,093,018) 261,100 583;600 529,400 529,300 564,400 519,900 January 1 net assets 2,013,091 2,354,850 2,341,032 2,335,824 4,991,850 5,099,750 4,006,732 4,267,832 4,851,432 5,380,832 5,910,132 6,474,532 December 31 net asst $ 2,354,850 $ 2,341,032 $ 2,335,824 $ 4,991,850 $ 5,099,750 $ 4,006,732 $ 4,267,832 $ 4,851,432 $ 5,380,832 $ 5,910,132 $ 6,474,532 $ 6,994,432 Non -GAAP cash reconciliation Change in net assets $ 341,759 $ . (13,818) $ (5,208) $ 2,656,026 $ 107,900 $ (1,093,018) $ 261,100 $ 583,600 $ 529,400 $ 529,300 $ 564,400 $ 519,900 Depreciation 414,656 424,077 412,683 395,953 471,000 576,000 542,000 631,000 715,000 731,000 750,000 772,000 Capital expenditures (173,180) (173,300) (89,608) (233,670) (3,245,000) (1,609,700) (908,500) (2,556,900) (174,200) (179,300) (242,600) (249,400) Debt principal (net) (515,000) (280,000) (280,000) (285,000) 809,258 - (50,000) (65,000) (65,000) (65,000) (70,000) (70,000) Other accruals 31,683 (76,897) (15,125) (1,902,553) 1,306,893 2,150,392 Change in cash 99,918 (119,938) 22,742 630,756 (549,949) 23,674 (155,400) (1,407,300) 1,005,200 1,016,000 1,001,800 972,500 January I cash (1,086,969) (987,051) (1,106,989) (1,084,247) (453,491) (1,003,440) (979,766) (1,135,166) (2,542,466) (1,537,266) (521,266) 480,534 December 31 cash $ 987051 $ (1,106,989) $ (1,084,247) $ 453491 $ (1,003,440) $ (979,766) $ (1,135,166) $ (2,542,466) $ (1,537,266) $ (521,266) $ 480,534 $ 1,453,034 Expense recovery 103% 97% 97% 98% Capital Improvement Projects: Assumed Inflation 2.50% Driving range expansion GC -12 -005 Braemar: carpeting GC -12 -006 Braemar: slit drainage 3 fairways GC -12 -007 Braemar. clubhouse roof replacement GC -12 -008 Cart path repair /expansion GC -12 -009 Maintenance equipment GC -13 -001 Tee renovation GC -13 -003 Irrigation replace phase 1 GC -13 -004 Irrigation replace phase 2 NEW Golf dome construction NA Golf cart replacement NEW Total 86% 93% 94% 104% 102% 102% 103% 101% 75,000 691,900 513,000 26,300 $1,500,000 53,800 82,000 84,100 25,000 25,600 78,800 80,800 27,600 28,300 87,000 89,200 145,000 158,900 132,800 142,300 146.600 151,000 155,600 160,200 51,300 73,500 107,700 1,615,300 Assumed 2009 -2020 Total Subsidy of $4,744,329 384,700 3,000,000 600,000 172,300 $ - $ 3,245,000 $ 1,609;700 $ 908,500 $ 2,556,900 $ 174,200 $ 179,300 $ 242,600 $ 249,400 1,039,329 Estimated 2009 -2013 subsidy 3,705,000 Future subsidy assumed 2014 -2020 Construction fund pays capital costs currently in CIP through 2014 After 2014 the only subsidy is from liquor fuzed at $485,000 /year Projected rounds drop to 70,000 in 2015 due to FR closing & range construction, gradually increasing to 86,000 in 2020 as FR golfers migrate to Braemar 1/2812014 GABudget\2014 -2015 BudgetlGolf study \Golf pro forma scenarios v6 for Jan 30 14 public meeting.xlsx Golf Fund $1,500,000 City Staff Plan 110% Assumed 2009 -2020 Total Subsidy of $4,744,329 $1,000,000 S 105% $500,000 � 101% 100% $ 95% c @ r N u $(500,000) 90% `v $(1,000,000) �� _ �, 85% $(1,500,000) 80% $(2,000,000) if Actual Actual Act ual 1 Act ual Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected 75% 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 F Expense recovery 103% 97% 1 97% 98% 86% 93% 94% 104% 102% 102% 103% 101% -Cash balance $(987,051) $(1,106,989) $(1,084,247) 5(453,491) - 1 $(1,003,440) $(979,766): $(1,135,166) $(2,542,466) $(1,537,266) $(521,266) $480,534 1 $1,453,034 1,039,329 Estimated 2009 -2013 subsidy 3,705,000 Future subsidy assumed 2014 -2020 Construction fund pays capital costs currently in CIP through 2014 After 2014 the only subsidy is from liquor fuzed at $485,000 /year Projected rounds drop to 70,000 in 2015 due to FR closing & range construction, gradually increasing to 86,000 in 2020 as FR golfers migrate to Braemar 1/2812014 GABudget\2014 -2015 BudgetlGolf study \Golf pro forma scenarios v6 for Jan 30 14 public meeting.xlsx Page 5 City of Edina Golf Fund Rate Increase Variable Capital Improvement Projects: Assumed inflation 2.50% Driving range expansion 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2016 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 GC -12 -007 Actual Actual Actual Actual Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Total rounds sold 118,076 101,387 96,771 96,496 80,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 Operating revenues 73,500 107,700 Irrigation replace phase 1 GC -13 -004 110°0 1,615,300 Irrigation replace phase 2 NEW Liquor sales $ 146,632 $ ..144,541 $ 145,492 $ 161,040 $ 151,000 $ 156,000 $ 158,300 $ 160,700 $ 163,100 $ 165,500 $ 168,000 $ 170,500 Retail sales 212,886 218,585 230,865 230,120 190,000 215,000 221,500 228,100 234,900 241,900 249,200 256,700 Concessions 230,776 213,250 203,598 223,775 185,000 218,000 221,300 224,600 228,000 231,400 234,900 238,400 Memberships 123,761 119,981 108,978 88,555 62,400 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 Admissions 264,671 228,126 313,735 / 70,049 45,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 New dome rates 100% 56,000 56,000 .56,000 56,000 56,000 56,000 56,000 Dome format changes $ 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 Building rental 81,728 70,726 87,081 74,215 70,000 88,000 89,300 90,600 92,000 93,400 94,800 96,200 Equipment rental 359,277 362,763 335,161 359,484 301,500 340,000 340,000 340,000 340,000 340,000 340,000 340,000 Rate increases 25,000 47,800 74,800 74,800 99,800 99,800 99,800 Green fees 1,880,610 1,738,261 1,517,962 1,661,982 1,487,000 1,601,000 1,601,000 1,601,000 1,601,000 1,601,000 1,601,000 1,601,000 New weekend rate 69,500 69,500 69,500 , 69,500 69,500 69,500 69,500 Rate increase 108,000 108,000 186,000 186,000 296,000 296,000 Otherfees 358,333 346,971 338,353 356,371 284,000 331,250 336,200 341,200 346,300 351,500 356,800 362,200 Rate increase - - - 3,000 3,000 43,000 43,000 88,000 88,000 133,000 Total revenues 3,658,674 3,443,204 3,281,225 3,225,591 2,775,900 3,469,750 3,618,900 3,704,500 3,801,600 3,891,000 4,021,000 4,086,300 Operating expenses 90% C COGS 338,248 328,821 320,132 347,752 320,000 366,540 375,700 385,100 394,700 404,600 414,700 425,100 Personal services 1,774,558 1,636,091 1,564,676 1,574,394 1,500,000 1,545,000 1,591,400 1,639,100 1,688,300 1,738,900 1,791,100 1,844,800 Increase PT dome staff for new programming �` / 10,500 10,800 11,100 11,400 11,700 12,100 12,500 Contractual services 580,479 557,828 628,347 489,372 475,000 619,000 637,600 656,700 676,400 696,700 717,600 739,100 Commodities 323,311 479,783 329,006 344,549 320,000 348,000 358,400 369,200 380,300 391,700 403,500 415,600 Central services 110,796 116,958 128,266 134,496 140,000 128,628 132,500 136,500 140,600 144,800 149,100 153,600 Depreciation 414,656 424,077 412,683 395,953 471,000 558,000 562,000 641,000 728,000 747,000 769,000 794,000 Total expenses 3,542,048 3,543,558 3,383,110 3,286,516 3,226,000 3,575,668 3,668,400 3,838,700 4,019,700 4,135,400 4,257,100 4,384,700 Operating loss 116,626 (100,354) (101,885) (60,925) (450,100) (105,918) (49,500) (134,200) (218,100) (244,400) (236,100) (298,400) Nonoperating revenues, (expenses), and transfers Interest expense (35,182) (18,015) (12,375) (6,676) (12,000) (33,800) (32,300) (30,300) (28,400) (26,400) (24,300) (22,200) Miscellaneous 90,315 5,222 9,052 2,623,627 - - - - - - - - Transfers 170,000 99,329 100,000 100,000 570,000 795,000 485,000 485,000 485,000 485,000 485,000 485,000 Total nonoperating 225,133 86,536 96,677 2,716,951 558,000 761,200 452,700 454,700 456,600 458,600 460,700 462,800 Change In net assets 341,759 (13,818) (5,208) 2,656,026 107,900 655,282 403,200 320,500 238,500 214,200 224,600 164,400 January 1 net assets 2,013,091 2,354,850 2,341,032 2,335,824 4,991,850 5,099,750 5,755,032 6,158,232 6,478,732 6,717,232 6,931,432 7,156,032 December 31 net asse $ 2,354,850 $ 2,341,032 $ 2,335,824 $ 4,991,850 $ 5,099,750 $ 5,755;032 $ 6,158,232 $ 6,478,732 $ 6,717,232 $ 6,931,432 $ 7,156,032 $ 7,320,432 Non -GAAP cash reconciliation 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Change in net assets $ 341,759 $ (13,818) $ (5,208) $ 2,656,026 $ 107,900 $ 655,282 $ 403,200 $ 320,500 $ 238,500 $ 214,200 $ 224,600 $ 164,400 Depreciation 414,656 424,077 412,683 395,953 471,000 558,000 562,000 641,000 728,000 747,000 769,000 794,000 Capital expenditures (173,180) (173,300) (89,608) (233,670) (3,245,000) (917,800) (425,500) (2,586,900) (204,200) (209,300) (272,600) (279,400) Debt principal (net) (515,000) (280,000) (280,000) (285,000 ) 809,258 (50,000) (65,000) (65,000) (65,000) (70,000) (70,000) Other accruals 31,683 (76,897) (15,125) (1,902,553) 1,306,893 610,392 Change in cash 99,918 (119,938) 22,742 630,756 (549,949) 905,874 489,700 (1,690,400) 697,300 686,900 651,000 609,000 January 1 cash (1,086,969) (987,051) (1,106,989) (1,084,247) (453,491) - (1,003,440) (97,566) 392,134 -- (1,298,266) (600,966) 85,934 736,934 December 31 cash $ (987,051) $ (1,106,989) $ (1,084,247) $ (453,491) $ (1,003,440) $ (97,566) $ 392,134 $ (1,298,266) $ (600,966) $ 85,934 $ : 736,934 $ 1,345,934 Expense recovery 103% 97% 97% 98% 86% 97% 99% 97% 95% 94% 94% 93% Capital Improvement Projects: Assumed inflation 2.50% Driving range expansion GC -12 -005 75,000 - Golf Fund Braemar: carpeting GC -12 -006 26,300 Braemar: slit drainage 3 fairways GC -12 -007 53,800 Braemar: clubhouse roof replacement GC -12 -008 82,000 84,100 Cart path repaidexpansion GC -12 -009 25,000 25,600 78,800 80,800 27;600 28,300 87,000 89,200 Maintenance equipment GC -13 -001 145,000 158,900 162,800 172,300 176,600 181,000 185,600 190,200 Tee renovation GC -13 -003 51,300 73,500 107,700 Irrigation replace phase 1 GC -13 -004 110°0 1,615,300 Irrigation replace phase 2 NEW 384,700 Golf dome construction NA 3,000,000 600,000 Golf cart replacement NEW 172,300 Total $ $ 3,245,000 $ 917,800 $ 425,500 $ 2,586,900 $ 204,200 $ 209,300 $ 272,600 $ 279,400 1,039,329 Estimated 2009 -2013 subsidy 3,705,000 Future subsidy assumed 2014 -2020 Construction fund pays capital costs currently in CIP through 2014 After 2014 the only subsidy is from liquor fixed at $485,000 /year Projected rounds fixed at 100,000 /year 1/28/2014 GABudget\2014 -2015 Budget \Golf study \Golf pro forma scenarios v6 for Jan 30 14 public meeting.xlsx Golf Fund Rate Increase Variable Assumed 2009 -2020 Total Subsidy of $4,744,329 $1,500,000 110°0 $1,000,000 / ♦ 105% $500,000 / " 100% F-1 F • $ u 95 /o d / ♦ 93% w m / � $(500,000) /� / ♦ 90% C ✓. / �` / $(1,000,000) /" , 85% $(1,500,000) 80% $(2,000,000) Actual Actual Actual Actual Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected 75% 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 t Expense recovery 103% 97% 97% 98% 86% 97% 99% 97% 95% 94Y ° 94� 93% Cash balance $(987,051) $(1,106,98 $(1,084,24 $(453,491) $(1,003,44 $(97,566) $392,134 $(1,298,26 $(600,966) $85,934 $736,934 $1,345,934 1,039,329 Estimated 2009 -2013 subsidy 3,705,000 Future subsidy assumed 2014 -2020 Construction fund pays capital costs currently in CIP through 2014 After 2014 the only subsidy is from liquor fixed at $485,000 /year Projected rounds fixed at 100,000 /year 1/28/2014 GABudget\2014 -2015 Budget \Golf study \Golf pro forma scenarios v6 for Jan 30 14 public meeting.xlsx Page 6 City of Edina Golf Fund Increase Marketing Variable January 1 cash (1,086,969) (987,051) (1,106,989). (1,084,247) (453,491) (1,003,440) (380,566) (270,366) (2,372,366) (2,129,166) - (1,930,366) (1,840,766) December 31 cash $ (987,051) $.(1,106,989) $ (1,084,247). $ (453,4911 $ (1,003,440) $ (380,566) $ (270,366) $ (2;372;366) $ (2,129,166) $ (1,930,366) $ (1,840,766) $ (1,800,766) Expense recovery 103% 97% 97% 98% 86% 89% 89% 86% 84% 83% 82% 81% Capital Improvement Projects: Assumed inflation 2.50% Driving range expansion 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 GC -12 -007 Actual Actual Actual Actual Projected Projected Projected' Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Total rounds sold 118,076 101,387 95,771 96;496 80,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 Operating revenues 73,500 107,700 Irrigation replace phase 1 GC -13 -004 105% 1,615,300 Irrigation replace phase 2 NEW Liquor sales $ 146,632 $ 144,541 $ 145,492 $ 161,040 $ 151,000 $ 156,000 $ 158,300 $ 160,700 $ 163,100 $ 165,500 $ 168,000 $ 170,500 Retail sales 212,886 218,585 230,865 230,120 190,000 215,000 221,500 228,100 234,900 241,900 249,200 256,700 Concessions 230,776 213,250 203,598 223,775 185,000 218,000 221,300 224,600 228,000 231,400 234,900 238,400 Memberships 123,761 119,981 108,978 88,555 62,400 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 Admissions 264,671 228,126 313,735 70,049 45,000 282,000 290,500 299,200 308,200 317,400 326,900 336,700 Building rental 81,728 70,726 87,081 74,215 70,000 88,000 89,300 90,600 92,000 93,400 94,800 96,200 Equipment rental 359,277 362,763 335,161 359,484 301,500 340,000 345,100 350,300 355,600 360,900 366,300 371,800 Green fees 1,880,610 1,738,261 1,517,962 1,661,982 1,487,000 1,601,000 1,625,000 1,649,400 1,674,100 1,699,200 1,724,700 1,750,600 Otherfees 358,333 346,971 338,353 356,371 284,000 331,250 336,200 341,200 346,300 351,500 356,800 362,200 Total revenues 3,658,674 3,443,204 3,281,225 3,225;591 2,775,900 3,296,250 3,352,200 3,409,100 3,467,200 3,526,200 3,586,600 3,648,100 Operating expenses $(1,000,000) �._ COGS 338,248 328,821 320,132 347,752 320,000 366,540 375,700 385,100 394,700 404,600 414,700 425,100 Personal services 1,774,558 1,636,091 1,564,676 1,574,394 1,500,000 1•,545,000 1,591,400 1,639,100 1,688,300 1,738,900 1,791,100 1,844,800 Contractual services 580,479 557,828 628,347 489,372 475,000 ..619,000 637,600 656,700 676,400 696,700 717,600 739,100 Increase marketing 81% $(1,500,000) 120,000 123,600 127,300 131,100 135,000 139,100 143,300 Commodities 323,311 479,783 329,006 344,549 320,000 348,000 358,400 369,200 380,300 391,700 403,500 415,600 Central services 110,796 116,958 128,266 134,496 140,000 128,628 132,500 136,500 140,600 144,800 149,100 153,600 Depreciation 414,656 424,077 412,683 395,953 471,000. 558,000 562,000 641,000 728,000 747,000 769,000 794,000 Total expenses 3,542,048 3,543,558 3,383;110 3,286,516 3,226,000 3;685,168 3,781,200 3,954,900 4,139,400 4,258,700 4,384,100 4,515,500 Operating loss 116,626 (10b,354) (101,885) (60,925) (450,100) (388,918) (429,000) (545,800). (672,200) (732,500) (797,500) (867,400) Nonoperating revenues, (expenses), and transfers 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Interest expense (35,182) (18,015) (12,375) (6,676) (12,000) (33,800) (32,300) (30,300) (28,400) (26,400) (24,300) (22,200) Miscellaneous_ 90,315 5,222 9,052 2,623,627 - - - - - - - - Transfers 170,000 99,329 100,000 100,000 570,000 795,000 485,000 485,000 485,000 485,000 485,000 485,000 Total nonoperating 225,133 86,536 96,677 2,716,951 558,000 761,200 452,700 454,700 456,600 458,600 460,700 462,800 ChangeJn net assets 341,759 (13,818) (5,208) 2,656,026 107,900 372,282 23,700 (91,100) (215,600) (273,900) (336,800) (404,600) January I net assets 2,013,091 2,354,850 2,341;032 2,335,824 4,991,850 5,099,750 5,472,632 5,495,732 5,404,632 . 5,189,032 4,915,132 4,578,332 December31 netassc $ 2,354,850 $ 2,341,032 $ 2,335;824 $ 4,991,856 $ 5,099,750 $ 5,472,032 $ 5,495,732 $ 5,404,632 $ 5,189,032 $ 4,915,132 $ 4,578,332 $ 4,173,732 Non -GAAP cash reconciliation Change in net assets $ 341,759 $ (13,818) $ (5,208) $ 2,656,026 $ 107,900 $ 372,282 $ 23,700 $ (91,100) $ (215,600) $ (273,900) $ (336,800) $ (404,600) Depreciation 414,656 424,077 412,683 395,953 471,000 558,000 562,000 641,000 728,000 747,000 769,000 794,000 Capital expenditures (173,180) (173,300) (89,608) (233,670) (3,245,000) (917,800) (425,500) (2,586,900) (204,200) (209,300) (272,600) (279,400) Debt principal (net) (515,000) (280,000) (280,000) (285,000) 809,258 - (50,000) (65,000) (65,000) (65,000) (70,000) (70,000) Other accruals 31,683 (76,897) (15,125) (1,902,553) 1,306,893 610,392 - - Change in cash 99,918 (119,938) 22,742 630,756 (549,949) 622,874 110,200 _ (2,102,000) 243,200 198,800 89,600 40,000 January 1 cash (1,086,969) (987,051) (1,106,989). (1,084,247) (453,491) (1,003,440) (380,566) (270,366) (2,372,366) (2,129,166) - (1,930,366) (1,840,766) December 31 cash $ (987,051) $.(1,106,989) $ (1,084,247). $ (453,4911 $ (1,003,440) $ (380,566) $ (270,366) $ (2;372;366) $ (2,129,166) $ (1,930,366) $ (1,840,766) $ (1,800,766) Expense recovery 103% 97% 97% 98% 86% 89% 89% 86% 84% 83% 82% 81% Capital Improvement Projects: Assumed inflation 2.50% Driving range expansion GC -12 -005 75,000 - Braemar: carpeting GC -12 -006 26,300 Braemar: slit drainage 3 fairways GC -12 -007 53,800 Braemar: clubhouse roof replacement GC -12 -008 82,000 84,100 Cart path repair /expansion GC -12 -009 25,000 25,600 78,800 80,800 27,600 28,300 87,000 89,200 Maintenance equipment GC -13 -001 145,000 158,900 162,800 172,300 176,600 181,000 185,600 190,200 Tee renovation GC -13 -003 51,300 73,500 107,700 Irrigation replace phase 1 GC -13 -004 105% 1,615,300 Irrigation replace phase 2 NEW 384,700 Golf dome construction NA 3,000,000 600,000 Golf cart replacement NEW 172,300 Total $ $ 3,245,000 $ 917,800 $ 425,500 _.$ 2,586,900 $ 204,200 $ 209,300 $ 272,600 $ 279,400 1,039,329_' Estimated 2009 -2013 subsidy 3,705,000 Future subsidy assumed 2014 -2020 Construction fund pays capital costs currently in CIP through 2014 After 2014 the only subsidy is from liquor fixed at $44000 /year Projected rounds fixed at 100,000 /year Driving range expansion not included in baseline scenario 1/28/2014 GABudget12014 -2015 Budget \Golf study \Golf pro forma scenarios v6 for Jan 3014 public meeting.xlsx Golf Fund Marketing Variable $1,500,000 Assumed 2009 -2020 Total Subsidy of $4,744,329 110% $1,000,000 105% $500,000 100% n F1 $ m 95% c m N �' - ` d C u, $(500,000) '� / ® 90%-, W $(1,000,000) �._ 85% 81% $(1,500,000) 80% I $(2,000,000) 75% Actual Actual Actual Actual Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 �1xpense recovery 103% 97% 97% 98% 86% 89% 89% 86% 84% 83� ° 82% 81/ ° ®� Cash balance $(987,051) $(1;106,98 $(1,084,24 $(453,491) $(1,003,44 $(380,566) $(270,366) $(2,372,36 $(2,129,16 $(1,930,36 $(1,840;76 $(1,800,76 1,039,329_' Estimated 2009 -2013 subsidy 3,705,000 Future subsidy assumed 2014 -2020 Construction fund pays capital costs currently in CIP through 2014 After 2014 the only subsidy is from liquor fixed at $44000 /year Projected rounds fixed at 100,000 /year Driving range expansion not included in baseline scenario 1/28/2014 GABudget12014 -2015 Budget \Golf study \Golf pro forma scenarios v6 for Jan 3014 public meeting.xlsx Page 7 City of Edina Golf Fund Driving Range Expansion Variable December 31 net asse $ 2,354;850 $ 2,341,032 $ 2,335,824 $ 4,991,850 $ 5,099,750 $ 5,513,732 $ 5,384,432 $ 5,529,432 $ 5,561',432 $ 5,542,532 $ 5,468,532 $ 5,334,532 Non -GAAP cash reconciliation Change in net assets $ 341,759 $ (13,818) $ , (5,208) $ 2,656,026 $ 107,900 $ 413,982, $ (129,300) $ 145,000 $ 32,000 $ (18,900) $ (74,000) $ (134,000) Depreciation 414,656 424,077 412,683 395,953 471,000 576,000 610,000 702,000 789,000 808,000 830,000 855,000 Capital expenditures (173,180) (173,300) (89,608) (233,670) (3,245,000) (1,609,700) (938,500) (2,586,900) (204,200) (209,300). (272,600) (279,400) Debt principal (net) (515,000) (280,000) (280,000) (285,000) 809,258 - (50,000) (65,000) (65,000 (ss,000) (70,000) (70,000) Other accruals 31,683 (76,897) (15,125) (1,902,553) 1,306,893 610,392 Change in cash 99,918 (119,938) 22,742 630,756 (549,949) (9,326) (507,800) (1,804,900) 551,800 514,800 413,400 371,600 January 1 cash (1,086,969) (987,051) (1,106,989) (1,084,247) (453,491) (1,003,440) (1,012,766) (1,520,566) (3,325,466) (2,773,666) (2,258,866) - _(1,845,466) December 31 cash $ (987,051) $ (1,106,989) $ (1,084,247) $ (453,491) $ (1,003,440) $ (1,012,766) t (1,520,566) $ (3,325,466) $ (2,773,666) $_(2,258,866) $ (1,845,466) $ (1,473,866) Expense recovery 103% 97% 97% 98% 86% 90% 84% 92% 90% 89% 88% 87% Capital Improvement Projects: Assumed Inflation 2.50% Driving range expansion .2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 GC -12 -007 Actual Actual Actual Actual Projected Projected Projected Projected . Projected Projected Projected Projected Total rounds sold 118,076 101,387 95,771 96,496 80,000 96,400 85,000 97,000 97,000 97,000 97,000 97,000 Operating revenues 73,500 107,700 Irrigation replace phase 1 GC -13 -004 1,615,300 Irrigation replace phase 2 NEW Liquor sales $ 146,632 $ 144,541 $ 145,492 $ 161,040 $ 151,000 $ 156,000 $ 158,300 $ 160,700 $ 163,100 $ 165,500 $ 168,000 $ 170,500 Retail sales 212,886 218,585 230,865 230,120 190,000 215,000 221,500 228,100 234,900 241,900 249,200 256,700 Concessions 230,776 213,250 203;598 223,775 185,000 218,000 221,300 224,600 228,000 231,400 234,900 238,400 Memberships 123,761 119,981 10808 88,555 62,400 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 Admissions 264,671 228,126 313,735, 70,049 45,000 282,000 290,500 299,200 308,200 317,400 326,900 336,700 Building rental 81,728 70,726 87,081 74,215 70,000 88,000 89,300 90,600 92,000 93,400 94,800 96,200 Equipment rental 359,277 362,763 335,161 359,484 301,500 340,000 345,100 350,300 355,600 360,900 366,300 371,800 Green fees 1,880,610 1,738,261 1,517,962 1,661,982 1,487,000 1,601,000 1,625,000 1,649,400 1,674,100 1,699,200 1,724,700 1,750,600 Executive closed for construction (34,200) (142,500) Lower demand for par 3 vs. executive (28,500) (28,900) (29,300) (29,700) (30,100) Otherfees 358,333 346,971 338,353 356,371 284,000 331,250 336,200 341,200 346,300 351,500 356,800 362,200 Range closed for construction e ` (41,100) (178,100) Facility fee 27,000 32,000 37,000 37,700 38,500 39,300 Price increase 49,300 50,300 51,300 52,300 53,300 Capacity increase 137,000 139,700 142,500 145,400 148,300 Total revenues 3,658,674 3,443,204 3,281,225 3,225,591 2,775,900 3,220,950 3,058,600 3,598,900 3,665,300 3,728,400 3,793,100 3,858,900 Operating expenses ♦♦ 80% COGS 338,248 328,821 320,132 347,752 320,000 366,540 375,700 385,100 394,700 404,600 414,700 425,100 Personal services 1,774,558 1,636,091 1,564,676 1,574,394 1,500,000 1;545,000 1,591,400 1,639,100 1,688,300 1,738,900 1,791,100 1,844,800 Adjust PT staff (15,000) (65,000) 20,000 20,600 21,200 21,800 22,500 Contractual services 580,479 557,828 628,347 489,372 475,000 619,000 637,600 656,700 676,400 696,700 717,600 739,100 Commodities 323,311 479,783 329,006 344,549 320,000 348,000 358,400 369,200 380,300 391,700 403,500 415,600 Central services 110,796 116,958 128,266 134,496 140,000 128,628 132,500 136,500 140,600 144,800 149,100 153,600 Depreciation 414,656 424,077 412,683 395,953 471,000 576,000 610,000 702,000 789,000 808,000 830,000 855,000 Total expenses 3,542,048 3,543,558 3,383,110 3,286,516 3,226,000 3,568,168 3,640,600 3,908,600 4,089,900 4,205,900 4,327,800 4,455,700 Operating loss 116,626 (100,354) (101,885) (60,925) (450,100) (347,218) (582,000) (309,700) (424,600) (477,500) (534,700) (596,800) Nonoperating revenues, (expenses), and transfers s ® Cash balance $(987,051) $(1,106,98 $(1,084,24 $(453,491) $(1,003,44 $(1,012,76 $(1,520,56 Interest expense (35,182) (18,015) (12,375) (6,676) (12,000) (33,800) (32,300) (30,300) (28,400 (26,400) (24,300) (22,200) Miscellaneous 90,315 5,222 9,052 2,623,627 - - - - - - - - Transfers 170,000 99,329 100,000 100,000 570,000 795,000 485,000 485,000 485,000 485,000 485,000 485,000 Total nonoperating 225,133 86,536 96,677 2,716,951 558,000 761;200 452,700 454,700 456,600 458,600 460,700 462,800 " Change in net assets 341,759 (13,818) (5,208) 2,656,026 107,900 413,982 (129,300) 145,000 32,000 (18,900) (74,000) (134,000) January / net assets 2;013,091 2,354,850 2,341,032 2,335,824 4,991,850 5,099,750 5,513,732 5,384,432 5,529,432 5,561,432 5,542.532 5.468.532 December 31 net asse $ 2,354;850 $ 2,341,032 $ 2,335,824 $ 4,991,850 $ 5,099,750 $ 5,513,732 $ 5,384,432 $ 5,529,432 $ 5,561',432 $ 5,542,532 $ 5,468,532 $ 5,334,532 Non -GAAP cash reconciliation Change in net assets $ 341,759 $ (13,818) $ , (5,208) $ 2,656,026 $ 107,900 $ 413,982, $ (129,300) $ 145,000 $ 32,000 $ (18,900) $ (74,000) $ (134,000) Depreciation 414,656 424,077 412,683 395,953 471,000 576,000 610,000 702,000 789,000 808,000 830,000 855,000 Capital expenditures (173,180) (173,300) (89,608) (233,670) (3,245,000) (1,609,700) (938,500) (2,586,900) (204,200) (209,300). (272,600) (279,400) Debt principal (net) (515,000) (280,000) (280,000) (285,000) 809,258 - (50,000) (65,000) (65,000 (ss,000) (70,000) (70,000) Other accruals 31,683 (76,897) (15,125) (1,902,553) 1,306,893 610,392 Change in cash 99,918 (119,938) 22,742 630,756 (549,949) (9,326) (507,800) (1,804,900) 551,800 514,800 413,400 371,600 January 1 cash (1,086,969) (987,051) (1,106,989) (1,084,247) (453,491) (1,003,440) (1,012,766) (1,520,566) (3,325,466) (2,773,666) (2,258,866) - _(1,845,466) December 31 cash $ (987,051) $ (1,106,989) $ (1,084,247) $ (453,491) $ (1,003,440) $ (1,012,766) t (1,520,566) $ (3,325,466) $ (2,773,666) $_(2,258,866) $ (1,845,466) $ (1,473,866) Expense recovery 103% 97% 97% 98% 86% 90% 84% 92% 90% 89% 88% 87% Capital Improvement Projects: Assumed Inflation 2.50% Driving range expansion GC -12 -005 75,000 691,900 513,000 Braemar: carpeting GC -12 -006 26,300 Braemar: slit drainage 3 fairways GC -12 -007 :Driving Range Expansion Variable 53,800 Braemar. clubhouse roof replacement GC -12 -008 82,000 84,100 Cart path repair /expansion GC -12 -009 25,000 25,600 78,800 80,800 27,600 28,300 87,000 89,200 Maintenance equipment GC -13 -001 145,000 158,900 162,800 172,300 176,600 181,000 185,600 190,200 Tee renovation GC -13 -003 51,300 73,500 107,700 Irrigation replace phase 1 GC -13 -004 1,615,300 Irrigation replace phase 2 NEW 384,700 Golf dome construction NA 3,000,000 600,000 Golf cart replacement NEW 172,300 Total $ $ 3,245,000 $ 1,609,700 $ 938,500 $ 2,586,900 $ 204,200 $ 209,300 $ 272,600 $ 279,400 1,039,329 Estimated 2009 -2013 subsidy 3,705,000 Future subsidy assumed 2014 -2020 Construction fund pays capital costs currently in CIP through 2014 After 2014 the only subsidy is from liquor fixed at $485,000 /year Projected rounds fixed at 100,000 /year Driving range expansion in 2014 does not include $300,000 transfer from Braemar Memorial Fund 1/28/2014 G:\Budget\2014 -2015 Budget \Golf study \Golf pro forma scenarios v6 for Jan 30 14 public meeting.xlsx Golf Fund :Driving Range Expansion Variable Assumed 2009 -2020 Total Subsidy of $4,744,329 $1,soo,000 llo% $1,000,000 105% $500,000 100% n n 1-1 $ U N M 95% i) d a L M $(500,000) / ♦♦ yd, C 90%0. 87% ' $(1,000,000) �. - e ` $(1,500,000) ♦♦ 80% �/ 1 / 1 //I $(2,000,000) Actual Actual Actual Actual Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected 75% 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 E:= Expense recovery 103% 97% 97% 98% 86% 90% 8491- 92% 90% 89% 88% 87% s ® Cash balance $(987,051) $(1,106,98 $(1,084,24 $(453,491) $(1,003,44 $(1,012,76 $(1,520,56 $(3,325,46 $(2,773,66 $(2,258,86 $(1,845,46 $(1,473,86 1,039,329 Estimated 2009 -2013 subsidy 3,705,000 Future subsidy assumed 2014 -2020 Construction fund pays capital costs currently in CIP through 2014 After 2014 the only subsidy is from liquor fixed at $485,000 /year Projected rounds fixed at 100,000 /year Driving range expansion in 2014 does not include $300,000 transfer from Braemar Memorial Fund 1/28/2014 G:\Budget\2014 -2015 Budget \Golf study \Golf pro forma scenarios v6 for Jan 30 14 public meeting.xlsx Page 8 City of Edina Golf Fund Outsource Grill Variable Capital Improvement Projects: Assumed inflation 2.50% Driving range expansion 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016- 2017 2018 2019 2020 GC =12 -007 Actual Actual Actual' Actual Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Total rounds sold 118,076 101,387 95,771 96,496 80,000 100,000. 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 Operating revenues 73,500 107,700 Irrigation replace phase 1 GC -13 -004 1,615,300 Irrigation replace phase 2 NEW Liquor sales $ 146;632 $ 144,541 $ 145,492 $ 161,040 $ 151,000 $ 156,000 $ 158,300 $ 160,700 $ 163,100 '$ 165,500 $ 168,000 $ 170,500 Outsource.grill Total $ - $ 3,245,000 $ 917,800 $ 425,500 $ 2,586,900 $ 204,200 $ 209,300 $ 272,600 $ 279,400 (137,400) (140,050 (142,750) (145,450) (148,250) (150,700) Retail sales 212;886 218,585 230,865 230,120 190,000 .215,000 221,500 228,100 234,900 241,900 249,200 256,700 Concessions 230,776 213,250 203,598 223;775 185,000 216,000 221,300 224,600 228,000 231,400 234,900 238,460 Outsource grill (205,300) (209,400 (213,600) '(217,800) (222,100) (225,400) Memberships 123,761 119,981 108,978 88,555 62,400 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 Admissions 264,671 228,126 313,735 70,049 45,000 282,000 290,500 299,200 308,200 317,400 326,900 336,700 Building rental 81,728 70,726 87,081 74,215 70,000 88,000 89,300 90,600 92,000 93,400 94,800 96,200 Outsource grill 75,000 '76,100 77,200 78,400 79,600 80,800 Equipment rental 359,277 362,763 335,161 359,484 301,500 340,000 345,100 350,300 355,600 360,900 366,300 371,800 Green fees 1,880,610 1,738,261 1,517,962 1,661,982 1,487,000 1,601,000 1,625,000 1,649,400 1,674,100 1,699,200 1,724,700 1,750,600 Otherfees 358,333 346,971 338,353 .356,371 284,000 331,250 336,200 341,200 346,300 351,500 356,800 362,200 Total revenues 3,658,674 3,443,204 3,281,225 3,225,591 2,775,900 3,296,250 3,084,500 3,135,750 3,188,050 3,241,350 3,295,850 3,352,800 Operating expenses COGS. 338,248 328,821 320,132. 347,752 320,000 366,540 375,700 385,100 394,700 404,600 414,700 425,100 Outsource grill (150,000) (153,800) (157,600) (161,500) (165,500) (169,600) Personal services 1,774,558 1,636,091 1;564;676. 1,574,394 1,500,000 1,545,000 1,591,400 1,639,100 1,688;300 1,738,900 1,791,100 1,844,800 Outsource grill (170,000 (175,100) (180,400) (185,800) (191,400) (197,100) Contractual services. 580,479 557,828 628,347 489,372 475,000 619,000 637,600 656,700 676,400 696,700 717,600 739,100 Outsource grill (15,000) (15,500) (16,000) (16,500) (17,000) (17,500) Commodities 323,311 479,783 329,006 344,549 320,000 348,000 358,400 369,200 380,300 391,700 403,500 415,600 Outsource grill .- . (12,000 (12,400) (12,800) (13,200) (13,600) (14,000) Central services 110,796 116,958 128,266 134,496 140,000 128,628 132,500 136,500 140,600 144,800 149,100 153,600 Depreciation 414,656 424,077 412,683 395,953 471,000 558,000 562,000 641,000 728,000- 747,000 769,000 794,000 Total expenses 3,542,048 3,543,558 3,383,110 3,286,516 3,226,000 3,565,168 3,310;600 3,470,800 3,641,500 3,746,700 3,857,500 3,974,000 Operating loss 116,626: (100,354) (101,885) (60,925) (450,100) (268,918). (226;100) (335,050) (453,450) (505,350) (561,650) (621,200) Nonoperating revenues, (expenses), and transfers Interest expense (35,182) (18,015) (12,375) ) (12,000) (33,800) (32,300) (30,300) (28,400) (26,400) (24,300) (22,200) Miscellaneous 90,315 5,222 9,052 2,623,627 Transfers 170,000 99,329 .100,000 100,000 570,000 795,000 485,000 485,000 485,000 485,000 485,000 485,000 Total nonoperating 225,133 86,536 96,677 2,716,951 558,000 761,200 452,700 454,700. 456,600 458,600 460,700 462,800 Change inmetassets 341,759 (13,818) (5,208) 2,656,026 107,900 492,282 226,600 119,650 3,150 (46,750) (100,950) (158,400) January 1 net assets 2,013,091 2,354,850 2,341,032 2,335,824 4,991,850 5,099,750 5,592,032 5;818,632' 5,938,282 _ 5,941,432 5,894,682 5,793,732 December 31 net asse $' 2,354,850 $ 2,341,032 $ 2,335,824 $ 4,991,850 $ 5,099,750 $ 5,592,032 $ 5,818,632 $ 5,938,282 $ 5,941,432,. „$ 5,894,682 - $ 5,793,732 $ 5,635,332 Non -GAAP cash reconciliation Change in net assets $ 341,759 $ (13,818) $ (5,208) $ 2,656,026 $ 107,900 $ 492,282 $ 226,600 $ 119,650 $, 3,150 $ (46,750) $ (100,950) $ (158,400) Depreciation 414,656 424,077 412,683 395,953 471,000 558;000 562,000 641,000 728,000 747,000 769,000, 794,000 Capital expenditures (173,180) (173,300) (89,608) (233,670) (3,245,000) (917,800) (425,500) (2,586,900) (204,200) (209,300) (272,600) (279,400) Debt principal (net) (515,000) (280,000) (280,000) (285,000) 809,258 - (50,000) (65,000) (65',000) (65,000) (70,000) (70,000) Other accruals 31,683 (76,897) (15,125) (1,902,553) 1,306,893 610,392 (20,000) Change in cash 99,918 (119,938) 22,742 630,756 (549,949) 742,874 293,100 (1,891,250) 461,950 425,950 325,450 286,200 January 1 cash (1,086,969) (987,051) (1,106,989) (1,084,247) (453,491) (1,003;440) (260,566) 32,534 (1,858,716) (1,396,766) (970,816) (645,366) December 31 cash $ (987,051) $ (1,106,989) $ (1,084,247) $ (453,491) $ (1,003,440) $ (260,566) $ 32,534 $ (1,858,716) $ (1,396,766) $ (970,816) $ (645,366) $ (359,166) Expense recovery 103% 97% 97% 98% 86% 92% 93% 90% 88% 87% 85% 84% Capital Improvement Projects: Assumed inflation 2.50% Driving range expansion GC -12 -005 75,000 Braemar. carpeting GC -12 -006 26,300 Braemar: slit drainage 3 fairways GC =12 -007 53,800 Braemar: clubhouse roof replacement GC -12 -008 82,000 84,100 Cart path repair /expansion GC -12 -009 25,000 25,600 78,800 80,800 .27,600 28,300 87,000 89,200 Maintenance equipment GC -13 -001 145,000 158,900 162,800 172,300 176,600 181,000 185,600 190,200 Tee renovation GC -13 -003 51,300 73,500 107,700 Irrigation replace phase 1 GC -13 -004 1,615,300 Irrigation replace phase 2 NEW ;384,700 Golf dome construction NA 3,000,000 600,000 Golf cart replacement NEW 172,300 Total $ - $ 3,245,000 $ 917,800 $ 425,500 $ 2,586,900 $ 204,200 $ 209,300 $ 272,600 $ 279,400 1,039,329 Estimated 2009 -2013 subsidy 3,705,000 Future subsidy assumed 2014 -2020 Construction fund pays capital costs currently in CIP through 2014 After 2014 the only subsidy is from liquor fixed at $485,000 /year Projected rounds.fixed at 100,000 /year Driving range, expansion not included in baseline scenario 1/28/2014 G:\Budget\2014 -2015 Budget \Golf study \Golf pro forma scenarios v6 for Jan 30 14 public meeting.xlsx Page 9 City of Edina Golf Fund FT Staff Reduction Variable 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Actual Actual Actual Actual Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Total rounds sold 118,076 101,387 95,771 96,496 80,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 Operating revenues $500,000 Liquor sales $ 146,632 $ 144,541 $ 145,492 $ 161,040 $ 151,000 $ 156,000 $ 158,300 $ 160,700 $ 163,100 $ 165,500 $ 168,000 $ 170,500 Retail sales 212,886 218,585 230,865 230,120 190,000 215,000 221,500 228,100 234,900 241,900 249,200 256,700 Concessions 230,776 213,250 203,598 223,775 185,000 218,000 221,300 224,600 228,000 231,400 234,900 238,400 Memberships 123,761 119,981 108,978 88,555 62,400 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65;000 Admissions 264,671 228,126 313,735 70,049 45,000 282,000 290,500 299,200 308,200 317,400 326,900 336,700 Building rental 81,728 70,726 87,081 74,215 76,000. 88,000 89,300 90,600 92,000 93,400 94,800 96,200 Equipment rental 359,277 362,763 335,161 359,484 301,500 340,000 345,100 350,300 355,600 360,900 366,300 371,800 Green fees 1,880,610 1,738,261 1,517,962 1,661,982 1,487,000 1,601,000 1,625,000 1,649,400 1,674,100 1,699,200 1,724,700 1,750,600 Otherfees 358,333 346,971 338,353 356,371 284,000 - 331,250 336,200 341,200 346,300 351,500 356,800 362,200 Total revenues 3,658,674 3,443,204 3,281,225 3,225,591 2,775,900 3,296,250 3,352,200 3,409,100 3,467,200 3,526,200 3,586,600 3,648,100 Operating expenses J* 40 ♦� COGS 338,248 328,821 320,132 347,752 320,000 366,540 375,700 385,100 394,700 404,600 414,700 425,100 Personal services 1,774,558 1,636,091 1,564,676 1,574,394 1,500,000 1,545,000 1,591,400 1,639,100 1,688,300 1,738,900 1,791,100 1,844,800 Reduce by 1 FT position, net of PT adds (50,000) (51,500) (53,000) (54,600) (56,200) (57,900) (59,600) Contractual services 580,479 557,828 628,347 489,372 475,000 619,000 637,600 656,700 676,400 696,700 717,600 739,100 Commodities 323,311 479,783 329,006 344,549 320,000 348,000 358,400 369,200 380,300 391,700 403,500 415,600 Central services 110,796 116,958 128,266 134,496 140,000 128,628 132,500 136,500 140,600 144,800 149,100 153,600 Depreciation 414,656 424,077 412,683 395,953 471,000 558,000 562,000 641,000 728,000 747,000 769,000 794,000 Total expenses 3,542,048 3,543,558 3,383,110 3,286,516 3,226,000 3,515,168 3,606,100 3,774,600 3,953,700 4,067,500 4,187,100 4,312600 Operating loss 116,626 (100,354) (101,885) (60,925) (450,100) (218,918) (253,900) (365,500) (486,500) (541,300). (600,500) (664,500) Nonoperating revenues, (expenses), and transfers Interest expense (35,182) (18,015) (12,375) (6,676) (12,000) (33,800) (32,300) (30,300) (28,400) (26,400) (24,300) (22,200) Miscellaneous 90,315 5,222 9,052 2,623,627 - - - - _ _ - - Transfers 170,000 99,329 100,000 100,000 570,000 795,000 485,000 485,000 485,000 485,000 485,000 485,000 Total nonoperating 225,133 86,536 96,677 2,716,951 558,000 761,200 452,700 454,700 456,600 458,600 460,700 462,800 Change in net assets 341,759 (13,818) (5,208) 2,656,026 107,900 542,282 198,800 89,200 (29,900) (82,700) (139,800) (201,700) January 1 net assets 2,013,091 2,354,850 2,341,032 2,335,824 4,991,850 5,099,750 5,642,032 5,840,832 5,930,032 5,900,132 5,817,432 5,677,632 December 31 net assc $ 2,354,850 $ 2,341,032 $ 2,335,824 $ 4,991,850 $ 5,099,750 $ 5,642,032 $ 5,840,832 $ 5,930,032 $ 5,900,132 $ 5,817,432 $ 5,677,632 $ 5,475,932 Non -GAAP cash reconciliation $54,734 $(1,866,96 $(1,438,06 $(1,048,06 $(761,466) $(518,566) Change in net assets $ 341,759 $ (13,818) $ (5,208) $ 2,656,026 $ 107,900 $ 542,282 $ 198,800 $ 89,200 $ (29,900) $ (82,700) $ (139,800) $ (201,700) Depreciation 414,656 424,077 412,683 395,953 471,000 558,000 562,000 641,000 728,000 747,000 769,000 794,000 Capital expenditures (173,180) (173,300) (89,608) (233,670) (3,245,000) (917,800) (425,500) (2,586,900) (204,200) (209,300) (272,600) (279,400) Debt principal (net) (515,000) (280,000) (280,000) (285,000) 809,258 - (50,000) (65,000) (65,000) (65,000) (70,000) (70,000) Other accruals 31,683 (76,897) (15,125) (1,902,553) 1,306,893 590,392 Change in cash 99,918 (119,938) 22,742 630,756 (549,949) 772,874 285,300 (1,921,700) 428,900 390,000 286,600 242,900 January 1 cash (1,086,969) (987,051) (1,106,989) (1,084,247) (453,491) (1,003,440) (230,566) 54,734 (1,866,966) (1,438,066) (1,048,066) (761,466) December 31 cash $ (987,051) $ (1,106,989) $ (1,084,247) $ (453,491) $ (1,003,440) $ (230,566) $ 54,734 $ (1,866,966) $ (1,438,066) $ (1,048,066) $ (761,466) $ (518,566) Expense recovery 103% 97% 97% 98% 86% 94% 93% 90% 88% 87% 86% 85% Capital Improvement Projects: Assumed inflation 2.50% Driving range expansion GC -12 -005 75,000 - Braemar: carpeting GC -12 -006 26,300 Braemar: slit drainage 3 fairways GC -12 -007 53,800 Braemar: clubhouse roof replacement GC -12 -008 82,000 84,100 Cart path repair /expansion GC -12 -009 25,000 25,600 78,800 80,800 27,600 28,300 87,000 89,200 Maintenance equipment, GC -13 -001 145,000 158,900 162,800 172,300 176,600 181,000 185,600 190,200 Tee renovation GC -13 -003 51,300 73,500 107,700 Irrigation replace phase 1 GC -13 -004 1,615,300 Irrigation replace phase 2 NEW 384,700 Golf dome construction NA 3,000,000 600,000 Golf cart replacement NEW 172,300 Total $ $ 3,245,000 $ 917,800 $ 425,500 $ 2,586,900 $ 204,200 $ 209,300 $ 272,600 $ 279,400 1,039,329 Estimated 2009 -2013 subsidy 3,705,000 Future subsidy assumed 2014 -2020 Construction fund pays capital costs currently in CIP through 2014 After 2014.the only subsidy is from liquor fixed at $485,000 /year Projected rounds fixed at 100,000 /year 1/28/2014 G:\Budget\2014 -2015 Budget \Golf study \Golf pro forma scenarios v6 for Jan 3014 public meeting.xlsx Golf Fund 1 FT Staff Reduction Variable $1,500,000 Assumed 2009 -2020 Total Subsidy of $4;744,329 110% $1,000,000 105% $500,000 100% nnF-1 $- U 95% a m u a f ' u $(500,000) �w♦ ; c 90 %X ♦ '�• LU J* 40 ♦� ` / . - - $(1,000,000) ® ®ftb L pis a o OV ®' o 85/0 85% - e // $(1,500,000) / / 80% $(2,000,000) 75% Actual Actual Actual. Actual Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 �xpense recovery 103% 97% 97% 98% 86% 94% 93% 90% 88% 87% 86% 85% ®_ Cash balance $(987,051) $(1,106,98 $(1,084,24 $(453,491) $(1,003,44 $(230,566) $54,734 $(1,866,96 $(1,438,06 $(1,048,06 $(761,466) $(518,566) 1,039,329 Estimated 2009 -2013 subsidy 3,705,000 Future subsidy assumed 2014 -2020 Construction fund pays capital costs currently in CIP through 2014 After 2014.the only subsidy is from liquor fixed at $485,000 /year Projected rounds fixed at 100,000 /year 1/28/2014 G:\Budget\2014 -2015 Budget \Golf study \Golf pro forma scenarios v6 for Jan 3014 public meeting.xlsx Braemar Pricing Comparison $120.00 13 18 holes weekday, walking $100.00 p 18 holes weekend, walking 018 holes weekend + cart $80.00 $60.00 F r $40.00 $20.00 I i $0.00 Meadowbrook Hiawatha Brookview Baker (Medina) Dahlgreen Bluff Creek Braemar Bunker Hills Deer Run Stonebrooke Chaska Town The Wilds (St. Louis Park) (Minneapolis) (Golden Valley) (Carver Cc) (Chaska) (Coon Rapids) (Victoria) (Shakopee) (Chaska) (Prior Lake) Driving range cost recovery calculation 1,279,9 00 range & executive construction cost $ 395,900 r'everiue loss during construction $ 1,675,800 total. cost to build $ 169,800 annual.revenue increase less expense increase 9.9 years to cost recovery 10.1% return on investment Outsource grill cost recovery calculation $ - construction cost $ - revenue loss during construction $ - total cost to build $ 79,300 annual revenue increase less expense increase - years to cost recovery #DIV /0! return on investment CIP (and Memorial Fund) Wish List The below list reflects some new and expanded ideas to our CIP that was originally generated. The list is broader and more involved and encompasses all aspects of our operation to enhance the entire experience for our customers. Golf Course ideas: Here area few options that would help bring energy back into the golf course. These are based on the survey monkey responses asking for a better experience. Unfortunately, I do think these options all should be formally designed by an architect so the feel of the course is uniform. I also believe there will be significant watershed permit issues related to these projects. Irrigation system replacement = $2,000,000 (2017) Driving range expansion = $1,500,000 (2015) Cart Paths Maximum Plan - Invest $600,000 in wall to wall cart paths on 1 -27. Most of these paths would be asphalt, some would be gravel. Minimum Plan - Invest $100,000 in a focused mix of gravel and asphalt paths that eliminate most of the problem areas on the course. Drainage There are at least 11 areas on fairways that need drainage or to be regraded. An estimate of about $25,000 per site totals $275,000. Bunkers There are 68 bunkers at Braemar Golf Course. The most difficult 9 bunkers we have are on the executive golf course. I think these 9 bunkers increase our operating costs and reduce the experience of the golfers that play the executive course. Any opportunity to remove these bunkers during the driving range expansion should be considered. Maximum Plan - It costs approximately $6,000 to rebuild a bunker. The remaining 59 bunkers on 1 -27 would cost about $350,000 to rebuild. Minimum Plan - Evaluate these 59 bunkers and determine which ones are should be removed. Also, pick the "top 10" that should be rebuilt. Project cost is $60,000. Tees The most dated area of the golf course is the tee box area. The tee signs, benches, trash cans and plantings are dated and difficult to maintain. Some of the tees are not level and are also difficult to maintain. The original design had 4 sets of tee markers (Blue, White, Red and Yellow). A significant portion of our league golfers have requested a course that plays shorter than the original design, which is a current trend in golf. With this feedback we have implemented 2 additional sets of tee markers (Silver and Green). The silver tees are used mostly by senior men and are located with the white tees on some holes and with the red tees on other holes. The green tees are used mostly by women and are located with the red tees on some holes and with the yellow tees on other holes. In addition to leveling, the tee areas could be redesigned with a broader market of men, women, and beginners in mind. Maximum Plan - Rebuild and relocate the tees to better suit all of our customers. Create a new tee marker plan. Replace the signs, furniture and update any necessary plantings. Some of the cart paths would have to be replaced in this process. Estimated cost is $550,000. Minimum Plan - Replace the signs, furniture and plantings for $150,000. Building ideas: The scope of many these projects are smaller and may be a good fit for our memorial fund monies. We feel the memorial fund is an option because these projects will be less likely to'bring in significant revenues but will enhance the customers overall experience and opinion of our facilities. Grill facelift = $125,000 (2016) Roofing = $160,000 (2014 & 2015 — expecting insurance money from storm damage) Banquet room tables and chairs = $20,000 (2015) Carpeting throughout (2015) Pro Shop counter Moving the pro shop counter to the west end of the pro shop will require customers to walk through our shop and merchandise and will give our staff better site lines of the tee boxes. This project should be done in conjunction with new carpeting. Banquet Room The numbers will be pending a meeting with an interior decorator and can potentially be done in one project or likely cafeteria format where projects. can be picked based on priority and budget. • Lighting in banquet room • Lighting in east corridor • Artwork and furniture • Rest room updates • Hallway modifications (removing half doors and phone booth) • Removing hallway wall paper and painting (should be done with above line project) Roof shape /design This can be carried out in our roofing budget. The idea would be to standardize the roof lines and remove the antiquated look. Consideration would be given to using standard shingles (which are cheaper than cedar shakes) and applying the potential savings to roof shape design /modifications. Technology upgrades Consider removing the stand alone projects currently in the CIP (AV upgrades and security cameras) to a larger scoped project that would incorporate those two projects along with an internal message board and two new outdoor sign boards —one at the entry and one 'marquee' board announcing events. We would need to work with CTS (IT) to determine budget and potential of this project. Deck resurfacing and new deck furniture This project will depend on how we move forward with the grill. It would likely be a minimum of $50,000. Landscape lighting Replace the lighting outside the clubhouse along the entry and around oak tree. Repurpose locker rooms and upgrade lounges These are very long term projects that would likely involve larger dollars. Fred Richards Revenue Vending/ Miscellaneous Concesson Sales Rent Golf Carts Car, Cart, & Club Rentals Green Fees Total Revenes Administrative Expenses (BU 5430) Cost of Sales Personal Services Contractual Services Commodities 5430 Administrative Expenses Fred Richards Golf Course Detail Revenue and Expenses 2007 through 2013 2007 2008 ,2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 preliminary $185 $102 $75 $95 $244 $222 $42 $18,163 $24,387 $23,158 $23,218 $23,209 $19,799 $15,437 $9,177 $11,456 $13,150 $10,002 $8,993 $14,039" $11,744 $3,864 $4,517 $4,261 $3,419 $4,029 $4,933 $4,084 $226,624 $220,325 $217,749 $203,595 $175,542 $188,550 $170,628 $258,013 $260,787 $258,393 $240,329 $212,017 $227,543 $201,935 $8,337 $12,289 $11,775 $12,291 $8,845 $10,240 $8,064 $43,343 $43,631 $46,194 $46,488 $44,134 $51,147 $36,440 $14,722 $14,727 $13,430 $13,139 $12,788 $15,208 $14,124 $1,341 $2,421 $2,833 $1,575 $3,599 $2,102 $5,476 $67,743 $73,068 $74,232 $73,493 $69366 $78,697 $64,104 Maintenance Expenses (BU 5431) Personal Services $92,141 $94,167 $92,340 $83,652 $92,572 $93,995 $87,325 Contractual Services $1,450 $6,262 $5,366 $2,670 $5,466 $2,972 $3,695 Commodities $19,984 $20,846 $15,301 $20,647 $20,085 $17,248 $18,736 5431 Maintenance Expenses $113,575 $121,275 $113,007 $106,969 $118,123 $114,215 $109,756 5430 &5431 expenditures $181,318 $194,343 $187,239 $180,462 $187,489 $192,912 $173,860 Fred Richards Golf Course Summary of Operations 2007 through 2013 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Total Revenue $258,013 $260,787 $258,393 $240,329 $212,017 $227,543 $201,935 Expenses in BU 5430 &5431 - $181,318 - $194,343 - $187,239 - $180,462 - $187,489 - $192,912 - $173,860 FR expenses recorded to Braemar (estimate) - $50,000 - $50,000 - $50,000 - $50,000 - $50,000 .- $50,000 - $50,000 FR debt principal & interest - $256,380 - $248,288 - $249,497 - $244,457 - $236,750 - $232,250 - $252,500 CIP /improvement projects Cash increase (decrease) - $229,685 - $231;844 - $228,343 - $234,590 - $262,222 - $247,619; - $274,425 CITY. OF EDINA STAFF SIX -POINT GOLF STRATEGY Cumulative and annual savings - summary Cumulative savings: present day through 2020 Strategy 2015 -2020 cumulative savings: close Fred Richards 1 $ (878,200) Revenue loss from Fred Richards, net of Braemar adds 1,432,200 Operating expense cash savings 180,000 Equipment savings $ 734,000 Cumulative cash savings Strategy 2014 -2020 cumulative savings: adjust rates 2 $ 1,680,900; •Rate increases 546,400 New rate categories $ 2,227,300 Cumulative cash savings Strategy 2014- 2020`cumulative'savings: improve marketing ,. 3 $ (919,400) Cumulative cash savings Strategy 2014 -2020 cumulative savings: improve range 4 $ (1,204,900) Construction cost (395,900) Lost revenue during construction 1,008,300 Revenue increase after construction $ (592,500)'Cumulative cash savings . Strategy 2014 -2020 cumulative savings: outsource grill 5 $ 522;200 Cumulative cash savings Strategy 2014 -2020 cumulative savings: reduce staff 6 $ 362,800 Cumulative cash savings Six -point plan $ 734,000 Close Fred, Richards Total savings 2,227,300 Adjust rates (919,400) Improve marketing (592,500) Improve driving range 522,200 Outsource grill 362,800 Reduce staff $ 2,334,400 Six -point plan cumulative savings Average annual savings Average annual savings: close Fred Richards $ (146,400). Revenue loss from Fred Richards, net of Braemar adds 238,700 Operating expense cash savings 30,000 Equipment savings $ 122,300 Average annual cash savings Average annual savings: adjust rates $ 240,100 Rate increases 78,100 New rate categories $ 318,200 Average annual cash savings Average annual savings: improve marketing $ (131,300) Average annual cash savings Average annual savings: improve range $ . (172,100) Construction cost (56,600) Lost revenue during construction 144,000 Revenue increase after construction $ (84,700) Average annual cash savings Average annual savings: outsource grill $ 74,600 Average annual cash savings Average annual savings: reduce staff $ 51,800 Average annual cash savings;, $ 122,300 Close Fred Richards 318,200 Adjust rates (131,300) Improve marketing (84,700) Improve driving range 74,600 Outsource grill 51,800 Reduce staff $ 350,900 Six -point plan average annual savings ss Attachihent E UNAPPROVED - MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA PARK BOARD HELD AT CITY HALL February 11, 2014 7:00 PM CALL TO ORDER Chair Steel called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Answering roll call were Members Jones, Gieseke, Steel, Segreto, Cella, Deeds, Jacobson. Student Members present: Good, Johnson. Also present City Manager Scott Neal. lll. APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA Chair Steel made a motion, seconded by Member Deeds, to amend the rules of the public hearing to limit speakers' testimony to two minutes per speaker in order to allow more residents to speak. . Ayes: Members Jones, Gieseke, Steel, Segreto, Cella, Deeds, Jacobson. Motion carried. Member Gieseke made a motion, seconded by Member Deeds, to approve the meeting agenda. Ayes: Members Jones, Gieseke, Steel, Segreto, Cella, Deeds, Jacobson. Motion carried. IV. ADOPTION OF CONSENT AGENDA Member Deeds made a motion, seconded by Member Segreto, to approve the consent agenda as follows: IV.A. Approval of Minutes — Regular Park Board Meeting of January 14, 2014 Ayes: Members Jones, Gieseke, Steel, Segreto, Cella, Deeds, Jacobson. Motion carried. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS V.A. Golf Course Operations Study Mr. Neal noted this presentation regarding the city's golf enterprise was first given to about 300 members of the public at Braemar Golf Course on January 30, 2014. He presented data showing a significant decrease in rounds of golf sold since 1998, which has increased costs to the taxpayers. He looked at the past subsidies of the golf fund as well as the proposed $485,000 subsidy going forward. He noted the city's three objectives going forward are financial stability and self- sufficiency, increased customer service levels, and improved facilities for better play and experience. He noted a significant issue is how to pay for improvements at the golf courses. Mr. Neal presented a six -step strategy, beginning with narrowing the scope of golf operations, specifically closing Fred Richards as a golf course at the conclusion of the 2014 season. Ms. Kattreh noted the second step is to make improvements at Braemar, including improvements at the driving range, the teaching range, the drive into the golf course, and the Grill and clubhouse. She discussed the importance of creating a master plan for Braemar, in order to accommodate youth, women, seniors, and players of all abilities. Mr. Neal indicated the third step is to modify prices and provide discounts. Ms. Kattreh noted that part of the plan is to outsource ancillary services, specifically the Grill. A better product and more inviting environment are possible. Mr. Neal noted another step is to expand marketing at Braemar. Ms. Kattreh stated the sixth step is to improve customer service at Braemar. The plan is to hire a customer service consultant to help train, hire, evaluate, and coach. Mr. Neal then presented pro - formas for golf rounds in the future and discussed the repurposing of the Fred Richards site, which would remain as a public area with low- intensity use going forward. Member Deeds-stated it is important to have conservative projections for golf rounds sold, for example, if only 90,000 rounds are sold rather than the 100,000 'projected rounds. Ms. Kattreh responded the improved customer service and marketing levels should.make 100,000 rounds sold feasible. Member Segreto asked about the opinion of the Braemar Golf Course manager. Todd Anderson, Braemar Golf Course Manager, concurred the golf industry is difficult right now, and he is in agreement with the six -part plan. Member Jones asked about the staging of the repairs and improvements. Mr. Neal explained that the staging of the improvements is also impacted by the possibility of obtaining credit to make the improvements. However, the credit rating agencies always have significant questions about the operations of the two golf courses and the revenue losses. Regarding staging, the new driving range should be commenced at the tail end of the golf season. Member Jones asked about preservation of the wildlife and green space at the Fred Richards course and the possibility of land being sold to a developer. Mr. Neal responded the Council has not given any indication that they are interested.in selling park property. Fred Richards was acquired in 1992 for $800,000; staff has no recommendation for anything other than future park use. Ms. Kattreh concurred, noting that process for determining how to use the site would involve a citizen advisory committee as well as the Park Board. Member Jones asked about putting certain holes at Braemar on hold. Ms. Kattreh noted that as part of the master plan, every hole will be considered. Chair Steel opened the public hearing at 7:40 p.m. Gene Nord, 6425 Nordic Circle, Vice President of the Braemar Men's Club, read aloud the letter from Rick Ites, the President of the Braemar Men's Club and the Braemar Golf Association. He noted many improvements are needed at the Golf Course. Leslie Sharp, 6501 Cherokee Trail, expressed support for plan and for the improvements of Braemar Golf Course, particularly for cart paths. Andrea Keller, 4010 Monterey Ave., a PGA teaching professional, spoke against the proposal for closing Fred Richards. She stated it is an ideal course for juniors, and specifically young girls, to learn the game. Derek Johnson, 7421 West Shore Drive, noted the Fred Richards course was profitable was 2013. He stated the course at Braemar is not as suitable for beginning golfers. This plan closes a revenue - generating facility and converts it to a non - revenue - generating piece of land. Scott Nelson, 6428 Vernon Ave., stated Fred Richards-is a great place, but it is time to let go of the course. He noted Braemar was one of the top courses in the state, and it should be returned to that status. Katie Bourget, 6203 South Knoll, asked for more time for research to develop programs at Fred Richards, as it is a great course to develop beginners, specifically young girls. Richard Johnston, 4505 Wooddale Ave, stated Fred Richards offers a unique golf experience, and it should be retained for future generations. He also agreed with the improvements at Braemar. He suggested working on making Fred Richards more profitable. Marie Leggett, 6 Spur Road, stated she has been playing on Fred Richards for the past three years. Anita Leggett, 6 Spur Road, encouraged the Park Board to encourage other options to raise resources rather than closing Fred Richards. She read aloud an email from PGA in support of golf and noted there may be untapped potential with coming of the 2016 Ryder Cup. John Marshall, 6404 Stauder Circle, spoke against the current proposal to close Fred Richards. He is concerned about a lack of plan to keep the game of golf growing. Tim Nasby, 7408 West Shore Drive, commented on the two consultant reports completed on golf operations. He noted the NGF reportstated that while Fred Richards Golf Course may not be consistently profitable -for the City of Edina, it's a place as a feeder facility to develop new players and will benefit all other golf courses in the system. Dan DeYoung, Scottsdale, Arizona, stated the golf industry will continue to decline. Making Fred . Richards into a park does not make the city money. He played a lot of golf at Fred Richards as a young player. Scott Dorgan, 4504 Gilford Drive, stated Fred Richards is cash -flow positive and should remain in operation for kids and grandparents learning the game. He urged Park Board members to spend an afternoon at Fred Richards this summer. The kids should be placed in highest value in this decision. Lorenzo Tunesi, 4413 Ellsworth Drive, expressed support for the six -step proposal presented. Anna Heirigs, 4529 Gilford Drive, stated she has learned to play golf at Fred Richards over the last two years. Barton Hallin, 4424 Gilford Drive, stated his children have learned to play golf at Fred Richards, and it is a great place to have three generations golfing all at once. He also questioned the timing of creating a citizen advisory team after, rather than before, Fred Richards is closed. 3 1 a Tom Terwilliger, 7421 Kellogg Ave, referred to the 2011 NGF consultant report that cited Fred Richards as an invaluable feeder facility for the Edina golf system. Dan Goodenough, 5604 Valley Lane, cited the city should be investing several million dollars in both golf courses to bring them up to par. RJ Smiley, 6205 St. Johns Ave., observed Edina cannot support 45 holes of golf. There is a tremendous demand for an executive golf course in Edina. He recommended closing Fred Richards and immediately begin a master redevelopment plan for Braemar that would include 18 ,holes of quality golf and also create an executive 9 -hole course. Dan Olson, Minneapolis, indicated the league he participates in a Tuesday league at Fred Richards with all levels of golf ability, which would not be possible at Braemar. Robert Peterson, 5620 Doron Drive, spoke in support of the major reinvestment at Braemar. In 1984, it was the number one golf course in the State of Minnesota, but the golf course has been allowed to decline. Ms. McGrath, 4619 Moorland Ave., stated she plays in the girls' league on Sundays at Fred Richards, and it is importantto keep the course open. Megan Keller, 4010 Monterey Ave., asked that Fred Richards be kept open. Andrea Keller, 4010 Monterey Ave., asked for the Park Board to explore the many other opportunities for funding. She noted Braemar will never be a small, unintimidating course. If the city closes Fred Richards, many golfers will be lost. Wayne VanderVort, 4525 Gilford Drive, stated he plays golf with many of his grandchildren at Fred Richards. He requested that the Park Board create a citizen committee to look at the financials with staff. He has spoken to three golf groups from Fred Richards who indicate they will not transfer to Braemar. He also noted the PGA is on a crusade of creating courses with only 9 holes. Dan DeYoung, Scottsdale, AZ, suggested the Park Board explore other options to see what keeps the course busy during the week and on the weekend. Elizabeth and Katie Dickey, 5021 Yvonne Terrace, indicated both have played Fred Richards with their father, and they expressed support for keeping it open. Tom Gastler, 4417 Gilford Drive, expressed support for Fred Richards. He does not believe public engagement has sufficiently been sought in this process. Paul Rosenthal, 4721 Hibiscus Ave., expressed support for Fred Richards, calling it a jewel of the community. He expressed concern about the condensed timeline not allowing for sufficient public input. John Velgersdyk, 4516 Sedum Lane, stated he is encouraged by the improvements at Braemar. He opposes the closing of Fred Richards and believes the 2011 and 2013 studies show the course is profitable. 4 /! Ella Marshall, 6404 Stauder Circle, and Emily Bourget, 6203 South Knoll Drive, indicated they both love playing with family and friends on the Fred Richards course. Kevin Holm, 4501 Belvidere Lane, expressed support for the improvements to Braemar as well as closing Fred Richards. Barton Halling, 4424 Gilford Drive, expressed support for Fred Richards. He mentioned the development on Pentagon Park near Fred Richards, and the developer has said it could work with either a golf course or something else. He noted more:people are using,executive courses, so there seems to be a new set of players for Fred Richards, right next to the course. He suggested tabling the decision on Fred Richards at the end of 2014, whereupon two or three proposals should be put forward, one of which should be retaining Fred Richards. George Griffiths, 4444 Dunham Drive, stated the Braemar 9 -hole course is the most consistently used course of the four courses in Edina. Additionally, there are nine distinct cost centers in the Braemar Golf operations (Braemar 18, Braemar 9, Braemar Executive, Fred Richards, Golf Dome, Driving Range, Pro Shop, Club House and other social functions) that could be established in the golf enterprise in order to embark on a study to find out exactly what is making money and what is losing money. Derek Johnson, 7421 West Shore Drive, thanked the Park Board for the chance to speak tonight and asked that the Park Board take additional time to consider options other than closing Fred Richards. Chair Steel closed the public hearing ended at 8:44 p.m. Member Deeds asked Mr. Neal to discuss the financials to clear up the questions raised by the public. Mr. Neal asked Mr. Roggeman to speak, as he prepared the pro - formas. Eric Roggeman, Assistant Director of Finance, stated there are two business units that account for business activities at Fred Richards, one for maintenance and the other for activities. At first glance, it looks like a positive cash flow of $50,000. What is not accounted for is about $250,000 in debt and historic interest payments. Also not included are several items that run through the Braemar cost center, such as a load of fertilizer or maintenance equipment, which would be another $50,000. He believes the cash flow has historically been negative by at least $250,000. The question is whether Fred Richards can cash flow going forward, especially as improvements are needed in the future. Member Deeds asked about the bond rating agencies' concerns regarding golf operations. Mr. Neal responded the City of.Edina has a AAA rating. One of the underpinnings of the credit rating is management. One of the measures of that management is how many municipal operations run in an enterprise setting. When the analysts see that there is deterioration in a major enterprise like the golf course, they become concerned about it and ask about future planning. The city's answers to those questions could potentially impact the city's bond rating. The city would like to have a solid plan in place for those creditors. Member Deeds noted one option to fund improvements is the use of revenue bonds. He asked about the possibility of using revenue bonds for Braemar improvements. Mr. Neal responded a major borrowing has not occurred in the golf operation. Staff would like to point at the golf operation revenue and use that as leverage for future debt. General obligation bonds will probably have to be issued to do improvements. If the city can pay it with golf revenues, great. Otherwise, it becomes a tax burden. Member Segreto noted there are significant capital improvements coming up if Fred Richards remains open. The city cannot maintain both courses. Chair Steel asked about accommodating youth at Braemar with the improvements. Ms. Kattreh stated staff does not underestimate the value of Fred Richards to youth golfers in Edina. The master plan at Braemar would invest significantly in women, youth, and seniors. Member Cella asked if there is a -way to preserve a low- stress environment at Braemar, similar to the one residents are in support of at Fred Richards. Ms. Kattreh responded it would be possible. The master planning process would determine the best allocation for those 36 holes of golf. Chair Steel summarized that a working group would be formed, and it would come before the Park Board to be sure the residents are being served. Member Jones questioned the timeline of the decision- making process. She asked about an improved communications process with neighbors. Mr. Neal communicated the input is being gathered, and if there is some interest in meeting with representatives of the Fred Richards group, that can happen. Chair Steel indicated she is adamant there has to be a clear public process going forward, and a timeline to allow for the facilitation of ideas. However, she does not think that time would change the financials before the Park Board tonight. Member Gieseke concurred, noting something needs to change, but he would also like more public discussion about the future of Fred Richards. Member Deeds stated he likes Fred Richards, but the city has more holes of golf than the city can support. Fred Richards is the least utilized asset of the park system. This is a hard decision before the city. He applauded the staffs work on the pro formas. Given the future investment needed in Fred Richards, a convincing case is made that there are too many holes of golf. He. suggested every effort be made to create the same atmosphere Braemar for the kids, but Braemar must be invested in. Member Cella concurred with Member Deeds' comments. She would like to have specific programming language that Braemar must create the stress -free opportunities for youth and those new to golf. Member Jacobson wondered whether Fred Richards could be changed into something that is more like a park and not a business. Student Member Johnson suggested the Braemar improvements be separated from the issue of closing Fred Richards. Member Segreto made a motion, seconded by Member Deeds, that the Park Board recommendation to the City Council that the golf operations proposals, including the recommended closing of Fred Richards Golf Course, be supported. Ayes: Members Jones, Gieseke, Steel, Segreto, Cella, Deeds, Jacobson. 6 Motion carried. V.B. Seasonal Off -Leash Dog Area at Strachauer Park Susan Faus, Assistant Parks & Recreation Director, asked to make the off -leash dog area at Strachauer Park a permanent amenity. After the first year, no complaints were received regarding barking or increased traffic at the park. Staff feels using hockey rinks year -round makes sense and it also provides an off -leash area in this area of Edina. Chair Steel opened the public hearing at 9:15 p.m. No one spoke. Chair Steel closed the public hearing at 9:15 p.m. Member Deeds made a motion, seconded by Member Gieseke, to make the off -leash area at Strachauer Park a permanent amenity. Ayes: Members Jones, Gieseke, Steel, Segreto, Cella, Deeds, Jacobson. Motion carried. Vl. COMMUNITY COMMENT Kim Montgomery, 5300 Evanswood Lane, stated after four years of process, the city has not developed a process for maintaining the former Public Works 3.3 -acre site. She asked the Park Board to recommend to the City Council to preserve the Grandview land for public use and to prioritize a new Community Center. Vll. REPORTS /RECOMMENDATIONS VILA. Pamela Park Shelter Building Working Group Ms. Kattreh asked for Park Board approval for the creation of the working group and also for Park Board member participation on the working group. Member Segreto volunteered to join the working group. Member Deeds made a motion, seconded by Member Gieseke, to approve the working group. Ayes: Members Jones, Gieseke, Steel, Segreto, Cella, Deeds, Jacobson. Motion carried. Vlll. CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS VIII.A. Council Updates No discussion. VIII.B. Other Correspondence No discussion. VIII.C. Veterans Memorial Committee, December 20, 2013 Minutes No discussion. IX. CHAIR AND BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS None.: 7 X. STAFF COMMENTS Ms. Kattreh made the following comments: there will be a Park Board work group with the Council on February 18;,so far, 49 of the 55 plots of the community garden are rented; staff has been talking with the Minnesota Wild about using Braemar Ice Arena as a permanent practice facility, and hopes to have a proposal before the Park Board at the March meeting. Xl. ADJOURNMENT Chair Steel made a motion, seconded by Member Deeds, to adjourn the meeting at 9:2S p.m. Ayes: Members Jones, Gieseke, Steel, Segreto, Cella, Deeds, Jacobson. Motion Carried. The meeting adjourned at 9:25 p.m. 8 Atttac h rn.e nt B -A SEH Building a Better World for All of Us® TO: Ann Kattreh - Edina Park and Recreation Director FROM: Wayne Houle, PE Senior Professional Engineer II DATE: February 6, 2014 MEMORANDUM RE: Fred Richards Golf Course Fairway Rehabilitation Analysis Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc.® (SEH) thanks you for the opportunity to assist the City of Edina (City) with the Fred Richards Golf Course Fairway Rehabilitation Analysis. We understand the goal of this memo is to provide you with an overview of soils, options to remediate the soils within the fairways, and a "ball park" costs to rehabilitate a few of the fairways. Our approach to this task is very high level, since the information is anecdotal, meaning that one - we lack information on where settlements have occurred and two — we do not have good soil data in the areas of the settled fairways. If you do decide to go forward with a rehabilitation project we strongly recommend that a soil investigation and geotechnical analysis be conducted in the areas that you wish to rehabilitate. Then a design can be completed that will be based on risks of anticipated future settlement of the fairway. We reviewed the geotechnical evaluation performed by Braun Intertec from September 4, 1992 titled "Geotechnical Evaluation Report for the City of Edina Proposed Normandale Golf Course, West 77th Street and Computer Avenue in Edina, Minnesota." The report analyzed 13 soil borings; taken mostly at the tee boxes and greens. The geotechnical report indicated that "extensive swamp deposits were encountered in the majority of the boring locations ". The report recommended an extensive construction plan, which included pre - compaction (surcharging) for the tee boxes and greens. The report also states that "Seasonal and annual fluctuation of the groundwater levels should be anticipated" and further indicates that the greens and tee boxes should be raised in elevation to minimize ponding water. Soils such as organic soils (swamp deposits) are highly compressible and will settle under applied loads, such as from overlying fill placement. All soils can be susceptible to potential settlement due to water level changes. Settlements can be minimized by developing a construction plan for the areas that are affected. A construction plan might include removal and replacement of the soils located within the fairways with soils that minimize the weight of the soils or it might include a surcharging of poor (organic) soils prior to improving the final grade. A geotechnical engineer would need further analysis of the soils in order to make a sound recommendation. The holes that we analyzed were chosen from our personal experiences playing the golf course. The analysis that we conducted included calculating the fairway areas of Holes 1, 3, 6, 7, and 8 from the as -built plans sheets 7 and 8, named "Ground Stabilization ", dated September 2, 1992, Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc., 10901 Red Circle Drive, Suite 300, Minnetonka, MN 55343 -9302 SEH is an equal opportunity employer I www.sehinc.com 1 952.912.2600 1 800.734.6757 1 888.908.8166 fax Fred Richards Golf Course Fairway Rehabilitation Analysis February 6, 2014 Page 2 see attached exhibit. Two scenarios were chosen to calculate a rough cost (ball park cost) estimate. The first scenario includes replacing the fairways with the original section assuming that the replacement might last for a similar time frame as the first construction. The second scenario is based off of either surcharging the fairways or replacing the sub -soils with a lighter weight soil to help reduce future settlement and would outlast the first scenario. Either scenario will require a very in -depth analysis prior to a final design. The estimated costs for these scenarios are: HOLE NUMBER FAIRWAY AREAS SQ. FT. ESTIMATED COSTS SCENARIOS 1 2 Hole #1 27,249 $96,000 $615,000 Hole #3 53,064 $186,000 $1,195,000 Hole #6 13,189 $49,000 $303,000 Hole #7 39,247 $139,000 $888,000 Hole #8 51,825 $184,000 $1,174,000 Total Cost 184,5741 $654,000 $4,175,000 FRED RICHARDS GOLF COURSE Hole rg - U G a Hole 8 -- ` r - Hole 7 jr \rte, Hole ` is 6 e ! ri is 1 Hole 1 Map of Fred Richards Golf Course - Theoretical Fairway Areas to Be Rehabilitated. Thank you again for the opportunity to help analyze this situation. To: MAYOR & COUNCIL From: Debra Mangen City Clerk Date: March 18, 2014 Subject: Resolution No. 2014 -31 Accepting Various Donations Action Requested: Adopt Resolution. 1NA, O le 0011 "'VIP • IBa Agenda Item #: VIII. C. Action Discussion ❑ Information ❑ 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. 2014 -31 City of Edina 4801 W. 50th St. Edina, MN 55424 RESOLUTION NO. 2014 -31 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 donations on behalf of its citizens. Edina Art Center: Ingrid Sundstrom- Lundegaard Two watercolor sets, various acrylic paints Richard J. Thomas French easel, watercolor paints, books, brushes, canvases Papers and palette Lisa Diehl Gold and bronze powder Bob Cooper Various media equipment and supplies Mary Dvorak $25.00 Bill Dietrichson Memorial Braemar Memorial Fund: John Adams dues refund $115.00 Robert Sandilla $50.00 Robert Hursh $25.00 Gaylen Ghylin $200.00 Pets Are Inn, Inc. for Jim Platt $50.00 David Knoke $25.00 Gerhard Brahms $100.00 Jack Isaaman $50.00 Joe Langer $25.00 Marlyn Friede $100.00 Dan Brunsvold $50.00 Anton Melin $25.00 Fred Friswold $100.00 John Towey $40.00 Gene Nord $25.00 Theodore Giannobile $100.00 John Canton $30.00 John Valliere $25.00 David White $100.00 Gregory Baron $25.00 Gary Soule $25.00 Daniel Peterson $100.00 William Cunningham $25.00 Dated: March 18, 2014 Attest: Debra A. Mangen, City Clerk James B. Hovland,-Mayor STATE OF MINNESOTA) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) SS CITY OF EDINA ) CERTIFICATE OF CITYtCLERK 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 March 18, 2014, 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 AND COUNCIL Agenda Item #: VIII. D. From: Bill Neuendorf Action Economic Development Manager Discussion ❑ Date: March 18, 2014 Information ❑ Subject: Pentagon Park Redevelopment — Authorizing Preparation of Redevelopment Agreement Action Requested: Authorize staff to engage legal and financial consultants to negotiate a Master Redevelopment Agreement based on the preliminary Term Sheet with the developer. Information/ Background: The owner of the Pentagon Park office park approached the City to request financial assistance in achieving the long -term redevelopment goals that are currently being considered for the 42 -acre site. The full -scale redevelopment that is envisioned includes a high level of extraordinary costs. that are associated with redevelopment of existing buildings in an area with poor soil conditions. Many of these costs would not likely apply to a similar project in a different location. Staff has engaged -legal and public finance experts to begin preliminary discussions about the level and type of assistance 'that is necessary to transform this 42 -acre property., These pre_ liminary conversations have resulted in the attached Term Sheet. The basic structure of the proposed .assistance requires the greatest risk to be borne by the developer and his investors. The City is exposed to very little risk. The proposed terms anticipate that a financial TIF Note will be pledged to the developer upon initiation of each phase of the project. Upon successful completion of each phase, the City would make payments on the TIF Note using incremental property taxes that are generated by the new buildings. Reimbursement would be provided for costs of the new roadways and related public improvements completed by the developer. Reimbursement would also apply to the costs of demolition, soils stabilization and storm water retention which are necessary activities to prepare the site for new investment. Reimbursement is also requested for the high costs of the parking structures proposed to maximize the buildable area and to eliminate vast fields of surface parking lots. It is anticipated that the parking structures would be privately owned but may be available for shared parking in the future. City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 wi Item VIII. D. Pentagon Park Redevelopment — Authorizing Preparation of Redevelopment Agreement Page 2 Authorization is sought to fully negotiate a Redevelopment Agreement (RDA) with the property owner based on the general terms described in the. Term Sheet. At this time, the city staff and property owner are aligned on the preliminary terms. The preparation of the RDA will require significant additional research so that various development scenarios can 'be addressed. Upon completion, the Redevelopment Agreement will be brought to the City Council and Edina Housing and Redevelopment Authority for full consideration. Attachments: Summary of Term Sheet Term Sheet dated 3 -13 -2014 o e t �n 1. 0 Pentagon Park Redevelopment Term Sheet Summary March 18, 2013 EHLERS 11 Air Is w va IC nmvn Economic Benefits of Project Potential for 1.4 million S.F. new office, new 400 - 450 room hotel and new service retail • Over $500,000,000 in new private investment on the 42 acres. Additional tax base of $400,000,000 upon completion — including over $800,000 of annual taxes available to lowerschool district operating levies • New jobs created z 3/13/2014 1 General Benefits to Public • Developer to finance critical public improvements — Public streets — Streetscape — Connections to regional trail • Potentially $8,000,000 available to City for additional public improvements 3 Protect Timing • Project envisioned in five phases — First phase (southside of 77th Street) to start no later than end of 2015 — Developer has flexibility to modify phasing depending upon market conditions r � 1 3/13/2014 2 Financial Ga • Developer has demonstrated financial need for the project • Office market today is highly competitive • High costs needed to stabilize soil • Extra- ordinary_costs of demolition, haz -mat, and site preparation 5 Terms of Assistance • TIF revenue split between Developer and City: — City retains 10% for administrative costs — City able to use up to $8.0 million additional on public improvements yet to be determined • Each phase to have separate TIF note • TIF Note issued,after costs are proven up and certificate of occupancy in place • Developer reimbursed for interest at 6% • Term of all payments no more than 26 years — Later phases payable over 10 or 15 years E 3/13/2014 3 Costs Eligible for Reimbursement • Developer will pay for new 77th Street after 100,000 SF of construction completed. • Developer qualified costs primarily soils correction costs, demolition, new streets and sidewalks, and on -site stormwater costs. • Develop°er requesting structured .parking as a qualified cost if other costs are less than expected. City Safeguards • Pay -as- you -go format minimizes City's risk. • Developer responsible for costs of public. improvements • City pays TIF only if developer spends eligible costs. • Developer must demonstrate financial need on a phase -by -phase basis. • City can reduce the TIF assistance if actual sale prices of land /buildings are higher than industry standards within 3 -years of completion 8 3/13/2014 4 Default Provisions • Default Provisions - Demolition'of Phase 1 must `occur by end' of 2016 — If no activity for two years between phases, City can cancel agreement. -City still obligated to pay on any TIF notes issued before default. I Council Action Requested Authorize staff and consultants to negotiate full redevelopment agreement — Based upon March 13, 2014 term sheet • Full consideration anticipated in late -May, 2014 DODOU�� 10 3/13/2014 5 This page intentionally left blank. Master Term Sheet Between The City'of Edina /Edina Housing and Redevelopment Authority (the "City ") And Pentagon Revival, LLC Development /or related entity (the "Developer ") March 13, 2014 1) Purpose and Scope a. This master term sheet is intended to outline the City's and the Developer's' general . expectations for financial assistance for the long -term redevelopment of the approximately 42 -acre Pentagon Park site. The site will be redeveloped in phases over a projected 10 —15 year timeframe with mixed -use hotel, office, medical and supporting retail elements (as well as a potential housing component), which will be driven by market demand(the Project). The site is located generally in the Northeast quadrant of Interstate 1 -494 and Highway 100 and as legally described on Exhibit 1. The general terms agreed upon in this Term Sheet will be expanded in a formal Master Redevelopment Agreement between the City and the Developer. b. Public improvements within the Project necessary to support the phased development will be installed by the Developer, subject to reimbursement through tax increment, or through special assessments. c. The Project will be developed as a planned unit development (PUD). The Developer will seek preliminary PUD and preliminary Development Plan approval to establish zoning and. land use regulations. Each phase of the Project will also be subject to final PUD and development plan approval (Final Development Plan). A PUD ordinance will be considered by the City Council and adopted upon the final approval of the first phase. The City and Developer will negotiate a separate Development Contract containing the City's land use and engineering regulations for each phase. d. This Term Sheet is applicable only to the redevelopment of the properties referred to as Pentagon Park and legally described in Exhibit 1. It is recognized that concurrent with the redevelopment of Pentagon Park site, the Three Rivers Park District is planning a regional bicycle trail in the area and the City is considering the future use of the Fred Richards golf course. The terms of the Master Redevelopment Agreement are not dependent upon, and will not predetermine the outcome of those other efforts. Pentagon Park Master Term Sheet March 13, 2014 FOR CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Page 1 2) Creation of TIF District a. The City will establish a Redevelopment TIF District in 2014 that will include all Pentagon Park parcels. The City will request certification of the TIF District prior to July 1, 2014 (unless certification is delayed at the request of the Developer) and will request that the first receipt of incremental taxes be in 2018 or sooner as negotiated between the parties, including the accrual of any interest on TIF eligible costs incurred prior to said date. 3) City Out -of Pocket Costs a. The Developer will reimburse the City for its direct cost of legal and financial consultants as well as special consultants for TIF inspections,, traffic and utility studies. Reimbursement will be made for activities beginning in 2013 that established the groundwork for the TIF District. Reimbursement will be made within 30 days'of invoicing. Costs of City staff will not be reimbursable. The Master Redevelopment Agreement will contain the hourly rates of the City's legal and financial consultants and such rates will be updated annually. 4) City Administrative Costs a. Ten percent (10 %) of tax increment generated is anticipated to be retained by the City for administrative costs related to the planning, management and oversight of the TIF District. 5) Description of Project a. Proposed land uses, densities and projected phasing schedule are included in the Project narrative, which is attached as Exhibit 2 hereto (Narrative), and in Section 6 herein. The development objectives summarized in the Narrative will be included in the PUD and Preliminary Development Plan approval, including, without limitation, land use, the proposed densities on each parcel and the inclusion, where applicable, of the six (6) development principles described in the Narrative. The development principles include detailed development objectives to be applied, where applicable, to the redevelopment of each parcel thereby providing a detailed vision and road map for what will be required for Final Development Plan approval. The principles include: • Establish living streets; • Develop integrated storm water; • Create pedestrian friendly 77`h Street; • Provide key connections; • Promote modality; and • Institute shared parking strategies. Pentagon Park Master Term Sheet March 13, 2014 FOR CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Page 2 Final Development Plan approval will be required prior to the commencement of new improvements in each phase. The improvements proposed in each Final Development Plan must be consistent with the PUP and the Preliminary Development Plan approval. b. Each phase of the Project will include structured parking and other infrastructure improvements necessary for the successful redevelopment of the phase, as established in the Final Development Plan "for each phase. c. The total cost of the anticipated buildings and,infrastructure is estimated to be at least $500 million. d. Details of the Project and each specific phase will be subject to review and approval of City Council through the City's standard Final PUD and Final Preliminary Development Plan approval process. e. The Developer will name and rebrand the Project with City input. 6) Phased Development a. The Developer estimates that complete redevelopment is projected to occur over a 10- 15 year period. Preliminary activities for Phase 1(including, but not limited to, asbestos and lead paint abatement, demolition and soil correction) are anticipated to commence by July 2014. As shown in the phasing diagram attached as Exhibit 3, the following five phases are anticipated in the Project and each phase will include private development elements and public infrastructure elements: Description of Private Development (as shown on Public Infrastructure Phase Exhibit 3) Phase 1 Phase 1Hotel /Retail /Medical /Office 77th Street; Transit Shelters; (includes Phase Building; Parking Structure A & B Normandale Road; 1A & 113) Viking/Computer Phase 2 Connecting Retail and Phase 2 Office 77t Street Bridge; Water Feature ; Group; Parking Structure C Corresponding 76th Street Parkway, West Living Street ** Phase 3 Phase 3 Office Group; Parking Corresponding 76t Street Structure D Parkway, Central Living Street** Phase 4 Phase 4 Office Group; Parking Corresponding 76t Street Structure E Parkway, East Living Street ** Phase 5 Phase 5 Office Group; Parking Corresponding 76t Street Structure F Parkway, East Living Street * *; Parklawn Ave. Pentagon Park Master Term Sheet March 13, 2014 FOR CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Page 3 a A potential 77th Street bridge with trail connection and adjacent water feature will be considered in the event that there is a future re- purposing of the Fred Richards golf course. If deemed feasible by the Developer, these elements will be constructed in Phase 2 or a later Phase. The 76`h Street Parkway and living streets are anticipated to be constructed in parts corresponding to each phase of the Project. b. Phase 1(asbestos and lead paint abatement; demolition and soil correction) is anticipated to commence by July 1, 2014, and the construction of Phase 1 is anticipated to be completed by December 31, 2018. c. To be given TIF assistance, each phase of development must include at least one substandard structure pursuant to State law and meet the other requirements of the Redevelopment Plan and the TlF District. 7) Project Timeline The Project timeline is driven by market conditions. It is in the best interest of the Developer and the City to have`the earliest development timeframe that market conditions support. The chart below is the current anticipated timeline for the Project. In addition, preliminary development and demolition activities will commence consistent with Section 9 below. The Developer will notify the City of material changes to the following estimated construction dates. The Developer will periodically provide the City with written notification related to meeting . proposed construction benchmarks for each phase. A timeline for completion of improvements in each phase will be included in the Final Development Plan approval for each phase. The written notification will include: • Proposed dates for commencement of construction for key improvements for each phase; • Updates on construction progress and confirmation of the Developer's ability to reach certain proposed benchmarks; and • Revised estimates of commencement and completion dates, if any. Description of Phase (as shown on' Exhibit 3) Estimated Commencement Date Estimated Completion Date Phase 1— South Hotel (1A) Building, Early 2017 December 2018 Phase 1— South Office/ Retail (16) Buildings, Early 2016 December 2018 Phase 2 — North Office Group / Retail Buildings, Early 2017 December 2018 Phase 3 -North Office Group Buildings, Early 2019 December. 2020 Phase 4 — North Office Group Buildings, Early 2021 December 2022 Phase 5 — North Office Group Buildings, Early 2023 December 2024 Subject to Unavoidable Delays (as will be defined in the Master Redevelopment Agreement), if (i) demolition, in accordance with a City issued demolition permit, of the existing South Tower Pentagon Park Master Term Sheet March 13,2014 FOR CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Page 4 and the four (4) attached Annex Buildings (but excluding 4815 W. 77th Street (Cradle Club) and 7710 Computer Avenue) has not been completed by December 31, 2016 or (ii) there is no Development Activity for a period of twenty -four (24) months at any given time during the term of the Master Redevelopment Agreement, then the City may decline to issue TIF Notes'for any future phases or terminate the Master Redevelopment Agreement according to its terms. For purposes of this Term Sheet, "Development Activity" shall mean (i) Final Development Plan approval has been granted by the City Council regarding a particular phase of the Project, (ii) a Development Contract has been entered into and is in.good standing regarding that particular phase and (iii) a building permit has been applied for and, when issued, has not expired regarding any new building within;that corresponding phase. The City will be reasonable in its review of any,request by the Developer to extend the date in, (i) and the time period in (ii) above. 8) Project Budget The Project.Budget for all private development and public infrastructure elements, as combined, is as follows: a. Street Infrastructure - 77th Street - 77th Street Bridge - Transit Shelters 76th Street Parkway - Parklawn - 100.Frontage Rd/Viking Dr /Computer Ave = Living streets b. Sitework / Storm Water - District Marker.Signs - Soil Correction Studies & Improvements - Storm Water Management $2,886,000 $2,563,000 $180,000 $7,825,000 $453,000 $1,223,000 $4,319,000 $80,000 South $9,581,000 $777,000 - Demolition $1,750,000 - Green Space / Sitewo,rk $2,625,000 c. Parking Structures = Ramp A - 1,140 Stalls $11,514,000 - Ramp B - 1,140 Stalls $11,514,000 - Ramp C - 650 Stalls. - Ramp D - 650 Stalls -Ramp E - 650 Stalls - Ramp F - 975 Stalls d. Land, Closing, RE Taxes e. Hotel, Office Buildings & Retail, Tenant Improvements f. Design Cost, Contractor Fee, Government Charges (SAC & WAC) North $16,020,000 $1,070,000 $2,890,000 $2,730,000 $6,565,000 $6,565,000 $6,565,000 $9,847,500 Total $19,449,000 $37,523,000 $52,570,500 $10,470,000 $277,825,000 $38,699,000 Pentagon Park Master Term Sheet March 13, 2014 FOR CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION. Page 5 9- Development Costs (Commissions, Legal /Professional, Space Planning, $78,830,0( Marketing, Contingency, Loan Costs, Interest, Developer Fee) TOTAL PROJECT COST $515,366,500 9) Reimbursement of Qualified.Costs a. The City will reimburse the Developer on a pay -as- you -go basis for eligible costs plus interest at a rate of,6% annually. b. Total financial assistance available for the Project is estimated to be between 93.5% and 98 %, of the Available Tax Increment, depending on the cost of the City's infrastructure to be paid out-of Increment, as determined pursuant to Section 9g. For purposes of this Master Term Sheet, "Available.Tax Increment" means 90% of tax increment generated by the TIF District. c. Total present value of all TIF Notes is estimated to be approximately $54 million but may be increased -as set.forth in Section 9g. d. The terms of each TIF Note will be included in the Master Redevelopment Agreement and issued pursuant to the terms thereof. Eligible costs - incurred by the Developer will be added to the principal balance of the initial TIF Note or evidenced in subsequent TIF Notes, upon submittal,of the documents to be set forth in the Master Redevelopment Agreement. e. Consistent with the Final Development Plan for the corresponding phase as shown on Exhibit 3, the. Developer will perform the following activities, which will be subject to reimbursement from TIF: • Demolition of the South tower and the four (4) attached annex buildings. • Asbestos and lead -based paint abatement of the South tower and the four (4) attached annex buildings. • Lead paint abatements of the South tower building site. • Construction of the bike storage and shower facility within five (5) years of the date of the Master Redevelopment Agreement. • Improvements to W. 771h St. upon the completion of construction of at least 100,000 square feet of new development. • Construction of at least 2 transit shelters in conjunction with the improvements to W. 77" St. • Demolition of the building on the Walsh Title Parcel within eighteen (18) months from the date Fred Richards is repurposed, if at all, and all new improvements and new use(s) on Fred Richards are in operation. • Construction of W. 76th Parkway. • Construction of two or more living streets (north /south) creating additional vehicular - access to new W. 70 Parkway, the anticipated regional bike trail, and the south side of Fred Richards. Pentagon Park Master Term Sheet March 13, 2014 FOR CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Page 6 • Improvements to Parklawn Ave. • Additional connections from the Project to the anticipated regional bike trail. f. The maximum term of alI TIF Notes is 26 years from first receipt of increment, including partial year payments., Interest will accrue when the Developer has produced documentation of costs,sufficient to satisfy.Office of the State Auditor requirements. g. A portion of the total tax Increment may be utilized for infrastructure costs incurred by the City for eligible public improvements in accordance with State Law and the Master Development Agreement. If prior to January 1, 2016 the City determines that it requires more than $2.5 million for public infrastructure improvements to be paid prior to the full and final payment of the TIF Notes, the City may elect to increase said amount to a maximum of $8 million which is estimated to be 6.5% of the total tax Increment, at which time the Increment available to the Developer (as set forth in Section 9c) shall increase by an amount equal'to any increase for such-improvements in excess of.$2.5 million as long as the "but for" can be demonstrated for the increased amount of Increment to be paid to the Developer. Following full and final payment of the TIF Notes to the Developer, all remaining tax increment will be available to the.City.. Public infrastructure improvements to be paid out of Increment prior to the full and final payment of the TIF Notes shall be compatible with the Project, and must be for traditional public improvements such as roads, utilities and improvements to public land. h. Eligible costs will be identified in a Sources and Uses to be attached to the Master Development Agreement and will include the following (as may be authorized under State Law): • Soil correction costs, studies and improvements (including piling) • Demolition (not including any grant funds received for'demolition) • Environmental studies and remediation, asbestos abatement studies, lead based paint abatement, hazardous materials abatement or remediation and studies (not including any grant funds received for the same) Storm water management studies and storm water management related improvements (not including any grant funds received for storm water management). • Berm(s) and soil relocation as part of site preparation. • Street costs which include intersection improvements. • Costs of improvements to existing, and the construction of new, public roadways, including on —street parking, pedestrian and bicyclist facilities and related street lighting, streetscape along West 77th Street between Normandale and Parklawn and Parklawn Avenue between West 77th Street and West 76th Street. • General site preparation. • Traffic mitigation studies, traffic mitigation improvements at the properties, to and from the properties, and as a result of stabiliiation, renovation, and Pentagon Park Master Term Sheet March 13, 2014 FOR CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Page 7 redevelopment. • Landscaping, water feature, street lights, site lighting, sidewalks, trail connections at the properties. • Public parking improvements and parking structures (some of which may be shared or otherwise made available for public use), public transit improvements, bicycle improvements; initiatives to encourage non - single occupant-car usage. • District marker signs. • Public access to regional trail and Fred Richards site. • Applicable /appropriate professional fees related to the PUD and TIF process and agreements for the City of Edina. • Professional fees related to the PUD and TIF process and agreements for the project. • Additional off -site public improvements, including but not limited to, traffic mitigation and storm water mitigation. 10) Separate TIF Notes a. The City will make one payment of principal and interest to the Developer each six months on the TIF Notes, commencing on , 20_ based on available tax increment. The Developer may participate out the TIF notes but the City is not responsible for calculations nor payments for each separate Note. 11) Compliance with TIF Act a. Costs eligible for TIF reimbursement must comply with applicable MN State statute. b. .Pursuant to State law, eligible costs need to be incurred within 5 years of the date of certification.of the TIF district unless the State Legislature approves a time extension. The date by which costs need to be incurred is estimated to be the summer of 2019. The Developer and City will discuss methods to help ensure that maximum allowable flexibility is included in the Master Redevelopment Agreement to allow for.-the installation of all TIF eligible improvements required to support all phases'of the Project. 12) Evaluation Process for TIF Assistance a. As,part of the TIF Assistance process, the Project as a whole must be evaluated on a phase by. -phase basis and the "but for" must be demonstrated. The Developer will provide.full and complete information so that the City can understand the need for the requested financial assistance. 13) Initial Pro forma Review a. The Developer will prepare a Sources and Uses as well,as an annual revenue and expenditure- Pro -Forma detailing the life of the construction project (approximately 10- 15 years) at the time of the TIF District, certification. The Pro -Forma must show a Pentagon Park Master Term Sheet March 13, 2014 FOR CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Page 8 demonstrated need for financial assistance. Information to be submitted will include the Sources and Uses pro forma to be attached to the Master Development Agreement, and additional information requested by the'City. 14) City Approval;,of Significant Changes: Changes to the Project scope and design that are inconsistent;.with the Final Development Plan will be subject to City review. 15) Special Assessments. The City may elect to specially assess benefited Project or non- Project properties for 1. portions of the Project public improvements. If.non- Project properties are so assessed, the amount of eligible costs subject to reimbursement through a TIF Note will be reduced accordingly. In addition, the Developer may petition for the use of special assessments for a portion of Project public improvements. If so; the costs of construction will be secured with a financial instrument acceptable to the City such as a letter oficredit, performance bond or cash. The Developer may choose to construct the improvements but the Developer's costs shall include an independent inspecting engineer as an agent of the City. 16) Performance Bonds: Performance bonds are required for all work in the public way. 17) Storm Water Runoff a. The multi - phased development will make provisions to retain and treat its own storm water runoff on site. b. In the event that the City decides to change the public use of the Fred Richards golf course site; both parties will work cooperatively to explore opportunities to improve water quality and utilize storm water as an amenity or feature. c. As referred to in paragraph 9g., a portion of the incremental taxes in excess of the Increment to be paid to the Developer may be redirected toward the storm water costs incurred by the City. 18) Look Back Provisions Developer will agree to a "clawback" provision providing for reimbursement to the City for a share of the Increment paid to Developer under an applicable TIF Note upon the sale by Developer of the Project or one or more phases of the Project; within three (3) years from receipt of a certificate of completion for a building within the Project subject to a sale. The "clawback" will be no more than 25% of the Increment paid to the Developer related to the portion.of the Project subject to a sale; with the percentage of clawback to be calculated if the Internal Rate of Return ( "IRR ") analysis as to each phase or portion of the Property subject to a sale based on an allowed range of 16 — 22.5% IRR for that building or phase. For purposes of a clawback, the definition of a "sale" will be Pentagon Park Master Term Sheet March 13, 201.4 FOR CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Page 9 included in the Master Redevelopment Agreement and will include.the distinction between a land sale and a sale following vertical development (which will reflect the fair market value of the land at the time of Developer's transfer). In the Master Redevelopment Agreement, the Developer and City will determine to reconcile the IRR rates among the various phases to determine a true IRR for a sale that is subject to a clawback taking into account the Project as a whole. 19) Sale of Property a. There will be no limits or restrictions on the Developer from selling the property, or a portion thereof, before or after the completion of construction of infrastructure improvements. Additionally, no limitations will be imposed on the Developer (including, without limitation any merger, consolidation, joint venture, sale or addition of new members /capital). The City must be notified of changes to the named party. 20) Default by Developer or City a. Standard'default provisions will be applicable, including default provisions for failure to continue a Development Activity (as defined in Section 7). The Master Redevelopment Agreement will include remedies to be determined by the Developer and the City. Specifically, if the Developer does not maintain a Development Activity in accordance with Section 7, the City's Specific remedies will include (i) the right to terminate the Master Redevelopment Agreement or (ii) the right to deny issuance of a TIF Note for any future phase of the Project. Termination of the Master Redevelopment Agreement will not impact the payment of any current or future amounts due on any issued and outstanding TIF Notes. The Master Redevelopment Agreement will include a force majeure clause that extends performance of any delivery dates for unavoidable delays, which will include standard events as well as extraordinary economic factors and delay in the resolution of leases or other third party agreements that impact the Developer's completion of certain required minimum improvements. The Developer will be afforded reasonable cure rights. An agreed upon percentage of TIF Note payments may be withheld by the City for failure by the Developer to complete agreed upon minimum improvements asset forth in the Narrative (e.g. failure to complete West 77th upon completion of construction of at least 100,000 square feet of new development). This remedy will be limited to a withholding of TIF Note payments related only to the phase or TIF-Note associated with the incomplete improvement. TIF Payment will resume, with accrued interest in accordance with the TIF Note, once the improvement is completed. Pentagon Park Master Term Sheet March 13, 2014 FOR CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Page 10 21) Park Maintenance Fee / Special Assessment District a. In the event that the Fred Richards facility is repurposed to allow a greater degree of public access, the Developer will contribute a maintenance fee for each completed phase of the Project that has direct access and use of any future•public amenity. 22) Grants a. The City will assist the Developer in applications for eligible grants including the DEED Redevelopment Grant program, TBRA, Metropolitan Council Livable Communities Demonstration Account and tax Base Revitalization Account programs, Nine Mile Creek Watershed District and others to be mutually determined. b. The timing of the application of the grants will be mutually agreed upon. 23) Preparation of Master Redevelopment Agreement: a. The City and Developer will work diligently to prepare a Master Redevelopment Agreement for City Council consideration at its May 20, 2014 meeting. b. The Master Redevelopment Agreement will be presented to the City Council pre- signed by the Developer. 24) Job Creation /Retention: a. The Developer will provide projections of new FTE jobs that are anticipated to be created within each phase of the completed project. b. The Master Redevelopment Agreement may require Developer to provide ongoing job creation and job estimates in a manner consistent with the DEED grant programs and /or the Metropolitan Council TBRA grant program. The Developer will use best efforts to provide estimates of the number of construction jobs for each phase of the Project. 25) Certificate of Completion: A closing checklist will be prepared to certify that the requirements of each phase are satisfactorily completed. Developer notes will not be issued until completion of the project is confirmed. 26) City Funds at RDA Closing: None 27) Real Estate Tax Appeals: The Developer and future owner(s) of the properties shall retain their right to appeal the property tax assessments. 28) Residential Phases: In order for any multi - family housing phase to qualify for TIF assistance, at least 20% of the residential units must be sold or leased at rates that are considered affordable to people of limited incomes as established by State Statute. The base level of finish and amenities of the affordable units;must be the same as that of the market -rate units. The sales Pentagon Park Master Term Sheet March 13, 2014 FOR CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Page 11 price or lease rates of affordable units will be based on the most current housing affordability data published by HUD or other source recognized by the City of Edina. This Section is not applicable to hotels or similar transitory housing. Additional affordable housing provisions concerning buyer qualifications, length of time for affordability restrictions, buyer leasing, etc. will be outlined in an exhibit to the Master Redevelopment Agreement. 29) Public Art. Public art shall be incorporated into each phase of the Project. Pentagon Park Master Term Sheet March 13, 2014 FOR CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Page 12 EXHIBIT 1 PROJECT SITE LEGAL DESCRIPTION PI D Address Owner 31- 028 -24 -33 -0010 4901 West 77th Street Pentagon'South, LLC Edina, MN 55435 31- 028 -24 -33 -0014 4815 West 77th Street Pentagon South, LLC Edina, MN,55435. 31- 028 -24 -43 -0003 4510 West 77th Street Pentagon South, LLC Edina, MN'55435 31- 028 -24 -43 -0004 4530 West 77th Street Pentagon South, LLC Edina, MN 55435 31- 028 -24 -43 -0005 7600 Parklawn Avenue Pentagon South, LLC Edina, MN 55435 31- 028 -24 -43 -0006 7600 Parklawn Avenue Pentagon South, LLC Edina, MN 55435 Legal Description: PARCEL 1: All of the following described land: Those parts of Tracts A and B lying Southerly of the following described line: Beginning at a point on the West line of said Tract B distant 220 feet North of the Southwest corner thereof; thence run Northeasterly to a point on the North line of said Tract B distant 170 feet West of the Northeast corner thereof; thence run Northeasterly to a point on the East line of said Tract A distant 40 feet North of the Southeast corner thereof and there terminating. Tract C, Tracts E and F, except those parts thereof lying Northerly of the following described line: -,Beginning at a point on the East line of Tract A, distant 40 feet North of the Southeast corner thereof; thence run Northeasterly to a point distant 120 feet West and 32 feet South of the Northeast corner of said Tract E; thence-run Easterly parallel with the North line of said Tract E for 30 feet; thence deflect to the left at an angle of 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds for 12 feet; thence run Easterly and Southeasterly parallel with the Northerly and Northeasterly lines of said Tracts E and F to its intersection with the following described line: Beginning at a point on the Southwesterly line of Tract S distant 105 feet Southeasterly of the West line of said Tract S (when measured along said Southwesterly line); thence run Southwesterly at right angles to said Southwesterly line for 100 feet and there terminating, Tract G, except the East 58 feet of the Southerly 300 feet thereof, That part of Tract H, lying North of the South 300 feet thereof; All in Registered Land Survey No. 1050, Hennepin County, Minnesota. PARCEL 2: Tracts F,.G, H and I, Registered Land Survey No. 1218, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Pentagon Park Master Term Sheet March 13, 2014 FOR CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Page 13 PID Address Owner 31- 028 -24 -43 -0002 4540 West 77th Street Pentagon North, LLC Edina, MN 55435 31- 028 -24 -43 -0001 4550 West 77th Street Pentagon North, LLC Edina, MN 55435 31- 028 -24 -34 -0009 4570 West 77th Street Pentagon North, LLC Edina, MN 55435 31- 028 -24 -34 -0008 4600 West 77th Street Pentagon North, LLC Edina, MN 55435 31- 028 -24 734 -0007 4660 West 77th Street Pentagon North, LLC Edina, MN 55435 Legal Description: Tracts A, B, C, D and E, Registered Land Survey No. 1218, Hennepin County, Minnesota.' PID Address Owner 31- 028 -24 -33 -0018 4820 West 77th Street FYT, LLC Edina, MN 55435 Legal Description Tract S, Registered Land Survey No. 1050, Hennepin County, Minnesota PID Address Owner 31- 028 -24 -33 -0015 7710 Computer Avenue Crown. Bank, LLC Edina, MN 55435 Legal Description: The East 58 feet of the Southerly 300 feet of Tract G; The South 300 feet of Tract H, Registered Land Survey No. 1050, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Pentagon Park Master Term Sheet March 13, 2014 FOR CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Page 14 EXHIBIT 2 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT NARRATIVE Background When constructed in the 1960's, Pentagon Park was a state -of -the -art office complex located on approximately 42 prime acres in the northeast quadrant of Interstate .I -494 and Highway 100 (Exhibit 2). It featured 8 three story buildings and one four, story building surrounded by surface parking north of W. 77th Street ( "North Parcel ") and a "tower" of six stories in the southwest parcel surrounded by randomly placed one story office buildings with surface parking lots between ( "South Parcel "). The complex — like Southdale, the innovative 1950's era ' indoor shopping mall — was designed to accommodate the emerging car culture that was sweeping the country. Unlike Southdale, which was originally conceived to be a more complete mixed -use development, Pentagon Park was always intended to be office - focused and auto- centric. Access to the campus or getting to a restaurant for lunch was virtually impossible without a car. Today, the moribund buildings of Pentagon Park sit amidst a sea of surface parking lots, testament to changing times and tastes (Exhibit 6). Pentagon Revival, the development entity, has "stabilized" some of the buildings, attracting new tenants but the office park has outlived its useful life and the Applicant intends to completely re- imagine and rebuild on the site. The Applicant's affiliates own or control all of the property described in the Application which includes the,parcels identified as the "North Parcel "., "South Parcel ", "Walsh Title" and 7710 Computer Avenue (collectively, the "Property "). Context (Exhibits 3 and 4) Immediately north of the North Parcel is Fred Richards Golf Course, an approximately 42 -acre City -owned and operated facility which is. separated from Pentagon Park (Exhibit 5). The City is in the process of evaluating the.use of the Fred Richards land as a golf course and determining whether it should remain a golf course or be "repurposed" to another public use. North of the golf course is the Lake Edina neighborhood, which comprises single family houses, many of which surround the small lake. To the east of Pentagon Park is a district that includes a mix of business and multi - family housing. To the south, along West 77th Street, are a variety of businesses, the largest of which is Seagate Technology. The Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail will be constructed in 2015 and is proposed to be located along the northern property line of Pentagon Park. The exact configuration of the Regional Trail is not final. Depending; on the future disposition of the golf course, the Regional Trail could. shift north onto City property. Pentagon Park Master Term Sheet March 13, 2014 FOR CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Page 15 The south/west portion of Pentagon Park is. bounded by W. 77th to the north, Computer Avenue to the east, Viking Drive. to the south and Normandale Road and Highway 100 to the west. A variety of businesses are .located in the surrounding area. The Applicant The Applicant's membership includes Hillcrest Development, LLLP ( "Hillcrest "). Hillcrest's Managing General Partner Scott Tankenoff is the face of the Applicants development team. Scott has been the Managing Partner of Hillcrest since 1990. Hillcrest was founded in 1948 and is now a third generation company specializing in commercial renovation to suit its clients' facility needs for office, `hi -tech, biotechnology- medical research, light assembly, warehousing, manufacturing, and other commercial purposes. Membership in the Applicant is also owned by an- affiliate of Mark Raunenhorst. Mark has decades of development and construction expertise in most sectors of real estate development, including, office, retail and multi - family residential. All of Hillcrest's projects (over eighty to date) have been fully designed, developed,'built, leased, managed, aril owned by Hillcrest. Hillcrest has its own internal construction, leasing, and management groups. Hillcrest has enjoyed success in its business and renovation projects due to its hands -on approach toward redevelopment. Hillcrest's in -house development team consists of experienced construction, design, leasing, management, operations, and accounting personnel. This "hands -on'' approach streamlines the efficiency of the projects and provides for a quicker occupancy for Hillcrest's clients. Membership in the Applicant is also owned by an affiliate of Mark Raunenhorst. Mark has decades of development and construction expertise in multiple sectors of real estate development, including, office, retail and multi- family residential. The Application The Applicant is; seeking approval of the land uses, maximum densities and maximum building heights for the project. The Exhibits that accompany the Application illustrate several aspects of the Applicant's proposal. Specifically, the Applicant requests: a. Land Use. i. Hotel, office and retail on the South Parcel. ii. Office and retail on the North Parcel, Walsh Title and 7710 Computer Avenue Parcels. iii. Potential multi - family residential on the Property. b. Densities. Pentagon. Park Master Term Sheet March 13, 2014 FOR CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Page 16 1 i. 425 room hotel. ii. 1,400,000'square feet of office. iii. 40,000 square feet of retail. iv. 20,000 square feet of retail /medical/office on the Walsh Title Parcel. c. Height (Exhibit 15) i. 12 stories on the South Parcel and 7710 Computer Avenue Parcel. ii. In the future, the 'Applicant may request a, Comprehensive Guide Plan amendment for a hotel of over 12 stories in the location on the west side of the South Parcel, identified on Exhibit 15. iii. 2 stories on the Walsh Title Parcel. iv. 4 and 5 stories on the North Parcel. (Exhibits 13 and 14) In response to the unknown future, use of Fred Richards, the Applicant will present multiple options with respect to the configuration of stormwater and green space amenities. As discussed with the City Staff and presented at Sketch Plan review before the Planning Commission, and City Council, the Property needs to be rezoned to a Planned Unit Development in order to achieve the requisite density and land. Accordingly, the Applicant has filed these applications for the Property to be rezoned to a Planned Unit Development ( "PUD ") and for Preliminary Development Plan approval. The proposed redevelopment of the Property is a unique opportunity. The, redevelopment of the Property will do to the northeast quadrant of Interstate I -494 and Highway 100 what Centennial Lakes did for the southeastern portion of the City and what Normandale Lakes has done for the City of Bloomington. The unique opportunity and aspect of the Applicant's requests include substantial and procedural characteristics that include, with limitation: 1. The fact that the redevelopment of PUD is very different than the previous Planned Unit Development zoning districts that have been approved and adopted by the City, for several reasons, including, without limitation: a. While the current improvements are in severe blighted condition, the buildings could be stabilized if the PUD is not approved. Pentagon Park Master Term Sheet March 13, 2014 FOR CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Page 17 b. Stabilization would prevent redevelopment of the Property for another generation, and would cause for a massive lost opportunity, especially with the potential change in the use of Fred Richards. c. The size of the Property and proposed multi - phased project. d. The long term use of Fred Richards is unknown and a-PUD will provide flexibilities to respond to change in use. of the golf course, allowing for the integration of Pentagon Park into a repurposed Fred "Richards. 2. The proposed land uses, densities and building heights are either consistent with or less intense than what the Comprehensive Guide Plan, City Code and AUAR (updated in the summer in 2013) allow or anticipate. The requested density is less than alternatives in the AUAR and is close to the total gross square footage approved in the failed Gateway Plan approved by the City in 2008. 3. Because of the unique characteristics of the PUD request including the multi - phased development and the Applicants need to terminate leases or relocate tenants in the current office tower on the North Parcel prior to March 31S`; the Applications for rezoning and Preliminary Development Plan; do not contain architectural renditions, landscaping plans, drainage /grading plans or the other detailed plans called for in the City's form application submittal checklist. The details will not be available until Final Development Plan approval is requested by the Applicant when each phase is ripe for development. At each final stage, the Applicant will appear before the City Council and Planning Commission at sketch plan and Final approval, in addition to the Applicant's communication with City Staff, Planning Commissioners and elected officials. 4. While at the Sketch Plan meeting before the Planning Commission, certain commissioners requested additional detail on the Applicant's plan, including the relationship between pedestrians and the buildings on the North Parcel, the Applicant is not able to present more detail because the users and market factors are unknown. This is a market driven project. Certainty and time efficiency is necessary for success in today's market: which is a different paradigm then previous market conditions. Pentagon Park Master Term Sheet March 13, 2014 FOR CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Page 18 5. As discussed in this Narrative and illustrated in the Exhibits, Pentagon Park as a PUD will satisfy the PUD requirements of the City Code, because, as the Applicant has represented, the project will: a. Create a development that is consistent with the Comprehensive Guide Plan; b. Promote creative and efficient approach to land use; c. Provide variations to the strict compliance of the Code in order to improve design and to incorporate design elements that exceed City Standards to offset the effect of the Code deviation; d. Include sustainable design, greater utilization of new technologies in building design, special construction materials, landscaping, lighting, storm water management, pedestrian- orientated design and podium height at a street or transition to residential neighborhoods and parks; e. Ensure a high quality of design; f. Maintain or improve the efficiency of public streets; g. Preserve and enhance site characteristics; and h. Allow for mixing of land uses. 6. The Applicant requires preliminary approval of the PUD and the Preliminary Development Plan by March 18th (which is the last City Council meeting in March), so the Applicant has certainty on the uses, height and densities that will be allowed for the project. The Applicant is willing to proceed to move or terminate the existing tenants based on preliminary approvals, even though the PUD ordinance and Final Development plans will not be approved until the Applicant has submitted for Final Development approval, for each phase. 7. The risk/reward of granting preliminary approval without submittal of detailed plans (including architectural plans) are properly weighted, because the Applicant bears more risk than the City; and, notwithstanding the lack of `architectural' detail, the Applicant is willing to include items in the preliminary approval that include, without limitation, the following (which line up in large part with the 6 disciplines that the Council members, staff, Pentagon Park Master Term Sheet March 13, 2014 FOR CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Page 19 Planning commission and- neighbors have requested and are discussed in detail below): a. A higher % of green space (including water /ponding areas) than what is required by code. b. Storm water management (a majority) to bean amenity.` c. Storm water retention and clarification/treatment to current standards. d. Encourage bicycle and pedestrian transit; we need to provide more than an outside bike, rack and one stall shower at Pentagon Park. e. Provide upgraded transit shelters (two,at a minimum). f. 77th Street. upgraded consistent with November 6, 2013 plans and details, once 100,000 square feet or more of new development is in process or completed. g. 76th Parkway and green streets (north/south) once 80 -85% of Pentagon Park's new development construction is in process or completed. h. Upgrade Parklawn once 80 -85% of Pentagon Park's new development construction is in process or completed. i. Design similar /consistent with LEED standards; TBD (needs more study and understanding). j. Consideration of solar, especially on buildings north of 77th Street. k. Upgrade streets; upgrade pedestrian access around south parcel once . construction on the South parcel is 80 -85% in process or completed. 8. The Preliminary Approval will have more than sufficient project detail, procedural conditions, goals and standards to guide and define what is required in the Final Development Plan. for each phase. Architectural details would have to be reviewed and approved under the current MDD -6 category in any event: a PUD provides commercial densities to enable meaningful redevelopment of the Property to be feasible. Pentagon Park Master Term Sheet March 13, 2014 . FOR CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Page 20 The Vision The Applicant proposes to transform the Pentagon Park project area in phases, into a state -of- the -art development with an ,emphasis on office use. Other uses, including a hotel, restaurants and convenience retail, are all planned for the project. Housing will also be considered. The final mix of uses will depend on market demands. The Applicant has: (i).held two neighborhood community open houses; (ii) conducted a series of interviews, meetings and presentations with City Staff and elected officials; (iii) appeared at numerous joint City Council and Planning Commission workshops; (iv) appeared at multiple Rotary meetings and Chamber of Commerce events; and (v) presented the project at Sketch Plan review before the Planning Commission in December 2013 and to the City Council on January 7, 2014. These were productive and informative sessions that led the Applicant to identify various issues (Exhibit 7) and to develop an overall goal of integrating green infrastructure throughout the site, resulting in improved connectivity and porosity and linking transit, open space and the broader community to Pentagon Park (Exhibit 12).- An additional six primary principles (Exhibits 7 and 8) were developed through intake and discussions over many months of meetings with Council members, City Staff, neighbors and professionals, all of which will be integrated into any future plan of the site: Establish Green Streets (Exhibits 22 — 26) — The project will include a familiar pattern of streets and blocks as opposed to the current superblock design. The green streets will serve multiple needs, with the following goals: • Allow access into and out of the district, parking structures and to the City -owned property. ' • Provide "front door addresses" for businesses and other uses. • Integrate space for stormwater management. • Include on- street, parallel parking, to help reduce dependence on surface parking lots. • Provide continuous sidewalks for pedestrians on both sides of streets. • Include additional amenities, such as street trees, pedestrian -scale lighting, landscaping. Develop Integrated Stormwater (Exhibits 9 - 10 and Exhibits 16 — 21) — Stormwater currently sheet drains off the Pentagon Park site without clarification/treatment, or any substantive retention, burdening city, infrastructure on 77th Street and negatively impacting adjacent water bodies in the Fred Richards Golf Course area. The new development proposes to properly manage all stormwater on -site or in conjunction with a change in use of the Fred Richards with the following goals: Celebrate water creatively as an amenity (Exhibit 9), and integrate it into the overall Master Plan. • Connect the northern and southern sites with a surface water course. Pentagon Park Master Term Sheet March 13, 2014 FOR CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Page 21 • Provide "urban" infiltration basins (in lieu of standard basins) and/or "treatment trains" to cleanse water and allow it to penetrate and recharge the groundwater system. • Capture and re -use stormwater for irrigation and. other potential uses. • Use the stormwater system as a focus for recreation throughout the site. Create a Pedestrian Friendly 77th (Exhibit 22) — W. 77th Street .is : currently a five lane arterial road, with a continuous center lane used to turn both north and south into businesses at numerous locations. Currently, there is an inadequate 4' sidewalk immediately behind the curb on the south side and no sidewalk on the north side. There is a lack of access to transit stops. along 77th and poor connections to business for pedestrians or bicyclists. The City right -of -way only extends from curb to curb. The. new development proposes the following: • Work with private land owners (e.g. Pentagon Park, Seagate, and other businesses) to gain easements for gracious pedestrian sidewalks, enclosed transit shelters, street trees and pedestrian-scale lighting on both sides of 77. th • Connect to Green Streets (to the north) and consolidate and align business access roads;(to the south) to allow for development of a landscaped center median with left turn lanes at new intersections. • Provide safe and clearly defined crosswalks at green streetsibusiness access roads, with pedestrian "refuge" areas in the center median. • Identify one significant intersection of the redevelopment site to potentially receive a traffic signal. • Provide two I F through - traffic lanes in each direction to retain current street capacity for through traffic. Provide Key Connections (Exhibits 10, 14 and 16 — 21) — Presently, the south/west site — also called the "Tower Site" is an isolated island in the district and completely disconnected from the north/east site. Roads and fences further isolate Pentagon Park from its immediate and more distant neighbors. Links to transit -do not meet current accessibility standards. The project will include the following: • If the. golf course- on Fred Richards is decommissioned and transformed to a multi - purpose public space, the Applicant will pursue connections between the Tower Site and the North Parcel with a new bridge and underpass(Exhibit 10) ,beneath: W.:77th-, with enough clearance to allow bikes, pedestrians and a water channel to all. pass beneath. • Provide one connection to the new regional trail at the 77th underpass to the south/west site and another near the east end of the site to 77th to allow safe and easy access to improved transit shelters. • Integrate the North Parcel with Fred Richards, by extending "green streets" south through the new development to 77' (Exhibit 25). Pentagon Park Master Term Sheet March 13, 2014 FOR CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Page 22 • Provide sidewalks, safe crosswalks and other pedestrian- friendly facilities within the site to promote walking within the development, to transit and to other nearby places. Promote Multimodality (Exhibits 12 and 22 — 26) — At present, Pentagon Park and the surrounding district still rely heavily on car use. With all the issues related to favoring the car — oil dependency and the cost of gas, air pollution and ensuing climate change, social equity, etc. — this development will strive to promote multimodal access to the site, promoting easy access to the public -. The proposal recommends the following: • Provide safe access to transit shelters on 77t", and make them comfortable and inviting. • Link the regional trail to and through the new development to connect with transit to promote bicycle use as a serious form of transportation. as, well as a recreational, one. • Provide state -of -the -art bicycle facilities, including a repair facility, dedicated spots for shower and inside bike lockers. . • Create_ "complete streets" within the new development by calming traffic and providing safe and inviting sidewalks throughout. • Establish sidewalk connections to adjacent land uses to reduce dependence on the car and encourage walking. • Develop a recreational system both that promotes walking, health and wellness. Institute Shared Parking Strategies (Exhibit 11) — Currently, Pentagon Park is characterized by large surface parking lots, single -use facilities that consume vast amounts of land and sat empty at many times even during the heyday of the office park. This development aims to reduce surface parking lots using a multi - pronged strategy for parking. The following are recommended: • Invest in parking structures that are integrated into and serve the architecture of newly constructed buildings on the Property to the extent possible. • Locate at least one parking structure in close proximity to the Fred Richards site for events that may take place there. • Provide on- street parallel parking on all internal streets, including "bay parking" on the parkway street. • Provide one level of below -grade parking beneath buildings (one level is feasible). A number of concept diagrams were developed to illustrate how these principles could be translated onto the Pentagon park site and illustrate potential redevelopment scenarios (Exhibits 16, 17, 19 -21). Based upon feedback provided by Staff, Community, Planning Commission and Council a hybrid concept was developed (Exhibit 18) that reflected additional public comments.. Although, the details of the redevelopment will change depending upon market forces, it reinforced the strong community interest in the site and the Pentagon Park Master Term Sheet March 13, 2014 FOR CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Page 23 redevelopment process. It was clear a strategic process was needed to achieve the results all stakeholders desired. Planned Unit Development (PUD) The creation of a Planned Unit Development District is appropriate for a site of this size and potential. The Mayor, Council and Planning Commission, in addition to the Applicant and Staff, are in agreement that this. project offers unique_ opportunities that exceed normal City standards for the current zoning classification (MDD -6). In addition, the land use, height and density requests of the Applicant are either consistent with or less, intense than requirements described in the Guide Plan, Code and AUAR. .A two -step planning process` is required to achieve the redevelopment goals the community has identified and `the quality of 'development the Applicant envisions (Exhibit 1). The redevelopment of approximately 42 .acres will take a number of years to achieve and flexibility is needed to capitalize on opportunities as the market forces change over time. The two -step approach envisions a preliminary PUD approval (step -one) which will set the overall land use,. height and'density requirements for the site and allow the Applicant to begin to. market the overall' concept of the Pentagon park redevelopment to potential tenants. The second -step will.bring forward individual site development proposals for final PUD approval, allowing the City to review detailed project features at a sketch plan level and at a final development level.. This provides the City with final approval of any projects to be constructed at Pentagon `Park. As summarized above, the Preliminary PUD approval being sought in this submittal focuses on three primary aspects: land -use, density and height (Exhibits 13 -15). South Parcel and 7710 Computer Avenue The South parcel or "Tower Site" envisions approximately 500,000 gross square feet(GSF) of office use in multiple buildings that do not exceed 12 stories in height, approximately 25,000 GSF _of service retail and restaurants to support proposed uses and the surrounding community and an approximately 375 -425 room hotel that may exceed 12 stories depending upon the proposed hotel operator. The Applicant seeks approval of a 12 story concept in the Preliminary PUD approval, but may seek approval for additional stories at the time of Final approval if the hotel.concept warrants consideration beyond the Preliminary PUD approval. Parking ramps to accommodate approximately 1,400 vehicles to support the density and use envisioned on the South Parcel. Walsh Title Parcel Directly north of the South Parcel is the existing Walsh Title site. This is a remnant parcel from the historic Pentagon Park campus and provides a key connection point to link the South Parcel to the future regional trail and to Fred Richards. A two story of approximately 20,000 GSF Retail/Medical /Office use is envisioned for this site that supports surrounding Pentagon Park Master Term Sheet March 13, 2014 FOR CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Page 24 uses and enriches the connection between the south parcel and the northern public green space. A combination of underground and surface parking is likely to support the proposed uses on this parcel. North Parcel The North Parcel situated between 77th Street and the southern edge of the Fred Richards site envisions approximately 900,000 GSF of office uses and approximately 15,000 GSF of retail. A residential component could potentially be included in the North Parcel if the market demand exists. A stepped approach to height is envisioned, transitioning from 5 stories adjacent to 77th Street to a maximum of 4 stories along Fred Richards to relate to the public open space and neighborhood to the north. Four ,parking ramps accommodating at total of 3,600 vehicles are proposed to support the density of use envisioned on the North Parcel. The potential to share this parking with the community to support uses on red Richards is a possibility as the vision for that site crystalizes over the next year. Although, the redevelopment of Pentagon Park will be driven by market demand and the details of a final PUD plan will come at a later date, the Applicant envisions a master Preliminary Development Plan that is: Sustainable — The redevelopment will strive to promote sustainability in every sense of the word, including creating a well connected, multi -modal project that encourages other means of movement than ' the car, employs active and passive solar energy systems, harvests, manages and re -uses rainwater on -site, promotes energy - efficient architecture and landscape, etc mixed -use office development. (Neighborhood Design) project. . This project has the potential to be a model for Consideration will be given to creating a LEED -ND Innovative — The project will focus on innovation at all levels. The Preliminary Development Plan will propose integration of systems using district -wide strategies, including parking, management of water, circulation, heating and cooling. All systems will be addressed in concert. The synergies between systems can also extend to the adjacent City -owned property to further capture opportunities for innovation. Contextual — The project will create a new paradigm for the Pentagon Park district, establishing a more familiar pattern of streets and blocks (may be of varying sizes). In essence, this new development will set the tone for the future of the district — more porous and more transit, bicycle and pedestrian friendly. Adaptable — Cities typically consist of a'- framework of _streets and blocks within which a variety of land uses can coexist and evolve over time. This project proposes to establish that framework and encourage all building to have adaptability as a key design criterion. Pentagon Park Master Term Sheet March 13, 2014 FOR CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Page 25 Incremental — It is also important to create a place that can evolve comfortably over time., This project will take many years to complete, but it needs to feel like a welcoming place, early in the process. A well crafted public realm with well- conceived green and blue infrastructure will be critical to its success. Efficient — Because this project will be designed from scratch, efficiencies in everything from road design, utilities layout, stormwater management,. parking locations and synergies, to accommodations for increased transit service, can all be conceived during the final PLTD planning process, resulting in a more cohesive and innovative development. Aesthetically Pleasing — It is critical that the design of all facets of Pentagon Park, from architecture, landscape and infrastructure be aesthetically pleasing while functioning seamlessly together. With top -tier amenities and aesthetics, the project will set .itself apart _from the competition, much like Centennial Lakes and 50th and France have in the past. Health / Safety /Comfort — The project will promote walking, bicycling and transit use that makes them attractive, safe, and viable alternatives to the car. The design will create "complete streets" that serve all users equally, calming .the car and providing the necessary infrastructure for safe walking and cycling. In addition, the design will provide recreational walking trails that connect to the regional trail and nearby streets to encourage. walking over the noon hour or before and after work. Economically Viable — By providing the innovative features that have been discussed in this narrative, the renewed Pentagon Park will create a buzz and attract businesses that might otherwise look elsewhere. Cool and livable environments have become requisite in today's competitive workplace; providing the.perks will translate to a stronger bottom line. Podium Height — Edina has spent a great deal of time considering the impact of building height on the public realm. This redevelopment will honor that work by establishing appropriate podium heights in relation to setbacks from the street. It is important, to remember that the best street envelopes are well - defined by architecture and landscape; the project guidelines need to find the sweet spot where buildings don't overwhelm pedestrians but still provide a strong and attractive edge that defines a better public realm. The Comprehensive Guide Plan challenges the City in its mission to guide the .development and redevelopment of lands, all in a manner that sustains and .improved the uncommonly high quality of life enjoyed by our residents and businesses. Pentagon Park Master Term Sheet March 13, 2014 FOR CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Page 26 It is a once in a generation opportunity to be presented with an application for approximately 42 acres by an Applicant that not only currently owns or controls all of the Property, but understands the importance of the City's mission statement and the relationship to a potentially re- purposed Fred Richards. Pentagon Park Master Term Sheet March 13, 2614 FOR CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION - Page 27 EXHIBIT 3 PHASING DIAGRAM [SEE ATTACHED] Pentagon Park Master Term Sheet March 13, 2014 FOR CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Page 28 LAKE,EDINA PARK Kel Statistics Land Use Structured Parking South Parcel: Hotel - 375 - 425 Rooms A 1,400 STALLS Office - 500,000 GSF B 1,400 STALLS Retail - 25,000 GSF C 800 STALLS North Parcel: Office - 900,000 GSF D 800 STALLS Retail - 15,000 GSF E 800 STALLS Walsh Tile: Retail /Medical /Office - 20,000 GSF F 1,200 STALLS o + rJ F / FRED;RICHARDS GOLF COU SE \i 3 4 1 PHASE_ _�� PHASE \ / 76TH ST PARKWAY BURGUNDY PLACE 1 1 1 W 77TH ST LS 1 1 1 J TITL � PHASE - i, � � � ; ;• BARRENGINEERING W 77TH UNDERPASS 1 Lk B W 77TH ST 0 1 �� 4s ' z i v v VIKING DR 1 ii 1 1 1 1 1� PHASE 1 .� MMIIIIIIIIIIiiiii, 1 >¢ r f s ' ; n IL 1 1 _ 5� 1 Regional Trail by Others Trail Connection Parkway h� M 77th �C>Q = Supporting Streets =Green Streets Internal Streets M Parking = Building ® Stormwater Feature GQ Open Space C; Underpass ® Transit Shelter O District Markers W 76TH ST 0' 250' 500' owomww DAMON FARBER ASSOCIATES PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PHASES ENTA PARK� BOB CLOSE STUDIO, LLC EDINA, MN - MARCH 6, 2014 ow e;� ch To: MAYOR & COUNCIL Agenda Item #: IX. A. From: Debra Mangen Action EK City Clerk Discussion ❑ Date: March 18, 2014 Information ❑ Subject: Correspondence Action Requested: No action is necessary. Attachment: Attached is correspondence received since the last Council meeting. City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 Heather Branigin From: Linda Forret <laforret @gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2014 4:45 PM To: Edina Mail; j6nibdnnettl2 @comcast.net; mbrine @comcast.net; joshsprague @edinarealty.com; swensonannl @gm.com Subject: Fred Richards Golf Course My name is Linda Forret and a resident of St. Louis Park. As a rep for our golf team, I am informing you of our support for Fred Richards golf course. We are a team of 30 -40 women who have a league and have used this course for a number of years. If the course is closed we will be taking our team to another course and it will not be Braemar. The Park Board has missed the point on why it should keep the course open and the golfer it attracts to go there. In the last meeting it was stated that 50% of the players from Fred would go to Braemar. WHERE DID THEY GET THAT NUMBER? In the last meeting it was stated a survey results said Fred was the least used public place in Edina. WHEN WAS THE SURVEY, WHO WAS IT SENT TO? Hmmm, did they send it to those outside of Edina? Golf is declining so hmmm maybe the results are not very valid. . I have several other points that should be challenged and hopefully will come up in the meeting tonight. Heather Branigin From: Susan Soule <sulb3so @comcast.net> Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2014 5:06 PM. To: Ann Swenson; Josh Sprague; Mary Brindle (Comcast); Joni Bennett; Edina Mail Subject: Fred Richards Concerns Attachments: Dear Mayor Hovland.doc Dear Mayor Hovland and City Council Members, Attached is a letter of concern in regard to the proposed changes for Fred Richards Golf Course. I hope you will consider the information and opinions I have included. Thank you very much, Susan Soule Edina, MN i Dear Mayor Hovland and City Council Members, First of all, thank you, Mayor Hovland, for attending the community meeting at Braemar. Our neighborhood residents appreciate your respect and openness to our strong concerns. Many of us feel there has been a rush to judgment and a lack of transparency in regard to the Fred Richards issue and are grateful for your responsiveness. I personally'am troubled by the impression that more heed is paid to developers than is paid to long -term residents who have been supporting the city with their hard - earned tax dollars for decades. We chose to live here because of the quality of life including excellent schools, good parks and easy access to the urban core without the density and bustle of same. I feel this quality is being compromised. John Valliere, Business then General Manager of Braemar Golf Course for over 40 years of its near 50 -year existence, kindly provided information and insight into the courses' development over the years. His document was, in his words, written to "enlighten residents and inform present decision makers of the remarkable improvements that were made with course revenues and without tax funding ... [but with] the city council, park board and staff... instrumental in the decision making process" (underlining my own). I feel his comments bear additional weight in light of his experience as past - president of the Minnesota Golf Association and 20 years as Committeeman for the United States Golf Association. Any error or facts I attribute to my own misinterpretation. From his review, I found certain points of special interest: 1) "The Richards course was paid for by the golfers at Braemar." In fact, Braemar has a history of fiscal integrity and cooperation. Of the original land costs of $500,000 for the Braemar-Golf Course and Arena, the golf course half was paid for by the course while the $250,000 for the Ice Arena was forgiven by the City Council and, for a period, profits of $75,00.0 from the golf dome were transferred to the Arena. As Braemar play declined, bond costs were growing, but a request by Mr.Valliere to rebond while bond rates were favorable was denied and "[I]iquor... monies were transferred in to help bridge until the bonds were retired in 2013. It was understood that these funds should be repaid when revenues rebounded." 2) "Do not forget the Richards course is now paid for and greens fees are approaching a point where it may become a profit center." What are the costs to taxpayers of converting Fred Richards to a park or other green space? Where would the revenue come from to maintain it in its new form? 3) "Next you have the loss to the community of a beginner /seniors course that serves both Edina and Richfield." This is important in two ways, First, as resident Mike Welbaum pointed out to city and park board leaders in his letter of February 4th, the "'Proposed Changes' claim that `no golfers will be displaced' is unsupported and na'ive ... at best. New, young casual and senior golfers have little interest in hilly [and challenging] terrain:.. It is unlikely that all of these clients will ... [transferl to Braemar as assumed." Secondly, the continuance of Fred Richards, by allowing young and casual golfers to gain confidence and skills, will provide a feeder system for the ongoing success of Braemar. 4) Braemar has just "experienced a perfect storm of unending _rain a golf dome burning down, and fairways that came out of winter essentially dead" resulting in an atypical reduction in revenue. As we all know, figures can be massaged to support different-ends. To make major changes based on the most recent figures is unwise. The return of the dome in addition to increased revenues from the proposed improvements to the already. - popular driving range provide a much different picture. 5) "With some dedicated marketing I believe the revenues could be grown considerably. This should be approached with marketing people who KNOW GOLF. The same marketing efforts could apply at Braemar [as well as Fred Richards]." In sum, Fred Richards is a community resource that is paid for and has a revenue stream in place that is close to becoming a profit center. In Mr. Valliere's informed opinion, the revenues could grow considerably with experienced golf marketing. Any changes to the Richards space and ongoing maintenance thereof will have their own costs. Who will pay for them? Fred Richards was paid for by revenue from Braemar golfers and can in turn be a feeder system that contributes to Braemar's long -term success. Braemar as a whole is a vital part of the community. It has contributed excess revenues to other city interests in the past while receiving help in turn. Richards is a special resource for young and old alike. It is a good neighbor for those of us who live nearby, an amenity that influenced our reasons for buying here. I am sure. there are many in Edina like my husband and myself who have never had a child in the Edina Schools, who have never set foot on the ice at Braemar arena or used the over- expanding athletic fields and facilities. Yet we have supported them through our votes and our tax dollars because we believe they contribute to the overall quality of life here. We would appreciate it if you would respect our contributions and our opinions about what we think makes our community special. Sincerely, Susan Soule West Shore Drive Edina, MN Heather Branigin From: cbrimacombe @comast.net Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2014 7:54 PM To: Edina Mail Subject: Contact Us form submission Name: Connie Brimacombe Organization: Website: Address 1: Address-2: 4413 Rutledge Ave. City: Edina State: MN Zip—Code: 55436 Email: cbri macombe(cDcomast. net Phone:9529266206 Referrer: Message: Mayor James Hovland, You are invited to a meeting. Room Request The request is saved for: Contact: Connie Brimacombe At: Edina Room: F. Scott Fitzgerald Room 220 Date(s): Thursday, March 20, 2014 Time: 1:30 PM to 2:00 PM The request confirmation number is HLWDKCO A casual presentation with a few minutes for dialoge at the end. My caring heart for the students and staff of Edina Public Schools. 1 Heather Branigin From: Robert <robertstout @centurylink.net> Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 1:31 AM To: Edina Mail Subject: March 4th council meeting Dear Council members, I first want to say that I truly appreciate and thank you for the time and effort you all put in to your work for the City of Edina. I attended the meeting as a member of Save the Fred and a course border resident. As a fiscal conservative I can't deny the financial problems facing the city's golf operations and understand the need for addressing the issue. I'm not a numbers person and can't speak to the details explained by the staff so I was getting pretty down during the presentation. I was then pleased to see the response from the representatives for the residents. The data they put forth indicates to me that this is not a cut and dry issue at this time. In the end closing Fred Richards may be the best option however that is not fully proven to me yet. Rumors of closing Fred Richards had been around since June of 2013. 1 expected discussions would be forth coming. I, as a resident, was not officially informed that there.were major financial problems with the golf operations until January 2014. That official notice was "Close Fred Richards' and there is less than 30 days before the vote. Shell shock! If the residents had been brought into the loop by the city staff earlier in the process there would be no rumors and no suspicion of the Council and the Pentagon development. Back to March 4`h. It appeared a delay in the decision to close Fred Richards so staff and resident discussions could take place was gaining ground. Council member Sprague then said he's not willing to wait as the financial situation has been going on for years. That voiced opinion is disingenuous and attempts to quash the well - reasoned and thought out presentations by the residents. I ask the remaining Council members to vote to extend the life of Fred Richards Golf Course to allow that discussion to take place. If those discussions still indicate closing Fred Richards is the best solution, so be it. The residents will have had our chance to discuss not just comment. That is the American way, in my opinion. Thank you, Robert Stoutenburgh 7449 W Shore Dr. Edina, MN 55435 This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. i Heather Branigin From: Pat Manion <pmanion @originalmktg.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 7:45 AM To: Pat Manion; jonibennettl2 @comcast.net; Edina Mail; Mary Brindle (Comcast); joshsprague @edinarealty.com; swensonannl @gmaii.com Subject: RE: Braemar Golf operation Good Morning, Unfortunately, I was not able to attend last evening because of a client dinner but I did catch some of the meeting on Channel 16. Some further thoughts: • Last week I was seated next to Wayne Kostroski on a flight to Phoenix. I believe you all know that Wayne has been an Edina resident and has owned Tejas and Franklin Street Bakery. When I told him that the City planned to outsource the Braemar Grill and make $100,0001 from not making any money currently ) over the next 5 years. He laughed. I would be happy to put " staff" in touch with Wayne or Rick Webb or Larry D'Amico to get their input. I am just guessing they have not been asked for an.opinion when both Wayne and Rick live in Edina. • If Fred does not make any money why not OUTSOURCE it to someone who can. Has the City asked Dave Mooty ( I heard his letter read last night) if he would be interested in taking over Fred and have a revenue sharing with the City? I am quite sure " staff " has not looked into out sourcing The Fred. • I heard Mayor Hovland speak to selling the Clunie 9 to a developer to build homes . PURE genius. Have you talked to Midland Hills in St. Paul? They were struggling and sold off some land to a developer to build . townhouses. They took that money and build a' brand new clubhouse and renovated the entire course. I know the President of Midland Hills ( John Hamburger... yes real name) and would be happy to put " staff " in touch, • I read in today's Star Trib that the soccer Borne/ /outdoor rink project is_ 2M over estimates because of unforeseen causes. Where these previous estimates done by " staff "? If yes, how can you or the Citizens believe their numbers on the Braemar Golf Operations? • The entire Braemar Golf Operations scenario looks like.....the purchase of Edina Realty Building, the bike lanes painted on Wooddale and the eminent domain of the Hootens Cleaners building.... Ready, fire aim. Please delay your March 181h vote to close Fred. Form a " staff and citizen's committee and figure out a way to totally improve the financials and experience of golfing in Edina. There are many retired CFO's and CEO's and others that are brilliant business people. If you asked for volunteers to form a committee I think you would be amazed by the response and talent. From: Pat Manion Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2014 8:06 AM To: jonibennettl2 @comcast.net'; 'mail @EdinaMN.gov'; 'mbrindle @comcast.net'; 'joshsprague @edinarealty.com'; 'swensonannl @gma il. com' Subject: Braemar Golf operation Good Morning, As a matter of public record I have taken a "few dollars" off of Mayor Hovland on Braemar Golf Course. Of course, I suppose a lot of residents could say that. For the record, I no longer play golf at Fred Richards or Braemar. My 3 son's sometimes do. I did attend the Golf Course operation meeting that was presented by Scott Neal. Observations // solutions are as follows: • Agreed that golf course rounds are down and so are revenues. Has anyone { staff, who are these people. They were referred to at least 20 times during the meeting } looked at the horrible weather and the fact the golf dome has been down for two years? • Have you all read this weekend's Star Tribune article on Keller Golf Course ? You could certainly substitute Braemar Golf in the article. Yes; the clubhouse and course and range are VERY tired. The current band aid solution is NOT the correct solution. • The majority of you { not Joni Bennett } just passed a 13 Million dollar bond to pay for outdoor hockey, soccer dome etc. I am ALL for that even though,our 3 son's are almost out of Edina. P Why don't all of you put up another 13M bond { put it to vote and I believe it will pass } to upgrade the entire City of Edina Golf Operations. We were told the 13M bond was only cost $60 per household. Another $60 per household would pass.'with flying-colors. • With 500 acres•to work with and 13M to proceed the City could build a brand new clubhouse ,driving range and redesign the golf course to bring it'all up to the 2014 standards and beyond. • All of the leagues and youth would move over to Fred and the architect could use all of acreage at Braemar to build a world class golf experience. It could be the best public venue in the state if you do it right. • There is no need to close Fred { yes, it does make money } unless of course the City'has already cut a deal with Hillcrest Development.. • Edina CC just completed a 3.5 M course renovation. Because of this there is currently a waiting list to join and the rounds are up . Braemar would be the same scenario. Do not close Fred. Move all leagues young and old over there. Tune up a "tired" Braemar Golf Course, driving range and clubhouse. Take it to the citizens of Edina to vote!!! Patrick Manion 6121 Crescent Dr. Edina ,MN.55436 Cell: 612 - 750 -4017 Phone: 952 - 941 -2530 Fax: 952 - 941 -6566 2 Heather Branigin From: James <jbjenk0l @msn.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 7:48 AM To: James Hovland Subject: Re: Fred Richards - Comments from a Edina Golfer Good morning Mayor Hovland, Thank "you for how you chaired the Council meeting last might. The Edina Golf Operations discussion is clearly an emotional issue and staying objective is a challenge for all of us. My concern from the beginning, starting at the January meeting, was that the assumptions underlying,the'decision to include closing Fred Richards as a firm decision as a condition of moving forward with preserving what everyone believes is ,a true asset to the city were not well developed. The result was a set of numbers'that biased the decision in a way that did not make sense from "a pure business perspective. Your questions.and comments last night indicated to me you have some of.the same concern. My disappointrnent.last night was that the Staff was, not professional enough to.acknowledge that making a soft close decision and revisiting their.assumptions without delaying the whole program is the right thing to 'do at this time. I still believe there:is no financial risk to the city of taking this approach and hope you and the council will agree. Assuming that we will have a new and improved par 3 course at Braemar anytime before very late in the 2015 golf season is totally unrealistic in my opinion. I would Love to believe it, but to build the plan on that assumption is not a risk I would take as a business man. Thanks again for keeping an open mind and really listening to what I think we are all trying to communicate. Jim Jenkins Home 952.944.3382 Cell 612.799.8045 <,br> Email jbienk01@msn.com - -�- Original Message - -- From: James Hovland To: 'James' Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2014 2:23 PM Subject: RE: Fred Richards - Comments from a Edina Golfer You are welcome and have a wonderful rest of your dayl - <! - -[if !vml]- - > <! -- Lynette Biunno, Receptionist 952 - 927 -8861 1 Fax 952 - 826 -0389 `[endif] __> IbiunnoCalEdinaMN.gov i www.EdinaMN.gov For Living, Learning, Raising Families .l Doing Business From: James [mailto:JBJENK01 @msn.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2014 2:15 PM To: James Hovland Subject: Re: Fred Richards - Comments from a- .Edina Golfer Thank you for taking the time to read and forward my email. I am a proud Edina resident who only wants what best for the city. I hope my input will help make what is an important decision. Jim Jenkins Home 952.944.3382 Cell 612.799.8045 Email Lienk01(@msn.com - - - -- Original Message - - -- From: James Hovland To: 'James' Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2014 2:09 PM Subject: RE: Fred Richards - Comments from a Edina Golfer Dear Jim, Thank you for your interest in the City of Edina. I have forwarded your message to the Mayor and Council members, City Manager Scott Neal and Parks and Recreation Director, Ann Kattreh. If I can be of additional assistance to you please contact me. [ ] [if vml]-- > <!-- [endif]- - > <! -- Lynette Biunno, Receptionist [endlf] - -> 952- 927 -8861 I Fax 952- 826 -0389 1 I Ibiunno0EdinaMN.gov I www.EdinaMN.gov l'.._ ...For Living, Learning, Raising Families & U)oing Business From: James fmailto:JBJENK01 anmsn.com] Sent: Monday, March 03, 2014 4:32 PM To: James Hovland Subject: Fred Richards - Comments from a Edina Golfer Dear Mayor Hovland: We have met on a few occasions including Ron Way's annual get together. As a long time golfer and member at Braemar since 1984, I appreciate playing Braemar weekly as well as a variety of other golf courses on occasion. I have watched the course decline in quality in the last 10 -12 years relative to other premier golf courses in the Twin Cities and surrounding area. Braemar is a tremendous asset to the community and'to golfers who do not want to drive 20 -50 miles to play a premier course. My personal view is that the decline in play over the last 10 years is heavily influenced by the quality of the course and restoring the course to its past condition will result in many more rounds than has been forecasted in the financials presented in the report prepared by staff. Braemar saves 1 -3 hours of time to golfers who now drive a long distance to play a quality course. The recent policy,of allowing patrons who live outside of Edina will also make a difference,in the rounds played if the course and driving range are brought back to their prior quality. Regarding Fred Richards, I am disappointed in how this whole matter has been handled. My personal review of the assumptions and financials associated with the decision to closed Fred in 2015 makes no sense to me. If implemented as proposed we will have no executive or par 3 course in 2015. My personal analysis of this convinces me that Fred Richards, on an operations basis excluding the debt payback, has not been a drain on the budget and in fact it has made money over.the last several years. The debt is now paid. I also believe it has the potential to compliment the overall golf operations plan from a vision of golf and financial perspective. In the proposed plan closing Fred Richards will mean people who have been playing the executive courses at both venues will be driven to another course and .potentially lost as future patrons. It also means the revenue from both courses will be lost. If properly promoted and managed this could translate to a positive profit and cash flow contribution to the overall upgrade program in 2015 and beyond. In any case deferring the decision to close Fred in 2015 does not add any financial risk to the process and appears to be a prudent business decision. Everyone, including the Save Fred Richards group, clearly wants the council to approve the improvement program. It would be a win /win for all of us if the decision to close Fred was deferred and 2 reconsidered, as part of the overall Edina golf master plan that is scheduled to be developed over the next several months. Jim Jenkins Home 952.944.3382 Cell 612.799.8045 Email jbjenk0l(@msn.com 3 Heather Braniain From: Lynette Biunno Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 10:13 AM To: Scott Neal; Ann Kattreh Subject: FW: The Fred Richards golf course. Good morning, This message has been forwarded to the Mayor and Council members, Scott Neal and Ann Kattreh. For the latest information on the department that builds community through people, parks and programs, check out our bloq. From: Jackie Hoogenakker Sent: Wednesday; March 05, 2014 9:14 AM To: Janet Canton Subject FW: The Fred Richards golf course. Jackie Hoogenakker, Administrative Support Specialist 952- 826 -0465 1 Fax 952- 826 -0389 4801 W. 50th St. I Edina, MN 55424 I; JHoogenakker(@EdinaMN.gov I Aw .EdinaMN.gov 1l� ...For Living, Darning, Raising Families &. Doing Business From: Bernadette Daly [mailto:bndaly60Cla yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, March 03, 2014 4:13 PM To: Jackie Hoogenakker - Subject: The Fred Richards golf course. As a resident of Sedum Lane whose property backs on to the Fred Richards golf course I urge the council to table this consideration until all residents have had a chance to have their concerns addressed. An alternative thoughtful proposal has been presented to the Mayor and the council members by our concerned group. I urge you to read it carefully and consider the very valid. points it makes. Bernadette Daly. i Heather Branigin From: Doug Nelson <dnelson @theminikandaclub,com> Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 1:50 PM To: Edina Mail Subject: Hovland /Neal Gentlemen Is it possible to obtain a copy of the Golf Operations budget for 2014? I thought the Meeting last night was quite informative. I was only surprised in that the Golf Staff was not represented yet they are the ones to carry out. the work. (at least I would think so) Thank you for your time. Doug Nelson 6117 Oaklawn Ave Golf Professional The Minikanda Club i Heather Branigin From: Phomtalikhith, Pounnaphone < Pounna phone. Phomtalikhith@ mail, house.gov> Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 5:43 PM To: Edina Mail Subject: Congressman Ellison's March 17th Event Dear Mayor Hovland: This is a friendly reminder following up on a letter sent to you by Congressman Keith Ellison about an informational meeting on public safety.and immigrant populations. The meeting will be held on Monday. March 17, 2014, from 2:00 -' 3:30 p.m. at the Golden Valley City Council Chamber, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, MN 55427. We hope to have the pleasure of your company for this discussion. For questions or to RSVP, please contact me or Aya Johnson at a_ ya.iohnson @mail.house.gov. We can also be reached by phone at (612) 522 - 1212. Congressman Ellison looks forward to seeing you on Monday, March 17. Sincerely, Pounnaphone Phomtalikhith, Intern Office of Congressman Keith Ellison (MN -05) 2100 Plymouth Ave North J Minneapolis, MN 55411 Office: (612) 522 -1212 E -mail: Pounnaphone .phomtalikhith @mail.house.gov Website: www.ellison.house.gov E- Newsletter - Twitter - Facebook - Flickr - YouTube This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the person(s) to whom it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you receive this communication in error, please notify me immediately by email, telephone or fax and delete the original from your records. Thank you. Heather Branigin From: Paul Zdechlik <paulzdechlik @usfamily.net> Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2014 5:28 AM To: Edina Mail; jonibennettl2@comcast.net; Mary Brindle (Comcast); joshsprague @edinarealty.coin; swensonannl @gmail.com Subject: Fred Richards consideration Hello- all: In the city council meeting, the .mayor brought up that the city had previously hired a consultant for this issue. and hone of their recommendations included closing the Fred. I liked :the mayor suggesting the idea of selling the "Klune nine,at Braemar for some housing lots, Klune is a difficult nine holes that most golfer don't like. I would guess•the profits from the sale would pay for upgrading the driving .range. Braemar and the Fred. Edina is lucky in that marry young families want to live here for the schools and`Auality of the city's amenities. I can't take my kids to the executive course to learn how to play golf. It is too competitive and fast. Fred is a great asset. Please keep it for the future of Ldina. Maybe this isn't about the Pentagon Park plan, but it does seem rushed. 'Phis needs thoughtful consideration of all options to improving the golfing: experience and building Edina golf into a self-sustaining entity. Thank vou. Paul Zdechlik Heather Branigin From: chetfunk @gmail.com on behalf of Chet Funk <chet.funk @mycafeinc.com> Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2014 10:45 AM To: Edina Mail Subject: Thank You from Cafe Inc To Mayor Hovland and the Edina City Council Members, It was an honor to have Mayor Hovland join us in cutting the ribbon at Cafe Inc this past month. As we has now established our operations,) Cafe Inc would enjoy extending our meeting spaces to the City of Edina at no cost to your team. In the event your group is looking for a productive space to meet offsite, Cafe Inc would be happy to host any City of Edina team members on a regular basis. Thank you again for welcoming our company to the City, and we look forward to working with you all in the near future! Many Regards, Chet. Funk General Manager I Cafe Inc.TM I Work BrilliantlyTM I m: 651.332.0366 LAYCofE_I On I T_witi_Pr I l_idk--e >c;ln i Facebook Watch a Video Overview of Cafe Inc 1 Heather Branigin From: Larisa Jenrich <jenri001 @umn.edu> Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2014 11:44 AM Subject: Save- the -Dates for Linking Land Use to Clean Water workshops exclusively for local community leaders! Attachments: LandUse- SavetheDate.pdf City council members, planning commissioners, park board members, watershed advisory board members, and other community leaders — An invitation for you to participate in a series of opportunities to enhance your knowledge about the connections of land use, land management, and clean water resources in your community and learn about the tools and resources available to.assist you in your leadership roles. 2014 Linking Land Use to Clean Water workshops include May S, May 14, July 23, and September 25. See the attached postcard for more information. Workshop details and registration will be available around April 1. Information will be sent to you via email or your city staff may have printed material to provide for you. You may also check the NEMO website for details http : / /northlandnemo.org/programs.litml by date of the workshop offering. These opportunities are being brought to you through the University vf'Minnesoto in partnership with Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission, Carver Water Management Organization, Minnehaha Creek Watershed Districl, Nine Mile Creek Watershed District, and the Riley- Purgatory -Bluff Creek Watershed District. Sent on behalf of the University of Minnesota Extension NEMO program Larisa Jenrich University of Minnesota Extension 651- 480 -7732 Linking Land Use to Clean Water Making the Connection for Community leaders U.NivF,RSI"rY 0 .1' I `I:. C.l'CA EXI'ENSION Linking Land Use to Clean Water — Making the Connection for Community Leaders An invitation to elected and appointed officials including city council members, planning commission members, park board mem- bers, watershed advisory board members, and other city and community leaders. The May 8"h and May 14th (5:00 -9:00 pm) workshops will provide recent science and information.on: the connections between land use decisions and the management of stormwater runoff, impervious surfaces, and nonpoint source pollutants; available technical and fi- nancial resources; and groundwater concerns facing Minnesota communities. Communities invited include: Belle Plaine Bloomington Carver Chanhassen Chaska Cologne Crystal Deephaven Eden Prairie Edina Excelsior Golden valley Greenwood Hopkins Independence Laketown Township Long Lake Maple Plain Mayer Medina Medicine Lake Minneapolis Minnetonka Minnetonka Beach Minnetrista Mound New Germany New Hope Norwood Young America Orono Plymouth Richfield Robbinsdale Shorewood - Spring Park St. Bonifacius St. Louis Park Tonka Bay Victoria Waccnia Watertown Wayzata Woodland Workshops presented by University of Minnesota in cooperation with: Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission, Carver Water Management Organization, Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, Nine Mile Creek Watershed District and the Riley- Purgatory -Bluff Creek Watershed District More information and registration available after April lst www.northiandnemo.org All rights reserved. University of Minnesota Extension is an equal 0000munity educator and employer. In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, this material Is available in alternative formats upon request. Heather Branigin From: Frazell, Kevin <KFrazell @lmc.org> Sent: Friday; March 07, 201410:25 AM To: pattyacomb @yahoo.com'; 'kj.anderson3311 @gmail.com'; gbarope @eminnetonka.com'; jonibennett12 @comcast.net'; mbilderback @rochestermn.gov'; Brede, Ardell; Mary Brindle (Comcast); 'timbusse @hotmail.com'; ' ashley .fairbanks @ min neapol ism n.gov'; jconsidine @city.mankato.mn.us'; Annie Coyle; 'mayor @ci.rose mount. mn.us'; jane.eastwood @ci.stpaul.mn.us'; Frazell, Kevin; 'edwinagarcia44 @gmail.com'; Goettel, Debbie; ' smarschall @cityofapplevalley.org'; ' smarschall @ci.apple- valley.mn.us'; jimhamilton @pacemn.com'; 'patharrisl @comcast.net'; Edina Mail; 'thowe @coonrapidsmn.gov'; 'eiago @cityofwsp.org'; 'dave Jacobsen @newbrightommn.gov'; 'andrew johnson@minneapolismn.gov'; Johnson, Marvin; 'pJ37 @comcast.net'; Johnson, Shaunna; 'mitchell.kilian @mspmac.org'; 'dklint @coonrapidsmn.gov'; jkoch @coonrapidsmn.gov'; jeanette .clawson @ci.owatonna.mn.us'; ' Jeffrey .Lunde @brooklynpark.org'; sandrameans @charter.net'; Miller, Jim; ' suzie .nakasian @ci.northfield.mn.us'; Scott Neal,- joleson @BloomingtonMN.gov; john.quincy @minneapolismn.gov'; 'chuckrepke @aol.com'; ' michael.schultz @bhshe'alth.org'; 'tom.smith @ci.stpaul.mn.us'; joshsprague @edinarealty.com'; 'staver.randy @rochestermn.gov'; 'ward2 @ ci. stpaul. mn.us';'warc13 @ci.stpaul.mn.us'; ' mike .trepanier @brooklynpark.org'; Verbrugge, Jamie; ' abdi .warsame @minneapolismn.gov'; ' Jeff .Weisensel @ci.rosemount.mn.us'; 'swells@ coon rapidsmn.gov'; votewojcik @gmail.com'; 'jzanmiller @cityofwsp.org' Subject: Update on LMC March 12 Capitol Hill Meeting Good Friday Morning — Hope this e -mail finds you on your way (or at least packing your bags) for the trip to Washington. 'I'm already here and,its 39 degrees, but to make you feel be_ tter by Tuesday the temperatures are promised to be near 70! Just wanted to give you a quick update. that confirmations. for members of the MN Congressional delegation to join us at our Library of Congress meeting on Wednesday morning continue to come in and we'll have a full schedule. Congressman Walz will be the first to arrive right around 8:30 and Senator Franken will be near the end, arriving at around 10:15, with several others packed in between. So once again, do plan to arrive early and stay as late as you possibly can. And if you didn't . catch it in my earlier memo, you CAN bring luggage with you to the Wednesday meeting. Security at the Library of Congress is much easier than in some of the other buildings as long as you don't have any "dangerous weapons" — knives, guns — tucked in your bag. And our very large meeting room has ample space in the back to discreetly stash a bag. See you soon, Kevin Kevin Frazell, ICMA -CM Director of Member Services Tel: (651) 281 -1215 1 Fax: (651) 215 -4104 Cell: (651) 303 -6034 kfrazell(o_lmc.org www.lmc.or League of Minnesota Cities 145 University Ave. West St. Paul, MN 55103 Heather Branigin From: Hunzelman, Nick < Nick. Hunzelman @cnfinternational.com> Sent: Friday, March 07, 2014 3:17 PM To: jonibennettl2 @comcast.net; Edina Mail; Mary Brindle (Comcast); joshsprague @edinarealty.com; swensonannl @gmaii.com Cc: Hunzelman, Nick Subject: City Council and Fred Richards Council Members.& Mayor, I attended the council meeting that was held earlier this week. I strongly urge you to delay your.decision to Close Fred Richards and instruct the city manager to expand research into the state of Edina golf to include. other options that are available. The, report submitted to the city and presented to the council members was not at all a deep-comprehensive investigative dive as described by Scott Neal. It was simply a justification to close Fred Richards. You as council members are challenged to find a solution for the golf issues in Edina. To create and offer solutions you must explore all aspects of the issue. To date, you have failed in your investigation because your scope is so limited to closing a popular golf course that is maintaining a break even golf course: To add , further problems the original 6 point plan presented back in January's Park Board meeting was changed prior to this week's council meeting to include a $500,000 irrigation expense for 2025 and some meager attempt to respond to the juniorfemale golfers that would be forced paly at a the larger more intimidating Braemar course. Comprehensive, deep dive investigations do not change in 40 days of original submittal. Without a larger scope and more options, the city council, the city manager and most importantly the residents of Edina will forever doubt the decisions to close Fred Richards and all future financial decisions. Each of you have a responsibility to the city to improve on your actions specific to this issue. Nick Hunzelman 7461 West Shore Drive Edina Mn 55435 Heather Branigin From: Marie Sullivan <mariesullivan87 @gmail.com> Sent: Friday, March 07, 2014 4:35 PM To: Edina Mail; Joni Bennett; Mary Brindle (Comcast); Scott Neal; Josh Sprague; ann swenson; Cary Teague Subject: Pentagon Park / Fred Richards Attachments: Pentagon Park Fred Richards letter,docx Dear Mayor, City Council Members, Planning Director and City Manager, I have attached a letter I wrote for you,explaining my concerns for my neighborhood -regarding the Pentagon Park/ Fred Richards Golf Course development proposals. I hope you will have time to read it! Thank You! Sincerely, Marie Sullivan (45 12 Hibiscus Ave., Edina) 1 March 7, 2014 Dear Mayor, City Council Members, Planning Director and City Manager, Please consider my concerns about the Pentagon Park/ Fred Richards development. 1). Height and evening light pollution. A few years ago when another Pentagon Park development was . proposed, much time and effort went into protecting our neighborhood and minimizing the height of any new structures. Not only was height limited, but the tallest of the allowed buildings were to be located at the end of the property closest to Hwy. 100 where they would have the least impact on single family homes. My biggest concern is that height and lighting will devalue our neighborhood. Please stand up to the acrimonious developers who do not care about our neighborhood homes and families. Please limit the location and height of any new.buildings! . 2). Holding Pond for Developers a bad idea. Turning Fred Richard's into a holding pond for the development would also hurt our neighborhood property values and desirability. We,would be the only quadrant in Edina not,to have a golf course. Also, a large body of water;would be a safety hazard for many neighborhood children, especially those from the apartments who often lack the ability to swim. Holding ponds often smell terrible! 3). Adding to current neighborhood problems. Before we remove a neighborhood amenity, we should take into account the detractions it buffers. Our neighborhood endures a lot of noise and air pollution from 494, Hwy 100, Seagate and airline traffic! Road traffic noise is 24 hours continuous. Automated announcements at the Seagate plant often wake us up at 1:00 and 3:00 am! Recent maps published in the StarTribune showed most pathways going over our part of the city! When the city supported the Country Club area in fighting the re- routing of flights, I felt bad because it seemed no one cared about the heavy traffic we now get over our part of the city that would have been relieved if the new plan went into action. If the,0ty wants to protect other Edina neighborhoods from airport noise at our neighborhood's expense, I would like to ask that you at least protect us from the visibility pollution of a new Pentagon Park development and keep in mind how very important the golf course land is to us! In conclusion, our neighborhood is feeling stressed. We've just experienced a very costly and disruptive road repair project. We continue to experience increased noise/ air pollution from 494, Hwy 100, airline traffic and the Seagate plant. I ask that when you make decisions affecting our neighborhood that you please protect our neighborhood from further devaluation. Please do not allow tall buildings at Pentagon Park and please be very careful what you allow to happen to Fred Richard's. We shouldn't have smelly water ponds, more light or noise pollution, or cars parked on our streets to access the possible addition of playing fields. Thank you so much for listening! Marie Sullivan (4512 Hibiscus Ave., Edina) Heather Branigin From: Hunzelman, Nick < Nick. Hunzelman @cnfinternational.com> Sent: Saturday, March 08, 20148:35 AM To: Sprague, Josh Cc: jonibennettl2 @comcast.net; Edina Mail; Mary Brindle (Comcast); swensonannl @gmail.com; Hunzelman, Nick Subject: RE: City Council and Fred Richards Mr. Sprague, Your quick response to my email (15 minutes) is very telling how you and the city view themselves as they "RULE" on the Edina's golf enterprise. My request is to announce an extended delay to the closure of Fred Richards executive course in order to gather more facts and develop a more responsible plan. The Save The Fred group has offered a more detailed investigation into this issue than the city. This is just one example of how the many qualified Edina residents can offer input into Edina's golf. The city's refusal to listen and reach out to its residents is astounding. You offer no respect to the Edina tax payers /voters. This "I know better -than you" attitude and past actions has created mistakes and yes city embarrassment to the following city issues; The poor decision and waste of city funds u.sed to purchase the Edina Realty building in the 50`x' and France area. The terrible decision to declare eminent domain on the Hooten's Cleaners building attempting to force a minority family out of their retirement plan. The push to expand Woodale, encroaching on private citizen property for bike lanes. The decision to paint bike lanes on Woodale, then removing them just to paint another bike lane stripe. And now the latest $2 million dollar mistake with the Braemar ice rink project. I must ask you. Now that the Pentagon project has been approved for possible residential living, Does this improve your financial opportunity as an Edina realtor? I wonder. Please delay your March 18th vote to close Fred. Form a " staff and citizen's committee and figure out a way to totally improve the financials and experience of golfing in Edina. There are many retired CFO's and CEO's and others that are brilliant business people. If you asked for volunteers to form a committee I think you would be amazed by the response and talent. Nick Hunzelman I Regional Manager I C & F International Inc. Office 952 , 886. 7092 1 Mobile 952. 250, 2323 From: Sprague, Josh [ mailto :joshsprague @edinarealty.com] Sent: Friday, March 07, 2014 3:32 PM To: Hunzelman, Nick Subject: RE: City Council and Fred Richards Thank you Mr. Hunzelman. I was just talking about the issue with another neighbor on Kellogg today. I think the information is very clear that total.rounds. played in Edina is down, that utilization at both Exec courses is down, and that 45 holes of golf is no longer sustainable going forward. The Save the Fred option brought forward involves closing the Braemar 9 instead of the Fred, that is being reviewed by staff (and hence one of the reasons for the 2 week delay). Everyone involved understands the weight of the issue before them, and certainly we'd love not to be in a position to have to close anything and displace anyone. But the-times have changed, and we have to take action or else we will most certainly be shirking our fiduciary duties. There are ongoing financial issues that have been around for years that we have been wrestling with that need to be solved, and are connected to the larger issue of the impact of recreational enterprises on the city budget.` But moving forward this year decisively on the Golf Enterprise is integral to our success. In terms of the facts, Fred Richards is not maintaining a break even scenario. There are expense allocations that have not been listed in the operating statements noted in the staff report (about 50K a year), plus debt service for the - purchase /improvement of Fred that was never charged, that would puf that entity at a loss. That also does not include liability for future capital improvements necessary there in the next 5 -10 years, and the ongoing labor /material expenses of maintaining two campuses. Look forward to hearing more about this at our next Council meeting. Best, ::js josh sprague, realtor edina realty 6800 france cell /text 612.501.0252 http: / /`ioshsprague.com From: Hunzelman, Nick [mailto: Nick. Hunzelman (a)cnfinternational.com] Sent: Friday, March 07, 2014 3:17 PM To: jonibennett12(aDcomcast.net; ma HO) Edina MN.gov; mbrindle( comcast.net; Sprague, Josh; swensonannlCa)gmail.com Cc: Hunzelman, Nick Subject: City Council and Fred Richards Council Members & Mayor, I attended the council meeting that was held earlier this week. I strongly urge you to delay your decision to close Fred Richards and instruct the city manager to expand research into the state of Edina golf to include other options that are available. The report submitted to the city and presented to the council members was not at all a deep comprehensive investigative dive as described by Scott Neal. It was simply a justification to close Fred Richards. You as council members are challenged to find a solution for the golf issues in Edina. To create and offer solutions you must explore all aspects of the issue. To date, you have failed in your investigation because.your scope is so limited to closing a popular golf course that is maintaining a break even financial status. To add further problems the original 6 point plan presented back in January's. Park Board meeting was changed prior to this week's council meeting to include a $500,000 irrigation expense for 2025 and some meager attempt to " respond to the junior female golfers that would be forced play at a the larger more intimidating Braemar course. Comprehensive, deep dive investigations do not change in 40 days of original submittal. Without a larger scope and more options, the city council, the city manager and most importantly the residents of Edina will forever doubt the decisions to close Fred Richards and all future financial decisions. Each of you have a responsibility to the city to improve on your actions specific to this issue. Nick Hunzelman 7461 West Shore Drive Edina Mn 55435 3 Heather Branigin From: Kelly Bennewitz <kellybennewitz @gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2014 10:50 AM To: Edina Mail Subject: Pentagon Office Park To the Edina City Council- I am a long time resident of Edina and my company has banked at Fidelity Bank in Pentagon Office Park for years. I have had some dealings with Hillcrest Development in the past and have always admired their work and vision in redeveloping older buildings. I was excited to see the redevelopment signs going up amongst the Pentagon buildings as they have shown a lot of decay over the last 10 -20 years. We looked for space for our business not too long ago and I have to admit . we took a quick look at Pentagon, but found there are more attractive alternatives available. Centennial Lakes has always been a showcase project, it would be great to continue that trend. As a taxpayer in Edina, I wanted to show my support for Hillcrest Development and their vision for Pentagon Office Park. Sincerely, Kelly Bennewitz 6400 Ridgeview'Drive, Heather Branigin From: Hunzelman, Nick < Nick. Hunzelman@ cnfinternational.com> Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2014 12:30 PM To: Sprague, Josh Cc: jonibennettl2 @comcast.net; jonibennettl2 @comcast.net; Edina Mail; Mary Brindle (Comcast); swensonannl @gmail.com; Scott Neal Subject: RE: City Council and Fred Richards Attachments: Edina Golf Operations Proposal_Councii_342014.pdf Mr Sprague, Your response is symptomatic of the problem the city has with the golf issue. You are quick to criticize and discredit but refuse to look at another view. If I made my position clear than you would understand why I am questioning your quick response to my original email. Again, My point is that you quickly typed out a response that did not address my request of delaying the golf issue decisions. All you and the council wants to do is disqualify the Save the Fred team report despite the inaccuracies and recent changes in the city's financial report on golf. My request is you slowdown your decision process, listen to other ideas and make amore accurate decision on golf in Edina. I have attached the report to make sure you can prepare yourself to make an informed decisions on this issue. The city council seems to rush to judgment on the latest issue (listed in previous email) and most of them have turned out wrong. All of which have cost the city of Edina money. Trust me Council Member Sprague, this year's election will not come soon enough for a very large group of dissatisfied Edina voters. Nick Hunzelman 7461 West Shore Drive - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Sprague, Josh [mailto:joshsprague @edinarealty.com] Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2014 10:15. AM To: Hunzelman, Nick Subject: RE: City Council and Fred Richards Mr. Hunzleman, Not sure I understand why responsiveness is an issue with respect to your email. At any rate, you've made your position clear. Best, js josh sprague, realtor edina realty 6800 france cell /text 612.501.0252 http: / /joshsprague.com i - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Hunzelman, Nick [ Nick. Hunzelman @cnfinternational.com] Received: Saturday, 08 Mar 2014, 9:35am To: Sprague, Josh [joshsprague @edinarealty.com] CC: jonibennettl2 @comcast.net [jonibennett12 @comcast.net]; mail @EdinaMN.gov [mail @EdinaMN.gov]; mbrindle @comcast.net [mbrindle @comcast.net]; swensonannl @gmail.com [swensonannl @gmail.com]; Hunzelman, Nick [ Nick. Hunzelman @cnfinternational.com] Subject: RE: City Council and Fred Richards Mr. Sprague, Your quick response to my email (15 minutes) is very telling how you and the city view themselves as they "RULE" on the Edina's golf enterprise. My request is to announce an extended delay to the closure of Fred Richards executive course in order to gather more facts.and develop a more responsible plan. The Save The Fred group has offered a more detailed investigation into this issue than the city. This is just one example of how the many qualified Edina residents, can offer input into Edina's golf. The city's refusal to listen and reach out to its residents is astounding. You offer no respect to the Edina tax payers /voters. This "I know better than you" attitude and past actions has created mistakes and yes city embarrassment to the following city issues; The poor decision and waste of city funds used to purchase the Edina Realty building in the 50th and France area. The terrible decision to declare eminent domain on the Hooten's Cleaners building attempting to force a minority family_ out of their retirement plan. The push to expand Woodale, encroaching on private citizen property for bike lanes. The decision to paint bike lanes on Woodale, then removing them just to paint another bike lane stripe. And now the latest $2 million dollar mistake with the Braemar ice rink project. I must ask you. Now that the Pentagon project has been approved for possible residential living, Does this improve your financial opportunity as an Edina realtor? I wonder. Please delay your March 18th vote to close Fred. Form a " staff and citizen's committee and figure out a way to totally improve the financials and experience of golfing in Edina. There are many retired CFO's and CEO's and others that are brilliant business people. If you asked for volunteers to form a committee I think you would be amazed by the response and talent. Nick Hunzelman I Regional Manager I C & F International Inc. Office 952. 886. 7092 1 Mobile 952. 250. 2323 From: Sprague, Josh [ mailto :joshsprague @edinarealty.com] Sent: Friday, March 07, 2014 3:32 PM To: Hunzelman, Nick Subject: RE: City Council and Fred Richards Thank you Mr. Hunzelman. I was just talking about the issue with another neighbor on Kellogg today. I think the information is very clear that total rounds played in Edina is down, that utilization at both Exec courses is down, and that 45 holes of golf is no longer sustainable going forward. The Save the Fred option brought forward a involves closing the Braemar 9 instead of the Fred, that is being reviewed by staff (and hence one of the reasons for the 2 week delay). Everyone involved understands the weight of the issue before them, and certainly we'd love not to be in a position to have to close anything and displace anyone. But the times have changed, and we have to take action or else we will most certainly be shirking our fiduciary duties. There are ongoing financial issues that have been around for years that we have been wrestling with.that need to be solved, and are connected to the larger issue of the impact of recreational enterprises on the city budget. But moving forward this year decisively on the Golf Enterprise is integral to our success. In terms of the facts, Fred Richards is not maintaining a break even scenario. There are expense allocations that have not been listed in the operating statements noted in the staff report (about 50K a year), plus debt service for the purchase /improvement of Fred that was never charged, that would put that entity at a loss. That also does not include liability for future capital improvements necessary there in the next 5 -10 years, and the ongoing labor /material expenses of maintaining two campuses. Look forward to hearing more about this at our next Council meeting. Best, js josh sprague, realtor edina realty 6800 france cell /text 612.501.0252 http: // joshsprague .com <http: / /joshsprague.com /> From: Hunzelman, Nick [mailto:Nick.Hunzelman @cnfinternational.com] Sent: Friday, March 07, 2014 3:17 PM To: jonibennettl2 @comcast. net <mailto :joni ben nettl2 @comcast.net >; mail@ EdinaMN .gov <mailto:mail @EdinaMN.gov >; mbrindIe @comcast.net<mailto:mbrindIe @comcast. net >; Sprague, Josh; swensonannl @gmail.com<mailto:swensonannl @gmail.com> Cc: Hunzelman, Nick Subject: City Council and Fred Richards Council Members & Mayor, I attended the council meeting that was held earlier this week. I strongly urge you to delay your decision to close Fred Richards and instruct the city manager to expand research into the state of Edina golf to include other, options that are available. The report submitted to the city and presented to the council members was not at all a deep comprehensive investigative dive as described by Scott'Neal. It was simply a justification to close Fred Richards. You as council members are challenged to find a solution for the golf issues in Edina. To create and offer solutions you must explore all aspects of the issue. To date, you have failed in your investigation because your scope is so limited to closing a. popular golf course that is maintaining a break even financial status. To add further problems the original 6 point plan presented back in January's Park Board meeting was changed prior to this week's council meeting to include a $500,000 irrigation expense for 2025 and some meager attempt to respond to the junior female golfers that would be forced play at a the larger more intimidating Braemar course. Comprehensive, deep dive investigations do not change in 40 days of original submittal. Without a larger scope and more options, the city council, the city manager and most importantly the residents of Edina will forever doubt the decisions to close Fred Richards and all future financial decisions. Each of you have a responsibility to the city to improve on your actions specific to this issue. Nick Hunzelman 7461 West Shore Drive Edina Mn 55435 To: Edina City Council James Hovland Mayor mail @EdinaMN.gov Joni Bennett City Council Member Jo'nibennettl2 @comcast.net Mary Brindle City Council Member mbrindle@comcast.net Josh Sprague City Council Member ioshsprague @edinarealty.com Ann Swenson City Council Member swensonanni @gmail.com From: Gaylen Ghylin Date: March 5, 2014 Subject: The Fred My name is Gaylen Ghylin. My wife Penny and 1 live at 5032 Park Terrace. We have attended two public meetings about the Edina Golf Enterprise and the City Staff's recommendation to close the Fred Richards Golf Course (the Fred) after 2014. The first was held in the Braemar Golf Course Club House on January 30, 2014 where the City Staff (City Manager Scott Neal and Parks & Recreation Director Ann Kattreh) announced a 6 -point plan to improve the Edina Golf Enterprise (the first point of the Plan is to close the Fred). Then we attended the Edina City Council Meeting on March 4, 2014. This again included a presentation by Neal and Kattreh, requesting the Council's adoption of their Plan. The Council conducted a Public Hearing about the proposed Plan, and also discussed the Plan, as well as issues and questions raised. Formal Council action on the Plan was deferred to a future meeting. Penny and I have lived in Edina since 1971. We have raised two daughters here. They both graduated from the Edina Public School system, and now live in Edina with their husbands and two children each. Our four grandchildren are also part of the Edina Public School program. The public golf courses in Edina are very important to us. I have been playing golf regularly at Braemar since 1985. 1 have been a Men's Club member for almost 30 years. I have played many, many rounds of golf on Thursday afternoons and Saturday mornings on the 27 regulation holes at Braemar. Over the years I have also frequently played the Braemar Executive Course, and I am no stranger to the Braemar driving range, golf dome, pro shop and grill. For the, past several years Penny and I have also played the Fred regularly. Penny is relatively new to golf, and we are very much at home on the Fred. Our extended family frequently joins us for golf there. It is so much fun to spend time together, and watch our grandchildren enjoy golf. The question about the Fred comes up as part of a more comprehensive assessment of the City of Edina public golf operations. Staff was requested to develop a plan to improve golf operations. We support their effort and applaud their recommendations to improve operations at Braemar. Edina residents want and will support a world class golf enterprise. We do not, however, believe adequate analysis has been done to support the recommendation to close the Fred. The Fred was opened in 1962. It is the longest running public golf course in the City. Over that time the Fred has become a significant part of the fabric, history and tradition of our City. The Fred is truly a gem, and provides a life; time of memories and experiences, not only for those in the neighborhoods around the Fred, but throughout Edina. The Proposal to close the Fred seems very clinical, and without appreciation for the impact the Fred has on quality of life in Edina. It is most apparent the Fred is a very significant and meaningful Edina amenity. Art, passion and consideration for life's qualities do not draw one to conclude the Fred should be closed. Some say our population will grow 11% in the next twenty -five years. Density around the Fred is also expected to increase with redevelopment of the Pentagon Office Park. Preparing for these developments is part of the art of governance. This meat-cleaver approach seems to tie this closing to an act of leverage for the cost of improvements at Braemar. I have not seen all of the information provided the City Council, but this connection is not clear. It sounds like the,Fred makes money, so the rush to close is perplexing, and seems unusual. It will be disappointing if a decision about this issue is reached "because we have spent enough time on this already ", and not based on a process that takes adequate time to fully investigate all reasonable options and gather the necessary information to reach the best decision for the citizens of Edina. If we close the Fred, we will have lost it forever. Accordingly, I support the recommendations of the "Golf Operations Proposal" presented to the Edina City Council on March 4, 2014 by Save the Fred Association, namely — 1. Vote to TABLE city staff's recommendations to close Fred Richards Golf Course indefinitely to allow for_further study before making an unreasonably quick decision about a long -time treasured community asset. 2. Vote to approve staffs recommended improvements to Braemar with the exception of converting Braemar Exec to Par 3. 3. Direct City staff to work with appropriate resources and residents to produce a master plan for the future of. Edina Golf Operations. We believe there are options that should be explored that better serve Edina golf and that are more fiscally responsible than the current list of proposals by City Staff. Heather Braniain From: Gaylen Ghylin <gpghylin @msn.com> Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2014 2:24 PM" To: Edina Mail; Joni Bennett; Mary Brindle (Comcast); Josh Sprague_ ; Ann Swenson Subject: The Fred Attachments: The Fred.docx 1 Heather Branigin From: Hunzelman, Nick < Nick. Hunzelman @cnfinternational.com> Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2014 2:35 PM To: joshsprague @edinarealty.com Cc: jonibennettl2 @comcast.net; swensonannl @gmail.com; Mary Brindle (Comcast); Edina Mail; Scott Neal Subject: FW: City Council and Fred Richards I was aware of the Friday meeting. Good sources inside the city have informed me that "staff' had many chances to challenge the Save the Fred report but instead agreed with the Save the Fred Financial Team and the financial data and summary. To correct the record, you moved to table this issue because of the environmental petition. You made statements toward the end of the golf discussion you wanted to vote on approval of the implementation of the Parks Board 6 Point plan. Look it up. Looking forward to the November election process. Nick Hunzelman I Regional Manager I C & F International Inc. Office 952 886.7092 1 Mobile 952. 250. 2323 -Original Message----- - From: Sprague, Josh [mailto :joshsprague @edinarealty.com] Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2014 1:37 PM To: Hunzelman, Nick Subject: RE: City Council and Fred Richards Staff met with members of the Fred group on Friday to discuss their proposal and go over their assumptions at greater length. I moved to table this issue for that very reason. I've had multiple conversations and meetings on both, sides of the issue, I understand and appreciate the different views, including yours. But ultimately our views on the best strategy and necessary timeline may diverge. I remain open to finding the best possible solution for the long -term until the decision is made,.whether you choose to support me next election or not. Enjoy the rest of your weekend. Regards, js josh sprague, realtor edina realty 6800 france cell /text 612.501.0252 http: / /joshsprague.com - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Hunzelman, Nick [ Nick. Hunzelman @cnfinternationaI.com) Received: Saturday, 08 Mar 2014, 1:30pm To: Sprague, Josh [joshsprague @edinarealty.com] CC: jonibennettl2 @comcast.net [jonibennettl2 @comcast.net]; jonibennettl2 @comcast.net [jonibennettl2 @comcast.net]; mail @EdinaMN.gov [mail @EdinaMN.gov]; mbrindle @comcast.net 1 [mbrindle @comcast.net]; swensonannl @gmail.com [swensonannl @gmail.com]; sneal @EdinaMN.gov [sneal @EdinaMN.gov] Subject: RE: City Council and Fred Richards Mr Sprague, Your response is symptomatic of the problem the city has with the golf issue. You are quick to criticize and discredit but refuse to look at another view. If I made my position clear than you would understand why I am questioning your quick response to my original email. Again, My point is that "you quickly typed out a response that did not address my request of delaying the golf issue decisions. All you and the council wants to do is disqualify the Save the Fred team report despite the inaccuracies and recent changes in the city's financial report on golf. My request is you slow down your decision process, listen to other ideas and make a more accurate decision on golf in Edina. I have attached the report to make sure you can prepare yourself to make an informed decisions on this issue. The city council seems to rush to judgment on the latest issue (listed in previous email) and most of them have turned out wrong. All of which have cost the city of Edina money. Trust me Council Member Sprague, this year's election will not come soon enough for a very large group of dissatisfied Edina voters, Nick Hunzelman 7461 West Shore Drive - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Sprague, Josh.[mailto:joshsprague @edinarealty.com] Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2014 10:15 AM To: Hunzelman, Nick Subject: RE: City Council and Fred Richards Mr. Hunzleman, Not sure I understand why responsiveness is an issue with respect to your email. At any rate, you've made your position clear. Best, js josh sprague, realtor edina realty 6800 france cell /text 612.501.0252 http: / /joshsprague.com - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Hunzelman, Nick [ Nick. Hunzel man @cnfinternational.com] Received: Saturday, 08 Mar 2014, 9:35am To: Sprague, Josh [joshsprague @edinarealty.com] CC: jonibennettl2 @comcast.net [jonibennettl2 @comcast.net); mail @EdinaMN.gov [mail @ Edina MN.gov]; mbrindle@comcast.net [mbrindle @comcast.net]; swensonannl @gmail.com [swensonannl @gmail.com]; Hunzelman, Nick [Nicl <. Hunzelman @cnfinternational.com] 2 Subject: RE: City Council and Fred Richards Mr. Sprague, Your quick response to my email (15 minutes) is very telling how you and the city view themselves as they "RULE" on the Edina's golf enterprise. My request is to announce an extended delay to the closure of Fred Richards executive course in order to gather more facts and develop a more responsible plan. The Save The Fred group has offered a more detailed investigation into this issue than the city. This is just one example of how the many qualified Edina residents can offer input into Edina's golf. The city's refusal to listen and reach out to its residents is astounding. You offer no respect to the Edina tax payers /voters. This "I know better than you'.' attitude and past actions has created mistakes and yes city embarrassment to the following city issues; The poor, decision and waste of city funds used to purchase the Edina Realty building in the 50th and France area. The terrible decision to declare eminent domain on the Hooten's Cleaners building attempting to force a minority family out of their retirement plan. The push to expand Woodale, encroaching on private citizen property for bike lanes. The decision to paint bike lanes on Woodale, then removing them just to paint another bike lane stripe. And now the latest $2 million dollar mistake with the Braemar ice rink project. I must ask you. Now that the Pentagon project has been approved for possible residential living, Does this improve your financial opportunity as an Edina realtor? I wonder. Please delay your March 18th vote to close Fred. Form a " staff and citizen's committee and figure out a way to totally improve the financials and experience of golfing in Edina. There are many retired CFO's and CEO's and others that are brilliant business people. If you asked for volunteers to form a committee I think you would be amazed by the response and talent. Nick Hunzelman I Regional Manager I C & F International Inc. Office 952. 886. 7092 1 Mobile 952.250. 2323 From: Sprague, Josh [mailto:joshsprague @edinarealty.com] Sent: Friday, March 07, 2014 3:32 PM To: Hunzelman, Nick Subject: RE: City Council and Fred Richards Thank you Mr. Hunzelman. I was just.talking about the issue with another neighbor on Kellogg today. I think the information is very clear that total rounds played in Edina is down, that utilization at both Exec courses is down, and that 45 holes of golf is no longer sustainable going forward. The Save the Fred option brought forward involves closing the Braemar 9 instead of the Fred, that is being reviewed by staff (and hence one of the reasons for the 2 week delay). Everyone involved understands the weight of the issue before them, and certainly we'd love not to be in a position to have to close anything and displace anyone. But the times have changed, and we have to take action or else we will most certainly be shirking our fiduciary duties. There are ongoing financial issues that have been around for years that we have been wrestling with that need to be solved, and are connected to the larger issue of the impact of recreational enterprises on the city budget. But moving forward this year decisively on the Golf Enterprise is integral to our success. In terms of the facts, Fred Richards is not maintaining a break even scenario. There are expense allocations that have not been listed in the operating statements noted.in the staff report (about 50K.a. year), plus debt service for the purchase /improvement of Fred that was never charged, that would put that entity at a loss. That also does not include liability for future capital improvements necessary there in the next 5 -10 years, and the ongoing labor /material expenses of maintaining two campuses. Look forward to hearing more about this at our next Council meeting. Best, js josh sprague, realtor edina realty 6800 france cell /text 612.501.0252 http: // joshsprague .com <http: / /joshsprague.com /> From: Hunzelman, Nick [mailto: Nick. Hunzelman @cnfinternational.com] Sent: Friday, March 07, 2014 3:17 PM To: jonibennettl2 @comcast.net< mailto :jonibennettl2 @comcast. net >; mail@ EdinaMN .gov <mailto:mail @EdinaMN.gov >; mbrindle@ com cast. net <mai Ito: mbrindle @comcast.net>; Sprague, Josh; swensonannl @gmail. com <mailto:swensonannl @gmail.com> Cc: Hunzelman, Nick Subject: City Council and Fred Richards Council Members & Mayor, I attended the council meeting that was held earlier this week. I strongly urge you to delay your decision to close Fred Richards and instruct the city manager to expand research into the state of Edina golf to include other options that are available. The report submitted to the city and presented to the council members was, not at all a deep comprehensive investigative dive as described by Scott Neal. It was simply a justification to close Fred Richards. You as council members are challenged to find a solution for the golf issues in Edina. To create and offer solutions you must explore all aspects of the issue. To date, you have failed in your investigation because your scope is so limited to closing a popular golf course that is maintaining a break even financial status. To.add further problems the original 6 point plan presented back in January's Park Board meeting was changed prior to this week's council meeting to include a $500,000 irrigation expense for 2025 and some meager attempt to respond to the junior female golfers that would be forced play at a the larger more intimidating Braemar course. Comprehensive, deep dive investigations do not change in 40 days of original submittal. Without a larger scope and more options, the city council, the city manager and most importantly the residents of Edina will forever doubt the decisions to close Fred Richards and all future financial decisions. Each of you have a responsibility to the city to improve on your actions specific to this issue. Nick Hunzelman 7461 West Shore Drive Edina Mn 55435 Heather Branig,in From: Sent: To: Subject: Dear Mayor Hovland, J B. <Jab229 @gmail.com> Sunday, March 09, 2014 3:17 PM Edina Mail Save the FRED timeline As a Save the FRED advocate, I appreciate your steering the city council to delay a final vote of approval for the city staffs recommendation to close the FRED. The citizens in our neighborhood feel we have been discounted - -even steamrolled - -by the city manager and Park Board. We feel we have a stake in the outcome of that decision, as do the young people and others who choose to learn and play golf at the FRED. , Since you were at the first public hearing as well as the City Council meeting on March 4, you realize that the proposal has been massaged from its first iteration. The additional information provided by city staff at the Council meeting should have been available earlier. But more importantly, the neighborhood • and the stakeholders who play at the FRED need to be included in the planning process. We are asking that a citizen -city task force be initiated to look both at the city's needs and its process in making decisions that affect so many people without their input. Thank you very much, JoAnn Blatchley 7432 West Shore Drive 952.922.0308 Heather Branigin From: KENNETH HODGES <joken7672 @msn.com> Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2014'4:07 PM To: Edina Mail;jonibennettl2 @comcast.net; Mary Brindle (Comcast); joshsprague @edinarealty.com; swensonan'nl @gmail.com Subject: Please Save "The Fred "! We have lived across the street from "The Fred" since 1966. We, as well as our children and grandchildren, have enjoyed it immensely. For them, it was an important part of their upbringing. It grieves us immensely that it is going to be destroyed. We urge you, as a City Council member, to realize that this is more than just a venture capital opportunity, but please take a look at the human side. Not only for the recreation aspect, but also for the green space it provides in a growing industrial park area. Please take time to save "The Fred "! Sincerely, Dr. and Mrs. Kenneth Hodges 7428 West Shore Drive Edina, MN 55435 1 Heather Branigin From: Tari Sherry <tarisherry @gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2014 4:30 PM To: Edina Mail; jonibennettl2 @comcast.net; Mary Brindle (Comcast); joshsprague @edinarealty.com; swensonannl @gmail.com Subject: Fred Richards We ask that the vote on the Fred Richards be postponed until the end of 2014 so that other options can be considered. Steve and Tari Sherry 1 Heather Branigin From: Philip Sherry <pwsherry@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2014 4:36 PM To: Edina Mail; jonibennettl2 @comcast.net; Mary Brindle (Comcast); joshsprague @edinarealty.com; swensonannl @gmail.com Subject: Fred Richards Vote We as that the vote on Fred Richards be postponed until the end of 2014 so that other options can be considered. Philip and Audrey Sherry 1 Heather Branigin From: Jack Mendesh <jmendesh @umail.iu.edu> Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2014 5:03 PM To: Edina Mail Hi my -name is Jack Mendesh and I am currently a sophomore at Indiana University. I have an assignment for one of my classes regarding our hometown-and the pioblems that the city has. Being from Edina I was contacting you to see if :I could ask the mayor, James Hovland, a few questions regarding the city of Edina. I look forward to hearing back from you as soon as possible. Thank you in advance. Best, Jack Mendesh 1 Heather Branig,in From: Phomtalikhith, Pounnaphone < Pounnaphone .Phomtalikhith @mail.house.gov> Sent: Monday, March 10, 2014 4:42 PM To: Edina Mail Subject: RE: Congressman Ellison's March 17th Event Dear Mayor Hovland, I am writing to follow -up on my March 5`h email. If you are not able to attend; please feel free to send a member of your staff. We would like a representative from each city to be present. Please let me know if you have any questions. We look forward to hearing from you. Warm Regards, Pounnaphone Phomtalikhith, Intern Office of Congressman Keith Ellison (MN -05) 2].00 Plymouth Ave North Minneapolis, MN 55411 Office: (612) 522 -1212 E -mail: Pounnaphone .phomtalikhith@mail.house.gov Website: www.ellison.house.gov From: Phomtalikhith, Pounnaphone Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 5:43 PM To: 'mail @EdinaMN.gov' Subject: Congressman Ellison's March 17th Event Dear Mayor Hovland: This is a friendly reminder.following up on a letter sent to you by Congressman Keith Ellison about an informational meeting on public safety and immigrant populations. The meeting will be held on Monday, March 17, 2014, from 2:00- 3:30 p.m. at the Golden Valley City Council Chamber, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, MN 55427. We hope to have the pleasure of your company for this discussion. For questions or to RSVP, please contact me or Aya Johnson at aya.iohnson@mail.house.gov. We can also be reached by phone at (612) 522 -1212. Congressman Ellison looks forward to seeing you on Monday, March 17. Sincerely, Pounnaphone Phomtalikhith, Intern Office of Congressman Keith Ellison (MN -05) 2100 Plymouth Ave North Minneapolis, MN 55411 Office: (612) 522 -1212 E -mail: Pounnaphone .phomtalikhith@mail.house.gov Website: www.ellison.house.gov E- Newsletter - Twitter - Facebook - Flickr - YouTube This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the person(s) to whom it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you receive this i Heather Branigin From: Bernadette Daly <bndaly60 @yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, March 10, 2014 5:17 PM To: Edina Mail Subject: Closing the Fred Richards Dear Mayor Hovland, I respectfully ask that you slow down this whole process and delay a vote to close the Fred Richards until at least the end of 2014. This give all parties time to explore all the options. This community deserves to have its views considered seriously. Bernadette Daly 4521 Sedum Lane Edina MN 55435. 1 3/6/2014 Jay Lebakken 5524 Concord Avenue Edina, Minnesota 55424 The City of Edina Members of City Council 4801 W. 50th St. Edina, MN 55424 Dear members of City Council, Would you consider raising awareness about unnecessary greenhouse gas usage by promoting driving less, driving in carpools and taking the bus? Another thing you could consider is spreading the idea of park and ride. The idea of park and ride is that N you work in the cities you park your car in a parking ramp and take a bus to the cities and at the end of the day you take a bus to the parking ramp and drive home. You could build a parking ramp where the public's work center used to be. I would really appreciate it N you considered this because I am concerned about our climate. I am considering making posters to put up around my school (Concord Elementary) telling people to not drive a lot in big cars. Sincerely, S " r � Jay W. Lebakken (age ten) va rk (phrands _ Park ._ _ - t.:•: Fdna Vub Edina ,00 t:,.,.: _ �• - IS9ni ,.. - Cal. br Park _ = r. (P.S I looked on metro transit's website and there is currently one park n' ride in Edina) March 11, 2014 Mayor James Hovland 4801 W. 50"' St. Edina, MN 55424 Mary Brindle, Council Member 4801 W. 50, St. Edina, MN 55424 Ann Swenson, Council Member 4801 W. 50" St. Edina, MN 55424. s Christopher R. Morris 6100 Arctic Way Edina, MN 55436 Joni Bennett, Council Member 4801 W. 50`h St. Edina, MN 55424 Josh Sprague, Council Member 4801 W. 50`h St. Edina, MN 55424 Re: Braemar and Fred Richards Golf Dear Mayor and City Council members: As a Braemar patron and resident north of Braemar, I have followed with interest the controversy regarding a proposal to make improvements at Braemar and close Fred Richards. I would like to add my perspective before the Council makes a final and irreversible decision. While I welcome the proposal to make improvements at Braemar, I am puzzled by the apparent rush to close Fred Richards. It seems to me that if Braemar is tom up for extensive renovations, Fred Richards should remain open at least during that period of construction, so Braemar patrons such as myself have the opportunity to spend our golfing dollars in Edina rather than other public courses throughout the metro, and so youth leagues can continue to more fully operate. I attended recent meetings at City Hall and Braemar, not to testify, but to learn whether there was any compelling reason to close Fred Richards while (or before) Braemar is under construction. I heard references to spending thousands of dollars in capital improvements at Fred Richards in the coming years, but surely the bulk of that expense could be put off until after 2015. I heard talk of potential cost savings by closing Fred Richards, but a future dollar saved cannot fund current construction at Braemar; and in any event, I believe City staff acknowledged that Fred Richards currently operates at a roughly break -even basis. Based on the information presented thus far, it certainly seems fiscally prudent to keep Fred Richards operating through 2015. Finally, I must acknowledge that .even though I personally enjoy playing the Braemar regulation course, including the Clunie 9, many golfers do consider that group of 9 holes too difficult, and there seems to be a trend in favor of playing shorter executive courses given modern -day time constraints. So I believe Mayor Hovland makes a good point that more scrutiny should be given to the alternatives recently presented to the City before such a controversial decision is finalized. je)spc oph , . Morris Heather Branigin From: Kilian, Mitch <Mitch.Kilian @mspmac.org> Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2014 9:36 AM To: Edina Mail; sneal@edina.mn Cc: Kilian, Mitch Subject: Fwd: Attached.Image Attachments: 3142_001. pdf Jim and Scott, I am around the conference most of the day if you have a few minutes to talk or if you are on the hill and want to get together between your meetings up there let me know. Attached are a couple letters that have been written and sent regarding the proposed EIS legislation back in mn. Note the 2nd last paragraph in the US EPA's letter. Here is my cell. Call or send me a note anytime. 612 - 919 -3469. Mitchell 1 2� A' Yv UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION 5 °i _ 77 WEST JACKSON BOULEVARD 4k PRO<Ee CHICAGO, 1L 60604 -3590 JAN 3 0 2013 REPLY TO THE ATTENTION O; E -197 MSP 2020 Improvements Draft EA/EAW.File C/O Environment Department Metropolitan Airports Commission 6040 20 Avenue South - . Minneapolis, Minnesota 55450 RE: Final Environmental Assessment/Draft Finding of No Significant Impact: Minneapolis - St. Paul International Airport_— Proposed 2020 Improvements; Minneapolis, Hennepin County, Minnesota To -Whorn It May Concern: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has reviewed a Final Environmental Assessment (Final EA) and Draft. Finding of No Significant Impact (Draft FONSf) prepared by the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for proposed improvements to the Minneapolis -St, Paul International Airport (MSP) in Minneapolis, Minnesota. This letter provides EPA's comments on the Final EA and Draft FONS1, pursuant to our authorities under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Council on Environmental Quality's NEPA Implementing Regulations (40 CFR 1500- 1508), and Section 309 of the Clean Air Act. MSP is the primary air transportation hub of Minnesota. The airport is located within Hennepin County, approximately seven miles south of downtown Minneapolis, and is operated by the Metropolitan Airports Commission. MSP is the only major airport in the country to have two terminals located on entirely separate roadway systems. The need for the proposed improvements is based on the existing and projected unacceptable levels of service at MSP facilities. Airport facilities (terminal and landsidet facilities) do not currently meet existing demand and will not meet future demand. Current congestion will be exacerbated as passenger activity grows. Congestion will spread to other airport facilities (terminals and landside facilities), and conditions will continue to deteriorate. Specifically, MSP is experiencing unacceptable levels of service within Terminal I - Lindberg at both terminal and landside facilities; the arrivals curb, parking, and international arrivals facility are currently congested. Additionally, the demand for gates at Terminal 2 - Humphrey exceeds capacity during winter months. As passenger activity grows, the levels of service for landside facilities, including access roads, are expected to deteriorate further. Similarly, the levels of service within I Landside facilities include terminal curb roadways, ground transportation centers, parking facilities, rental car facilities, and access roads. Recycled /Recyclable • Pr,nled with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 1003 Recycled Paper (50% Poslconsumerl terminals at gates, ticket counters, passenger check -in areas, security screening checkpoints, and ; baggage claim areas are projected to deteriorate to unacceptable levels (based on standard airport planning practices). The MAC is proposing to address these needs through 2020 by implementing the Proposed Action. The overall purpose of the project is to accommodate the expected demand such that the airside and landside level of service at MSP is acceptable through the 2020 planning timeframe and that the regional roadway level of service is acceptable through the 2030 planning timeframe. Alternative 2 was ultimately selected as the Preferred Altemative/Proposed Action. The Proposed Action, Airlines Relocate, will involve relocation of non -Sky Team airlines (currently located in Terminal 1 — Lindberg) to Terminal 2 — Humphrey, in addition to many terminal, landside /roadway, and airside projects at boih Terminals. Additionally, regional roadway improvements (out to 2030, as per Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] plarming guidance) have been identified and studied, based on the existing 2030 Long Term Comprehensive Plan [LTCP] and background traffic growth, and are part of the Proposed Action. In a seoping letter sent by EPA on January 7, 2011, and a Draft EA comment letter sent on October 10, 20.12, EPA provided comments on the proposed project. EPA had previously identified concerns relating to historical properties, water quality, cumulative impacts, and energy use/conservation. Z PA'"s cVridit— 'Wd1 'fl PiMVEA and' it's VjWd 6'§'. '1 ic"yt 3h t gis $iitlkpi n #dingy �l i'iti °o tat infiirt�i ii as equ steel by ff-PW "EPA �5- i�.>r �E��. d��l pa ?ti�:�ub�t�.l:��e•s�t��i�t3 #�� tl?@. Rc�£ �j:: �A�t� .1��.e::th�- l~.an��a�rsl��?xfi �rafl:l'�I. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this Final EA and Draft FONSI. We are available to discuss our comments with you in further detail if requested. Please send us a copy of the final, signed FONSI once it becomes available. If you have any questions about this letter, please contact Ms. Liz Pelloso, PWS, of my staff at 312- 886 -7425 or via email at pelloso.elizabeth @epa.gov Sincerely, Kenneth A. WestI. e, Chief NEPA implementation Section Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance cc: Kandice Krull, FAA Phil Forst, FHWA Melissa Jenny, USACE -St. Paul District (2011- 00061 -MMJ) Rich Davis, USFWS Mary Ann Heidemann, Minnesota Historical Society (SHPO) Lisa Joyal, MnDNR Melissa Doperalski, MnDNR Linda Peterson, Mn BWSR Roy Fuhrmann, MAC •� ®ems Telephone (952) 953 -2500 City of Apple 7100 147th Street W Fax (952) 953 -2515 V a I �� Apple Valley, MN 55124 -9016 www.cityotapplevalley.org April 5, 2013 Senator Greg Clausen 75 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. Room 320 St. Paul, MN 55155 71606 Dear Senator Cla'I�en Legislation was introduced this week (HF 1717, sponsored by Representative Hornstein) that would require the Metropolitan Airports Commission. (MAC) to conduct an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on their 2020 Capital Improvement Project. The City of Apple Valley finds this proposal troublesome for several reasons. First of all, the MAC has already conducted a very thorough Environmental Assessment (EA) for this project and received public comments on their findings. Delaying the implementation of the improvements identified in the 2020 plan would be a detriment to the entire metropolitan region and the State of Minnesota. Second, the actions taken by the MAC were done so under federal law and were strictly followed. The EA was conducted in a professional manner using sound science and engineering standards. If the MAC is required, after the fact, to spend duplicative time and expense on these and other efforts in the future, MSP International Airport may lose competitive advantages as a. hub airport. Lastly, related to the topic of aircraft noise, the Noise Oversight Committee (by unanimous consensus) and the MAC, through the EA process, have established momentum for one of the most aggressive noise mitigation programs in the country, at a time of unprecedented FAA scrutiny over the use of aviation revenue for noise mitigation programs. This bill threatens to undermine this significant progress, and could jeopardize the implementation of future noise mitigation efforts at MSP_ In summary, HF 1717 is unnecessary and merely adds further costs and delay to the process. For all of these reasons, we urge you to oppose HF. 1717. Home of the Minnesota Zoological Garden Senator Greg Clausen April 5, 2013 Page 2 We would be happy to meet with you at your convenience to further review this issue and answer any questions you may have. If you would like to meet, please contact our City Administrator, Tom Lawell, at 952 -953 -2578 to arrange for a convenient meeting time. Sincerely, . CITY OF APPLE VALLEY Mary Hamann - Roland John Bergman Mayor City Council Member MAC Noise Oversight Committee At -Large Representative cc: Apple Valley City Council Chad Leqve, MAC 1101 Victoria Curve I Mendota Heights, MN 55116 651.452.1850 phone 1 651.452 8940 tax www.mendota- heights.com J CITY OF MENDOTA F-iEIGHTS April 5, 2013 Representative Rick Hansen 451 State Office Building 100 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd St. Paul, MN 55155 Dear Representative Hansen: It has come to our attention that legislation has been introduced CHF 1717, sponsored by Representative Hornstein), that would require the Metropolitan Airports Commission to conduct an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on their 2020 Capital Improvement Project. The City of Mendota Heights finds this proposal troublesome for several reasons. First of all, the MAC has already conducted a very thorough Environmental Assessment (EA) for this Project and received public comment on their findings. Numerous cities adjacent to the airport provided feedback on this plan in a timely fashion. Delaying the implementation of the- improvements identified in the 2020 plan would be a detriment to the entire metropolitan region and the State of Minnesota. Second, the actions taken by the MAC were done so under federal and state environmental law and were strictly adhered to. If the MAC is required after the fact to spend duplicative time and expense on these and other efforts in the future, it may lose competitive advantages as a major international airport. Lastly, related to the topic of aircraft noise, the Noise Oversight Committee (by unanimous consensus) and the MAC, through the EA process, have been able to craft a path forward for the continuation of one of the most aggressive noise rrdtigation programs in the country, at a time of unprecedented FAA scrutiny over the use of aviation revenue for noise mitigation programs. This bill threatens to undermine this significant progress, and could jeopardize future noise mitigation program implementation at MS International Airport. The City of Mendota Heights is supportive of many components of the 2020 plan and further delay of implementing the plan will serve, as a detriment to our community. The EA was conducted in a professional manner and this legislation serves to insert politics into an area that sound science and engineering standards should be adhered to. .gm�6M I I- FSC COOB6{2 We ask that you support the City of Mendota Heights and oppose this particular piece of legislation. Thank you again for your time, and please feel free to contact me if you need anything. i i i Sincerely, Sandra Krebsb c Mayor cc: Mend ota Heights City Council and Airport Relations Commissioners i i I i I MAYOR DEBBIE GOETTEL CITY COUNCIII. PAT ELLIOTT TOM FITZHENRY EDWINA GARCIA SUZANNE M.SANDAHL City Manager's Office April 5, 2013 The. Honorable' Representative Linda Slocum House of Representatives 4151 State Office Building tvq lieu. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. St. llaiui, MN 55155 Subject: Mouse File 1717 — Related to Requir". ent of EIS for MSP 2Q2- G Plan Dear Representative Sfoeum: WY MANAGER STEV04 L. DEVICH This meek the City of R't M.etd became aware of 4. bill (MF 1717, sponsored by keprasentaltive Homstairt), that would regtrre tho.KAefr liEan Airports t;ornrrti5sigrl (M AC) to-Prepare an Environmental impact Statement (its) for tt.Te MSP 7.02&Camtal Improvement P cf. Ar component of .fi?te•re aired EIS would. be arnalysis of perfbrii anee -based navigation procedures (RttA ) — a contentious�svbjactdonsidered. by the Commission back in November 204 2. The City of Richfield has::sever -W co, ncems abW HF 1717. • The MAC already. conducted a very thorough Environmental Assessment (EA) for this project and roosivWpW Uccommenf ort fheir:fir times. Numerous cities aliiacent to the algvd -,. F�tytaf rd- lkvooded; provtded-.f bW*. on this plan' in. a timeljr rrlanner. Delaying the ih4p ientetir�n of ilia trrlrp a ants` idea tad in ttie 2i' 20 plan would be a dettitilefit (01tto antke metropolitan Eegion and the State of Minnesota. Tire Inc€ , taiken by-fho MAC were doPo so' under federal and &ate•vnvironmental law MW wom stdody. atihoed to. if U.*. lk is.reW --red, after the. fate tosoomd duplicable: Tee and e)gidtise cm th-sesse;And ots;W efforts in the future, it may lose OOMPeNve advantsoea as a major intamational afrport. Spe fiieally ref d M the., topic of aloft . noise, the Noise Owersigllt CoMrilittee (by unanim and the MACk ttir'ovyh -the EA process, halve been,able to cM t a path fo vard for the.- continuation of one -of the most aggFe." ue-6dise mitigation po§Mm iii the country., at a.:tlm6. of unprecedented FAA scxutiny over the use of awaflon mvenue for noise mitigation, ptggrams. This bill Threatens: to undermina tb'm stanl(dar-tt Prowess. and wWd jeopardize: future noise: rnitfgation WWr'am impleltieritatidn;at MSP Int";%ttortal Airport'. The City. suppot -Is the..imptemontation of performance -based nave -stun at MS's for two reasons: safer and imprave.Ineni to the noise elnvir0nmen1'._9f OW coMt0urnity-. An .iris would dWay tVW LONGER fug: implementation cif RNAV tit M &. The City ,of RiciTtield is sWpoTtive of many components . of tha 20210 plan and further delay of implo.mo. ttirL9 the' pian will ser>i —as e detn'ment -to our qQmm. unity. The City .of Rid Geld respecMily requests th t-yod but port the- city ofRichfreld and oppose KF 1717. 71w Ut ban ffinnesowq 8700 PORTLAXQ AVFN.0 -E, RIOWPIFLD, WNN`ESO.TA 55423 612,861.9700 PAX: 612.861.9749 rw.xayofildr�eia«o AN COM OPPORVAnY EMPLOY ft Page 2 Furthermore, we would apprec lato any assistonte you can give to preyent further Consideration of this pMposal or its insertion into any omnibus bill during the course of the session: ; Thank you again for your• help and consideration. Please feel free to.contact me with any 6SD'pd Enclosure Copy: Richfield City Ceund Lisa Peden, MAC Commissioner Distnot C Ret%dns fot Concern with HF 1717 April 5, 2013 • The MAC'S development of.an 1rivironmental Assessment Workshe'et (EAW) for the MSP 2020 long term co m, prehensive planiftdly:cornplies, "With Minnesota statutes. • The EAW, as well as the federal Environmental As . sessment, r found. that the proposed improvements will have no significant v!nvlronmental impacts and that an. Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Is not needed. • There is unanimous support among community -representatives on the Noise oversight Cpmrrdttee to move forward with the noise� mitigation proposal as developed through the EA/F_AW. process. • An EIS would be costly, provide no relevant new environmental Information and result in a needless years -lorig delay In irnproveiments vital not only to the airport but also to surrounding coMmunities: o For Richfield, itwould'me.clny6,brsofaddition'aloVer- ft.ht noise over hundreds of unrWitigated homes. o FdrOloomingtonjitw uld. mean an unnecessarT4elay- tathe 1-494/340' Ave.. ihterthange proJea,. Iritegral to the development q•:the OsVirpori-South" area of BloomRittan. The del- ay,could.harfiper Sun Counuyy Airlines' abilky to gmW service at MSP and to aecarnma&te competition frojqnL-W enWots.such as.jet Biise. 4P. Af'eC6xiOV.,publithed study estTmate4,#ia - t.MAC coxistructido projects In 20.12 supported more than 1.00,10W.4nd. . gonerated,$22fl taililion-forthe ajrea�ecoo''amV,, —the kinds of jobscfeation itnd etonbmic: bobst'that woutd twAelayeO by a requirerniant 16, conduct an ElS_ • Yhoke are marry good reasons ndt to wastetime' and publit mdrtey on. developing an US and not a -IiRglegood reason'to complete such MWeemor, the F . AA- controls air space-issues, and its decisions are nasublect kostate en,.qrvnmntal Taft sun country airlines October 4, 2012 MSP 2020 Improvements Draft EA/E AW File C/O Roy Fuhrmann -Vice President Management and Operations Metropolitan Airports Commission 6040 28'' Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55450 -2799 Dear Mr. Fuhrmann: MN Airlines, LLC dba Sun Country Airlines appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the potential environmental impact of the MSP 2020 Improvement Plan. At the present time, Sun Country Airlines operates fourteen 737 new generation aircraft out of our MSP hub. We plan to grow the airline at a rate of at least two or three aircraft per year for the foreseeable future, with the potential to increase that growth rate after 2013. Gate and operating space at Terminal Two is absolutely essential to. our planned growth. Without the planned expansion of gates at T2, Sun Country's planned growth, at least at MSP, would be severely constrained. Sun Country needs the growth at T2 to continue to provide the greater Minnesota public with competitive air fares and enhanced direct air service. We very much support the MSP 2020 planned improvements. Sincerely, John S. Fredericksen Vice President and General Counsel 1300 Mendota Heights Road, Mendota Heights, MN 55120 Corporate Headquarters 651.681.3900 Reservations 800.359.6786 Fax 651.6813901 Heather Branigin From: Carl Michaud <Carl.Michaud @hennepin.us> Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2014 10:55 AM To: Carl Michaud Cc: Peter McLaughlin; Linda Higgins; Debra R Brisk; Mary E. Davidson; Anthony G Hainault; Benjamin L Knudson Subject: Please support bill to increase funding for recycling Attachments: IGRsheet_2014- Score_final.pdf Dear Mayors and City Managers, I'm writing to alert you to a bill before the Minnesota Legislature that would substantially increase state funding to city and county recycling programs (SCORE grants). Increasing SCORE funding is a priority adopted by the Hennepin County Board in its 2014 State Legislative Platform. Please contact your state representative and state senator to ask them to support this bill, HF 2564, and to consider being a co- author. Hennepin County received $2.85 Million in SCORE grants in 2013, and 100 percent of it was given to cities. HF2564 could double the SCORE grant Hennepin County provides cities. Local governments have adopted new recycling strategies to increase recycling rates by transforming collection systems, addressing changes in waste composition, and finding effective ways to communicate with residents and businesses about the benefits to reducing, reusing and recycling materials that would otherwise be waste. Every year the state puts one third of the Solid Waste Management.Tax into the general fund. HF2564 will return all of this money to its original intent by restoring SCORE grants to local government. Our legislators will want to know there is oversight for this money. They can be satisfied that the MPCA audits all SCORE grants Furthermore, all counties, including Hennepin, report annually to the MPCA on the results of our recycling programs, how the money we receive from the state is spent, and how much local match it leverages. Our recycling programs are implemented by counties in accordance with solid waste plans approved by the MPCA. In the metro area, cities are integral to the success counties attain in these recycling programs. We know how to raise recycling rates if we have the resources to do it. Additional SCORE grants to counties will leverage new program activities and spending by counties and cities. We can recycle more if we have resources to pursue these goals. For more information, please see the attached fact sheet. Please contact your legislators in the next week to express strong support for HF2564 and its Senate companion. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 612 - 348 -3054. Thank you, Carl Michaud Carl Michaud I Director I Hennepin County Department of Environmental Services 701 Fourth Avenue South, Suite 700 1 Minneapolis, MN 55415 Carl.Michaud @hennepin.us I Office: 612-348-3054 1 Mobile: 612-919-2302 Hennepin County platform priority Restore SCORE funding sf' "Ffz� "w >gr ,•- �s&Tp % *'" a i e syy zs ca. � Rtluas I Contacts Ambitious goals require innovation and funding Hennepin County The state of Minnesota requires counties to meet ambitions recycling and waste Intergovernmental Relations reduction goals. However, state funding for local efforts has not kept pace with Mary Beth Davidson available revenues. Hennepin County requests that the Minnesota Legislature restore SCORE funding to its original purpose, to fund county waste reduction, recycling and Director composting efforts to meet state solid waste goals. Office: 612- 348 -5120 The state established a funding source for local recycling programs in 1989 when Cell: 612- 799 -0323 the.legislature adopted recommendations of the Governor's Select Committee on mary.davidson @co.hennepin.mn.us Recycling and the Environment (SCORE). However, only a fraction of SCORE- funding is allocated to local governments while a larger proportion is distributed to the Hennepin County Stare General Fund. The state's financial support is critical to our success, and local Environmental Services governments need additional financial support to meet the new recovery goals that we Carl Michaud all agree are worthwhile. Director Direr Direc612- 612- 348 -3054 Keeping pace with new technologies and changes in Office: (oilmichaud @hennepaus waste composition To increase recycling rates, counties and cities must adapt recycling services offered to residents and businesses to keep up With changing technology and to collect more Website material. These efforts must include increasing opportunities for organics composting, expanding public education and creating programs that take a new approach to www.hennepin.us/ encouraging residents and businesses to reduce, reuse and recycle more. solidwasteplanning Hennepin County takes seriously its state - mandated responsibility to ensure that all residents have the opportunity to recycle. The decision to allocate the larger share of funding to the State General Fund means that local governments are carrying a heavy burden of maintaining and enhancing recycling services. This has limited our ability to aggressively implement new ways to increase recycling and composting. State Revenue: SCORE tax (estimated) State Revenue: Solid Waste Management Tax State grants to all counties (SCORE) Minnesota solid waste tax revenues do not support recycling Se000,000 ...... $70,000.000 S60,000,000 $50,000,000 $4(),000,000 530,000,000 570,000,000 $10,000,000 5, ,qo l��tis�ti"Ce "C", continues on bath Funding support has not kept up with tax revenues Since 1989, tax revenues collected by the state to support waste and recycling programs have more than tripled, but the amount of funding allocated to counties has not increased. The SCORE tax established in 1989 became the Solid Waste Management Tax in 1998. In 2013, the State of Minnesota collected $70 million by way of the Solid Waste Management Tax. Only 22 percent —$14 million —was allocated to all 87 Minnesota counties. At the same time, 30 percent —$21 million — of SCORE- funding went to the State General Fund. Local recycling innovation continues Despite stagnant funding from the state, counties and cities have increased investments in recycling programs. last year, Hennepin County: • Received only $2.85 million in SCORE funding from the state, all of which was distributed among the county's 44 cities to support curbside recycling programs. At the same time, I lennepin Courny spent $9.3 million and its cities spent an additional $8.6 million on waste reduction and recycling programs. • Required cities to accept more materials for recycling arid to collect recycling using single sort collection, which is proven to significantly increase participation and recovery rates. • Offered $700,000 in grants to businesses and schools to implement or improve recycling and organics composting programs, and provided assistance to property owners to improve recycling at apartment buildings and townhornes. • implemented several public education campaigns, supported city -based educational efforts and developed uniform signage for recycling efforts throughout the county. • Shared its recycling signage and educational materials with other counties and cities. helping to cut costs and ensure a consistent regional message. To achieve the mutual goals set by the state and local governments to increase recycling rates and manage more waste higher on the waste hierarchy, we must aggressively implement new programs to increase wasic reduction, recycling and composting. The state can support local efforts to achieve greater waste recovery rates by reallocating the Solid Waste Management Tax for its original intent. For example, Hennepin County estimates that it would cost at least an additional $7 million a year to offer curbside organics composting in all cities in the county. Dedicating this tax to its original funding intent will provide the support counties and cities need to boost recycling rates to reach state goals. Hennepin County and cities strong commitment to recycling $10,000,000 $9,000,000 $8,000,000 $7,000,000 } $6,000,000 a y $5,000,000 7 <; i< ; ] l $4,000,000 Dx r $3,000,000 $2,0001000 r r ` $1,o00,000 $0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 est. il State SCORE Grant Hennepin County Cities page 2 Heather Branigin From: Vicoula4 @aol.com Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2014 1:03 PM To: Edina Mail; jonibennettl2 @comcast.net; Mary Brindle (Comcast); joshsp rag ue @edinarealty.com; swensonann @gmail.com Subject: Fred Richards Dear Mayor and Council Members: The timeline proposed for the Fred Richard decision is unacceptable. There are alternative solutions and they should be fully explored. It is the belief of many residents that there is a "hidden agenda ", despite denial from the council. This is a decision that should not be rushed. This past year the debt for the course has been retired and it will make a profit. If there were effort into marketing and advertising, even as simple as signs on France Ave. and in the hotels that surround the immediate area, the profitability would be even greater. It is a huge leap of optimism to think that Braemar will satisfy the golfers from Fred Richards. It is the feeling that Council Members and the Mayor are NOT LISTENING to the input offered. Please delay this decision until after this golf season. Vicki Withers Heather Branigin From: Frazell, Kevin <KFrazell @lmc.org> Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2014 3:45 PM To: _ pattyacomb @yahoo.com; kj.anderson3311 @gmail.com; gbarone @eminnetonka.com; jonibennettl2 @comcast.net; mbilderback @rochestermn.gov,- Brede, Ardell; Mary Brindle (Comcast); timbusse @hotmail.com; ashley.fairbanks @minneapolismn.gov; jconsidine @city.mankato.mn.us; Annie Coyle; mayor @ci.rosemount.mn.us; jane.eastwood @ci.stpaul.mn.us; edwinagarcia44 @gmail.com; Goettel, Debbie; smarschall @cityofapplevalley.org; smarschall @ci.apple - valley.mn.us; jimhamilton @pacemn.com; patharrisl @comcast.net; Edina Mail; thowe @coon rapidsmn.gov; eiago @cityofwsp.org; daveJacobsen @newb rig htommn.gov; andrewjohnson @minneapolismn.gov; Johnson, Marvin; pjj37 @comcast.net; Johnson, Shaunna; mitchell.kilian @mspmac.org; dklint @coonrapidsmn.gov; jkoch @ coon rapidsmn.gov; jeanette .clawson @ci.owatonna.mn.us; Jeff rey.Lunde @brooklynpark.org; sandrameans @charter. net; Miller, Jim; suzie .nakasian @ci.northfield.mn.us; Scott Neal;joleson @BloomingtonMN.gov; john.quincy @minneapolismn.gov; chuckrepke @aol.com; michael.schultz @bhshealth.org; tom.smith @ci.stpaul.mn.us; joshsprague @edinarealty.com; staver.randy @rochestermn.gov; ward2 @ci.stpaul.mn.us; ward3 @ci.stpaul.mn.us; mil <e.trepanier @brooklynpark.org; Verbrugge, Jamie; abdi.warsame @minneapolismn.gov; Jeff .Weisensel @ci. rose mount.mn.us; swells @coonrapidsmn.gov; votewojcik@gmaii.com;jzanmiller@cityofwsp.org Subject: Wednesday on Capitol Hill -One Last Time With Feeling!! Attachments: 2014 Federal Policy Priority Paper Final.docx Good Afternoon Minnesota Delegates - Hope this e -mail finds you either having productive meetings at the Capitol OR out enjoying the Washington weather. I strolled up to the National Zoo and actually got to see Bao Bao, the baby panda, and his parents. I'm sending this e-mail as a final reminder of the details of our meeting with the Mimzesota members of Congress tomorrow morning and to let you know of a slight last minute change - that Senator Klobuchar will now be joining us right at 8:30 a.m. All the more reason to be there as early as you can. So our full schedule is: 8:30 - Senator Klobuchar and Representative Walz 8:45 - Representative Ellison 9:00 - Representative Nolan 10:00 - Representative McCollum 10:15 - Senator Franken A copy of our final policy paper is attached for your review. We'll have hard copies for you at the meeting. And here again, are the rest of the logistic details for the meeting: Wednesday, March 12, 8:30 —10:30 a.m. Meeting with Our Congressional Delcgation Library of Congress, Thomas Jefferson Building, Is' Floor Members Room (LJ 162) — The Jefferson Building is located at the northeast corner of P Street and Constitution Avenue, immediately east of the Capitol and south of the Supreme Court. It is a short tm,o blocks directly north of the Capitol South Metro station The trip from the conference area (Wardman Hotel) to the Library of Congress can take a good 30 - 45 minutes during rush hour traffic, so be sure to allow plenty of time. I look forward to seeing you in the moring! Kevin Kevin Frazell, ICMA -CM Director of Member Services Tel: (651) 281 -1215 Cell: (651) 303 -6034 kfrazell(cDlmc.org I www.Imc.org League of Minnesota Cities 145 University Ave. West St. Paul, MN 55103 From: Frazell, Kevin Sent: Friday, February 28, 2014 12:15 PM To: pattyacomb @yahoo.com; kj.anderson3311 @gmail.com; gbarone @eminnetonka.com; jonibennettl2 @comcast.net; mbilderback @rochestermn.gov; abrede @rochestermn.gov; mbrindle @comcast.net; timbusse @hotmail.com; ashley.fairbanks @minneapolismn.gov; jconsidine @city. man kato.mn.us; acoyle @edinamn.gov; mayor @ci.rosemount.mn.us; jane.eastwood @ci.stpaul.mn.us; Kevin Frazell (kfrazell @lmc.org); edwinagarcia44 @gmail.com; Goettel, Debbie; smarschall @cityofapplevalley.org; smarschall @ci.apple - valley.mn.us; jimhamilton @pacemn.com; patha rrisl @com cast. net; mail @edinamn.gov; thowe@coonrapidsmn.gov; eiago @cityofwsp.org; dave.jacobsen @newbrightommn.gov; andrew.johnson @minneapolismn.gov; marvdjohnson @gmail.com; pjj37 @comcast.net; shaunna .johnson @ci.waitepark.mn.us; mitchell.kilian @mspmac.org; dklint @coonrapidsmn.gov; jkoch @coonrapidsmn.gov; jeanette .clawson @ci.owatonna.mn.us; Jeffrey. Lunde @brooklynpark.org; sandrameans @charter.net; Miller, Jim (JMiller @lmc.org); suzie .nakasian @ci.northfield.mn.us; sneal @edinamn.gov; joleson @BloomingtonMN.gov; john.quincy @minneapolismn.gov; chuckrepke @aol.com; michael.schultz @bhshealth.org; tom.smith @ci.stpaul.mn.us; joshsprague @edinareaIty.com; staver.randy @rochestermn.gov; ward2 @ci.stpaul.mn.us; ward3 @ci.stpaul.mn.us; mike .trepanier @brooklyn park. org; jam ie .verbrugge @brooklyn park .org; abdi.warsame @minneapolismn.gov; J eff .Weisensel @ci.rosemount.mn.us; swells @coonrapidsmn.gov; votewojcik @gmail.com; jzanmiller @cityofwsp.org Subject: Mn Activities During the Upcoming NLC Congressional -City Conference Good Afternoon — I am happy to let you know that the MN delegation to the upcoming NLC Congressional -City Conference Washington is growing! I look forward to seeing all of you there. A copy of the memo for MN delegates, describing our events during the conference, is attached. Rather than send this to just the new registrants I am sending it to everyone as a reminder. For those of you who received it about a week ago, there have been no changes from that earlier copy. If you are a staff member who registered your mayor or city councilmember for the conference, please be sure he or she receives a copy. And do feel to contact me if you have any questions prior to or during the conference. All of my contact information is below. Kevin Kevin Frazell, ICMA -CM Director of Member Services Tel: (651) 281 -1215 1 Fax: (651) 215 -4104 Cell: (651) 303 -6034 kfrazella- Imc.orq I www.Imc.org League of Minnesota Cities 145 University Ave. West St. Paul, MN 55103 Connecting & Innovating since 1913 Stay connected with the League of Minnesota Cities: p'.' Web Facebook Twitter U Blog OGO LEAGUE of MINNESOTA CITIES 2014 Federal Priorities Support Marketplace Fairness Difficulties collecting already owed taxes for on -line sales are costing the State of Minnesota nearly $500m annually in lost revenue and is putting the,.brick- and -mortar retail businesses critical to our communities at.a competitive disadvantage. We thank the Senate for passing the Marketplace Fairness Act to'rectify this inequity and ask the House to do the. same. Invest in Local Transportation Priorities Cities, along with their partners in transportation, are alarmed that the Federal Highway Trust Fund will be out of money by late summer, forcing state and local governments to suspend critical projects and /or substitute local funds for federal dollars. Further, we are disappointed at the seeming inability of Congress to renew a; multi -year transportation bill with a level of funding that makes the federal government a key partner in addressing the nation's seriously lagging and deficient system of roads, bridges, and transit. The federal gas tax has not been increased in over 20 years. We ask Congress to authorize a new, long -term federal surface transportation program that recognizes the central role of transportation to local economies and that includes city, community, and regional voices in planning and project selection. Protect Tax - Exemption on Municipal Bonds Cities strongly oppose any attempt to eliminate or even cap the traditional tax exemption for municipal bonds, whether as a part of a deficit reduction plan, a push for comprehensive tax reform or as an offset for new spending. At a time when there is broad agreement on the need to upgrade the nation's infrastructure it is shortsighted to raise the cost of municipal borrowing. Further, while it may be tempting to see elimination or restriction of the exemption as a matter of tax progressivity, the fact is that much of the additional interest cost will be covered by higher levels of local property taxation, the most regressive tax there is. Fix the Nation's Broken Immigration System We call on Congress and the Administration to pass a comprehensive immigration reform bill that will fix the nation's broken immigration system that hurts families, communities and our economy. For far too long our immigration system has threatened our sense of community and held back economic growth by keeping a substantial population from being able to fully participate. This broken system also imposes unnecessary burdens and costs on the delivery of local city services. Cities commend the Senate for having passed a plan that includes a path to citizenship, strong border enforcement and support for cities and towns to integrate immigrants into their communities and allow them to make both cultural and economic contributions to the nation. We ask the House to pass legislation that achieves similar outcomes. Strengthen the Nation's Education Pipeline Cities seek to partner with the Department of Education in strengthening the education pipeline from early childhood through improved postsecondary success. That means supporting the role that cities can play in advancing early childhood opportunities, high - quality afterschool programs and strategies to improve postsecondary success rates. We need Congress to reauthorize the Elementary. and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), which includes important education programs such as Title I, so that states and localities will have the tools they need to improve their local education systems. Support Community Resilience Since about the mid- 2000's, extreme weather events have become more common in Minnesota, significantly increasing losses for our cities and for the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust. Local governments in all geographic and climatic regions are looking for resources to assist them in anticipating, preparing for and adapting to these events. We ask Congress and the Administration to help local governments conduct vulnerability assessments, and develop and implement adaptation and resilience action plans. This includes passing the STRONG Act (Strengthening the Resiliency of our Nation on the Ground). For further information contact Kevin Frazell at 651- 281 -1215 or kfrazell @lmc.org Heather Branigin From: Dean Mathews Sr. <deansr @marathonfoods.net> Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2014 8:02 PM To: Edina Mail Cc: Dean Mathews; Kelly McCoy; Timothy Nasby; bramsay @bernatellos.com; Sue; John Stang Subject:. Fred Richards golf course Reading the March 6 issue of the Sun Current has led me to correspond as follows: 1)EQB advises city that an EAW is not required; Minnesota rules require an EAW if a golf course is involved.... ? ? ?? 2)staff has a master plan...No, we cannot afford a master plan.... Fred loses money:.No, Fred makes money. 3)MMD -6 to PUD, and how does AUAR come into play ?... There is so much obfuscation here that how does your typical constituent know "Who's on First" 4)Hillcrest'and Lankenoff quotes clearly demonstrate impatience and disregard for anything That gets in the way of "their plan "...They were asked to leave a planning meeting ?! I! 5) So Edina really doesn't have a golf plan , and Hillcrest really doesn't have a development plan, so let's close a profitable enterprise -the Fred. ? ? ?? There are sufficient questions that need to be addressed.. I encourage that you all will vote to do so in the upcoming session. Office at 5100 Edina Industrial Blvd ... work and live here! Thanks, Dean (952) 835 -5151 Office (612) 819 -4073 Cell Sent from my iPad Heather Branigin From: Tim Zellmer <Tim.Zellmer @genmills.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2014 11:31 PM To: Edina Mail Subject: Edina City Council Mr Mayor: we support keeping Fred Richards a city golf course. Please vote to keep it. We Live on Casco, FYI . Thank you, Tim Zellmer Sent from my iPhone i Heather Branigin From: hunzelman @comcast.net Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2014 7:08 AM To: jonibennett @comcast.net Cc: Mary Brindle (Comcast); Joshsprague @edinareality.com; swensonannl @gmail.com; Edina Mail Subject: 3/4/14 Edina City.Council Meeting Ms. Bennett, I am copying all the council members on this email because this is information that all of you need to be more aware of as you continue your tenure on the council as it is on TV for all to view. You may want to take a look at the 3/4 meeting, I have watched it several times. If you have time take a look at the Planning Commission Meeting 2/28, where the developer of Pentagon Park turned around and pointed at the camera saying, I am not trying to change Fred Richards Golf Course, I have nothing to do with Fred Richards Golf Course!!! As I was attending the, Edina High School Baseball meeting last evening, I was able to talk to many voters about "The Fred ". Almost all of them have been following the story in the news papers and many watched the meeting on March 4th. There were many questions and comments but one comment was repeated many times and one question so I told the group I would email the council for comment. The comment: We saw the group debate for almost an hour about how to save the trees (there was even discussion about the species of trees) on the lots that 2 houses were going to be torn down for 3 new houses. The developer was even required to show detailed drawings of house plans and when the placement of the driveways was missing there was another 30 minute discussion about driveway placement to assist the home owner to back out with a better view of traffic. The same council barely asked "The Fred" group questions about their financial analysis and presentations. The only thing that seemed to be discussed was the environmental issues that the group wanted evaluated more throughly before moving forward. The city manager was very quick to let the council know this was an option to look at but ultimately the mayor and council can go forward without any further review. This made all of you relieved(watch yourselves on the tapes). While your are watching, look at your reactions when the tax issues were discussed. You saved the trees on 3 lots thank you!!! What is really planned for the golf course everybody wants to know? The question: Ms. Bennett, you ran across the stage with a letter from someone that had written you the summer of 2013 about the rumors that Fred Richards was going to be closed, what was your response to that letter? And, are you for the environment or are you against it? I am going to be talking to voters this weekend at the Jr. Gold State Tournament at Braemar Ice Arena. I would appreciate any comments you have so your comments can shared with the voters. Everybody I talked to wants to be more informed about what is going on, not everybody is for keeping the golf coarse open and were upfront with their comments knowing I live on Fred Richards Golf Course. They all agreed taking more time would be wise on your part. Renee Hunzelman 7461 West Shore Drive 952 - 270 -7305 Heather Branigin From: Citizens For A Better Grandview <abettergrandview @gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2014 12:33 PM To: Edina Mail Subject: For the City Council Attachments: Citizens For A Better Grandview.pdf Please include the attached in the City Council packet for their March 18 meeting. Thank you very much, Kim Montgomery Citizens For A Bettei° Gnindview http:,//abetter2randview.weebly.com CITIZENS FORA BETTER GRANDVIEW HOME VISION PROJECT STATUS CONTACT Contact us RESOURCES COMMENTS MOREs- Public land in the heart of our community is an invaluable, irreplaceable resource that will be lost forever for public use if we don't speak up. Citizens For A Better Grandview is a growing group of Edina residents concerned about the City economic development plans to partner with a real estate developer to develop 3.3 acres of public land in the heart of our community. This land is located at 5146 Eden Avenue in the Grandview neighborhood (near Our Lady of Grace and Jerry's Foods).. The process to seek a developer partner to redevelop the site has already begun. With every day, we get closer to losing our public land to private redevelopment. Di ihlin Ionri in fhc hood of ni it nnmrni inif%i ;con Name First Last Email Please select (optional) • OK to include my name on your supporters list • Please contact me about volunteering Submit K +st�lJ i uunv iuiw ui u��. ��.ui� vi vu� vv�innu�n�y n..v wi invaluable, irreplaceable resource that will be lost for public use if we don't speak up. WHAT WE WANT For the City of Edina to immediately stop the process to pursue redevelopment through the sale or lease of public land at 5146 Eden Avenue and for the City to begin an open, inclusive process to identify and meet current and future community needs through public use of this site. HOW YOU CAN HELP Contact the Edina City Council today and ask them to immediately end the process to pursue redevelopment through the sale or lease of public land at 5146 Eden Avenue and to begin an open, inclusive process to identify and meet community needs through public use of this site. Sign up for our email list (above) Sign our petition here Write a letter to the Edina Sun Current in support of preserving the public land at 5146 Eden Avenue for public use Invite us to speak at your civic or service group Share this website with your friends, neighbors and other contacts Share this website on Facebook, Twitter and Nextdoor (go to nextdoor.com to find your online neighborhood) Illustration from Grandview District Redevelopment Framework modified to show green space in place of proposed high density housing MISSION The mission of Citizens For A Better Grandview is to raise awareness, invite conversation, and join together as a community to preserve the public land at 5146 Eden Avenue for public use. We invite you to add your voice. Please join our email and supports list above. NEWS In January 2014 the Morris Leatherman Company conducted a representative survey of Edina residents to get their views about public land and redevelopment of the former public works site. Survey results are now in and can be viewed here. Highlights from the survey: 61 % of residents agree with the statement "The city should not sell publicly -owned land." 66% of residents agree with the statement "Publicly - owned land should be retained and used for public purposes only." 68% of residents agree with the statement "The city should create more recreational opportunities for people of all ages." 72% of residents agree with the statement "The city should create more cultural and arts opportunities for people of all ages." 93% of residents agree with the statement "A strong sense of community is important to me." 86% of residents are somewhat or very familiar with the Grandview district. Just 36% of residents are somewhat or very familiar with the Grandview Redevelopment Framework, and 46% have not heard of it. 37% of residents support only public uses of the site. 9% support only private uses. 46% support a combination of private and public uses. The survey consultant remarked that while mixed use would be appropriate (based on the answers to this question), the high number of residents who support only public use compared to the low number of residents who support only private use is "strongly suggestive" that any mixed use development should be predominantly public. Residents were read a list.of potential uses for the site and asked to rank their top two. The uses with the most support were an outdoor plaza or park (25 %), exercise /fitness center (22 %), performing arts space (21 %), art center /gallery (21 %), and indoor pool /play area (17 %). The least preferred uses for the site were apartments (64% opposed), town homes /condos (54% opposed), and office space (47% opposed). 53% of residents support the construction of a new community center. Residents were asked what amenities they would like to see included in a community center. The top answers were a fitness center (30 %), performing arts center (20 %), indoor pool (16 %) and meeting rooms (14 %). Create a free website with CITIZENSIOR A BETTER CRANDMEW contact Us HOME V.PlION PRO.IECT STATUS CONTACT RESOURCES COMMENT$ MORE— Edina will be the preeminent place for living, learning, raising families and doing business. Edina's Vision 20/20 Our vision for the former public works.site at Grandview begins with acknowledging that Edina has high standards. Edina has achieved success as a community by preparing itself for tomorrow. Edina's Vision 20/20 Update Our vision continues by acknowledging that Edina must prepare itself for tomorrow. The way we live, learn, raise families and do business is changing. Our;population is changing too: Edina could have as many as 70,000 residents by 2030, according to the Metropolitan Council. Edina must prepare itself for tomorrow. The place to start is by preserving public land for public use. As Citizens For A Better Grandview, we believe that public land in the heart of our community is an invaluable, irreplaceable resource that is needed to meet the growing and changing needs of our community. These needs have not been fully identified, but by looking at the changes in the way we live, learn, work, and play we can begin to see emerging needs and imagine innovative ways to respond. Something New? ❑ Community fitness center • Community meeting rooms • Work and study areas with free wi -fi • An outdoor public park • Gyms • Performing Arts Center • Metro Transit park and ride Something Moved? ❑ Edina Art Center ❑ Community Education adult classes • ECFE and early childhood center • Edina Historical Society Something Else? submit aw Today's community centers are often beautiful, functional spaces that enhance the image of the community and add vibrancy to surrounding land uses. Below are some examples of beautiful public spaces. Take a look, then tell us what public spaces inspire you. Firstenburg Community Center Vancouver, WA Read more about this facility here. Urlanye: r uuny parents are woKlny Icr daces where they and their children can meet up with friends, burn off some energy, and engage in relaxed or structured recreational and learning activities. Response: Create a family - centered community space for recreation and learning that blends a community fitness center with an early childhood learning center. Change: Home buyers are looking for communities that provide the public infrastructure and amenities that support their active lifestyles. Response: Create a community activity center for fitness and fun in the heart of our city and accessible by foot, bicycle, transit and car. Change: Baby boomers do not want to be labeled as "seniors." Response: Create an intergenerational community center to replace the traditional senior center and provide social, learning and fitness activities for people of all ages, together and under one roof. LEARN Change: Edina's school age population is increasing. Edina Public Schools may need to reclaim the current Community Center (old Edina East High School) for K- 12 classrooms. Response: Create a new community center that provides space for Edina Community Education, ECFE and early childhood learning. Change: For years, Edina schools have attracted new residents. As nearby communities also become known for their schools, Edina will need additional ways to compete for new residents. Response: Create the kind of public amenities that attract and retain new residents. Vice] 0 Change: More people work from home; small businesses need office and meeting space. Response: Create an innovative co- working community space that provides flexible seating areas, work tables, wi -fi and office technology, and meeting Photo: Michael Mather Lynwood Recreation Center Lynwood WA NAC Architecture Bryant Park New York NY Photo: PPS The Forks Winnipeg MB rooms. PLAY Change: People are looking for recreational opportunities close to home. Edina has historically located its major public recreational facilities near the southern edges of our community, making them inconvenient for many and inaccessible for most by anything other than car. Response: Construct a new public recreational amenity in a central, convenient location that can be accessed by foot, bicycle, and transit, as well as car. Change: Edina's community fitness spaces are cramped, outdated and losing money. The current community center looks tired and unwelcoming. (See photos here.) Surrounding communities offer modern, profitable fitness and activity centers. Response: Consolidate these facilities into a new integrated community fitness and educational center. Change: Looking for modern recreational amenities, Edina residents are taking their fitness and activity dollars out of the community, taking their shopping and service dollars as well. Response: Keep these dollars in Edina by providing a community fitness and activity center in a mixed use district, with easy access to shopping and services. All of this is possible in Edina if we have the vision. Any of it is possible if we have the will. What changes do you see affecting Edina? What are your ideas for responding to these changes? Tell us below. What changes to you see affecting Edina? What are your ideas for responding to these changes? vmw theforks com Indianapolis Cultural Trail Indianapolis IN indycultu raltrail.org Need more inspiration? Click here. What public spaces inspire you? Tell us below. submit PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT When it comes to our public land at 5146 Eden Avenue, Citizens For A Better Grandview supports private development on the site if secondary to and compatible with public uses. We believe that public uses for the site should be primary, both in terms of the area devoted to these uses and in terms of the process employed to define them. PUBLIC COSTS Subrnft All ideas and comments submilled through this site become the property of Citizens for a Better Grandview. oueslions? Please email abetlergrandview @gmail.com. Private development will come with public costs, whether to upgrade the sewer, water or transportation infrastructure needed to support the new development, add public parking, or provide development bonuses or public financing. We support a thorough and open analysis of the public costs associated with private development prior to making assumptions about the financial feasibility of any public or private development scenario. Create a free website with CITIZENS FOR A BETTER GRANDVIE Contact Us HOME VISION PROJECT STATUS CONTACT RESOURCES COMMENTS MORE- Grandview Small Area Guide Plan Process April -May 2010 — Citizen Advisory Team meetings December 2010 —Final Report Grandview District Redevelopment Framework process April 2011 —April 2012 Final Report U i F -, Redevelopment of 5146 Eden Avenue process July 2013 — present Grandview District Update page on City of Edina website Thanks to everyone who has. written the City Council to support preserving 5146 Eden Avenue for public use. Some of you have received a response from a Council member assuring you that the City will not sell the land and calling into question the "wrong information" that is floating around the community. So, what's the real story? Read more here. The City of Edina had been looking for years for a place to move its Public Works operations. In 2008, it settled on the former Con Agra facility at 7450 Metro Boulevard. At that time, a real estate developer had an option on the.property. The City offered to swap the public land at 5146 Eden Avenue for part of the purchase cost of 7450 Metro Boulevard. The real estate developer would then own 5146 Eden Avenue and develop it for private use. On learning that the City planned to dispose of 5146 Eden Avenue in this way, a group of citizens joined together to stop the deal. Over 600 people signed a petition to call for a referendum on the sale of bonds to finance the purchase of the Con Agra site and the construction of a new Public Works facility. The real estate developer backed out. The City went ahead and purchased the Con Agra site and moved its Public Works operations to this site in 2010. That same year, a group of Planning Commission members proposed a process to "engage the community in planning for the future of the former public works site and the area around it." This process, now referred to as Phase 1, included a series of citizen advisory committee meetings, the first of which produced a laundry list of potential uses for the former public works site. These ideas were not further developed. Phase 1 yielded a report promoting seven Guiding Principles for redevelopment of the 37 -acre Grandview District. The City Council adopted these Guiding Principles in 2010. Phase 2 began in April 2011 and was a continuation of Phase 1. This phase brought together community members and consultants to craft a vision for how to bring the Guiding Principles to life. Although, during this process, there were two separate public conversations about potential public uses for 5146 Eden Avenue, the ideas presented were not further developed. Phase 2 resulted in the Grandview District Redevelopment Framework. The Council adopted the Framework in April 2012. A year passed and, during a joint work session of the City Council and Edina Planning Commission, the City's economic development manager, Bill Neuendorf, pitched the idea of using a request for interest (RFI) process to identify a real estate developer to partner with the City to redevelop the former public works site. Mr. Neuendorf opened the discussion by saying that lie wanted to get the Council's input on two things. "Number one," he said is the disposition and redevelopment of the public works site." Number two was community input. Whether the City should dispose of and redevelop the site —the reasons for doing so, the pros and cons of alternatives —was not presented for discussion. Disposition and redevelopment of the site were assumed. The meeting ended without Council members verbalizing consensus to move forward with the proposed plan. Yet,.the approved minutes of the meeting read: "Following discussion of the Council and Planning Commissioners, it was determined that in [Phase 3] the plan would be to send out an RFI (Request For Information) allowing developers to submit proposals for redevelopment of the public works site...." And, with that, Phase 3 was born. . The purpose of Phase 3 is to prepare and distribute an RFI to the real estate development community, with the goal of identifying a developer to partner with the City to redevelop the former public works site. This process is led by the City's economic development manager, with participation from a citizen advisory team (CAT). The CAT began meeting in July 2013. In September 2013, the CAT sought guidance from the City Council on how to move forward. Half or more of the CAT members supported identifying and vetting community uses for the site before engaging a private developer. Consensus of a majority of-City Council members, though, was to direct the CAT to continue to prepare the RFI and, concurrently, to gather data (in the form of a telephone survey) that could shed some light on potential public uses for the site. In January 2014, the CAT again sought guidance from the City Council on how to proceed. The data directed to be collected in September was not yet ready, and half or more of the CAT members still supported identifying and vetting community uses for the site before engaging a private developer. Council member Josh Sprague had a similar perspective. In an email follow up to the January 21, 2014 City Council and CAT work session, Council member Sprague shared his position: "At our work session, we met with the Grandview Community Advisory Team (CAT) to give some requested clarity on the current redevelopment process. Up to this point, there was a principled difference of opinion among CAT members about how much public use was envisioned for the site, and therefore what the best next step in the process would be. I stated that the presumption�with publicly- "owned land'should be to retain all or most of it for public use (80 -100% in this case), either for today or in the future, unless some countervailing consideration rebuts that, like: economic feasibility, design feasibility, lack of demand, lack of community support, etc. If you start with the presumption, then a better next step might be to investigate the community's preferred uses for the site, put together options for the building and outdoor space, and then run those through design and cost feasibility analysis. Then, once you arrive at a reasonable public amenity, go forth with the RFI process to determine how much of the site needs to be leveraged for private development to support an economically sustainable model. This would have the added advantage of.more clearly communicating to the development community what the public realm will look like and, therefore, what private uses would be most complimentary and feasible." A majority of the remaining Council members, however, did not share this view. In fact, a majority of Council members stated that there are no identified and vetted public needs for the site. Council member Swenson said the only public need of Grandview is parking. Read a partial transcript of:this meeting here. The consensus of three out of five Council members was to direct the CAT to continue preparation of the RFI and the process to identify a real estate development partner. Six years of process and very little has changed. The City sought private development on the former public works site in 2008 and seeks private development today. And yet there has never been an open, inclusive process specific to identifying and planning to meet current and future community needs through public uses on this land. As Citizens For A Better Grandview, we believe that public land in the heart of our community is an invaluable, irreplaceable resource that is needed to meet the growing and changing needs of our community. Our mission is to raise awareness, invite conversation, and join together as a community to save the public land at 5146 Eden Avenue for public use. Please join us in asking the City Council to immediately stop their plans to partner with a real estate developer to develop the public land and 5146 Eden Avenue and to begin an open, inclusive process specific to identifying and planning to meet current and future community needs through public use of the site. Sign our petition or share your thoughts directly with the City Council at mail @edinamn.gov. We have a better chance of being heard if you add your voice. Create a free website with CITIZENS FOR A BETTER GRAN VIEW Contact Us HOME VIS-10 N PROJECT STATUS CONTACT RESOURCES COMMENTS MORE- WHAT'S Thanks to everyone who has written the City Council to support preserving 5146 Eden Avenue for public use. Some of you have received a response from a Council member assuring you that the City will not sell the land and calling into question the "wrong information" that is floating around the community. So, what's the real story? As the following shows, the assumption throughout this process has been that the former public works site (all or part) would be sold for private development. April 16, 2013 City Council work session -- Economic development manager Bill Neuendorf presented the idea of partnering with a real estate developer to redevelop the former public'works site. He began the discussion by saying he wanted to get the Council's input on the "disposition and redevelopment" of the site. There was no discussion about whether to keep or sell the site, and no Council member raised an objection to the disposition and redevelopment of the land. September 2013 Grandview CAT meeting- -The CAT discussed key steps in the redevelopment process. Bill Neuendorf stated that, once final site plans are approved, the full terms of the contract with a developer would go into effect and the property would be transferred. November 8, 2013 Draft RFI (prepared by Bill Neuendorf)- -The draft included the following: "The City is not wedded to this particular combination of uses [as shown in the Development Framework] but is committed to having at least a portion of the site available for perpetual community use. "...at least a portion" communicates to the developer that most of the site is available for private use. "...available for perpetual community use" communicates to the developer that the community spaces could be privately owned (such as POPOS-- publicly owned public open spaces). CAT members raised questions about the sentence and it was not included in the next draft. December 3, 2013 Draft RFI (prepared by Bill Neuendorf)- -The draft included the following: "if the City Council accepts the Feasibility Study [for proposed redevelopment], 'tentative developer' will be granted an exclusive right to prepare a full proposal for the site including a term sheet to address the possible sale or lease and terms of redevelopment." January 21, 2014 City Council work session - -CAT members sought guidance from the Council on how to proceed. At issue was whether the Council wanted to pursue private development on the site and, if yes, how much private development. While Council members Bennett and Sprague supported a predominantly public use of the site, Mayor Hovland and Council members Swenson and Brindle argued that there was no need that would require a predominantly public use of the site. They assumed some public use, but argued in favor of private development. Council member Swenson brought up selling "air rights" to a developer. Council member Brindle stated that she wanted to keep ownership of the property, but sell the "air rights." Read a partial transcript of this meeting here. While it's true that the Council has not voted to sell the land, the opposite is also true: they have not voted to retain it. In fact, throughout this phase of the Grandview process, the Council has voted only once: to appoint members to the CAT. They put this process into place without a vote. They've given direction to the CAT without a vote. Selling "air rights" is a way of saying the City Council is open to entering into a long -term lease with a developer. Functionally, a 50 -99 year lease of public land to a developer is really no different from a sale. In essence, it is giving up control of valuable public land. The record shows that the sale /disposition of the former public works site (all or part) was assumed from the start. It was only after CAT members and other residents raised questions that some Council members began to clarify that they didn't intend to sell the land, but would sell the "air rights." Citizens For A Better Grandview has incorporated this into our message. We ask that the Council end the process to pursue redevelopment through the sale or lease of the former public works site. Please continue to write the City Council. If they don't intend to sell any part of the public land at 5146 Eden Avenue, ask them to vote on it -- before partnering with a real estate developer to redevelop the site. Assurances via email that the City will not sell the land is one thing. A public vote is another. It's up to us, Edina citizens, to keep them honest. updated March 11, 2014 Create a free website with CITIZENS FOR A BETTER GRANDVIEW Contact Us HOME VISION PROJECT STATUS CONTACT RESOURCES COMMENTS MORE— COMMENTS S Thank you to everyone who has signed the petition so far and submitted comments. Below are some of your thoughts. New comments will be added to the top of this page, so please check back. If you haven't signed the petition or shared your thoughts, please do. We want to hear from you and greatly value your support. It's about the citizens enjoying the public land, not about the short- sightedness. -PH Public space is the new "anchor tenant" — we can create value and community by investing in and retaining this public space for all residents. - KB As someone who grew up in Edina and is now a homeowner here and member of the next generation of Edinans I am disappointed to hear the city is considering the sale or long term lease of this public land. Specifically, I believe that being near to both a highway and a rail line makes this an exceptionally suitable site for future transit improvements which will be needed in the Edina and Twin Cities area in the future. Turning over this land to a private developer now only harms our future potential for a more transit oriented community. I strongly urge the council to reconsider seeking private development of this property and instead focus on public uses which would keep the land available for the future. - BF Not only do we need to keep public land public, I believe we should be developing a public, municipal early childhood center for the youngest citizens of our community. -KO Let's not waste a golden opportunity to serve our community. -MM Thank you for listening to citizen input. It's important to use this opportunity to preserve the PUBLIC purpose of the site for all residents rather than a private enterprise. Previously, as the public works site, the location served all of Edina. In the future, using [the site] as a community center would continue that public, civic role. -HB This land should be used for the community. A fitness center and community center would be far better for Edina than a private residence or other commercial use. -MC Edina has enough commercial development and too little community space. The ECC is old and has to be shared with an elementary school. There is the possibility of exciting, unique land use with community involvement. -SS I support the Citizens For A Better Grandview petition because this land is close to my home, and I believe it belongs to the citizens of Edina. -AG It seems like a necessary step to involve people of the community in the planning process of the public land at 5146 Eden Ave. We pride ourselves on being a future - oriented city, so let's have the people come forward with ideas for the space, and discuss them so there will be an all inclusive decision going forward. -MK We need a true community center. This is the ideal location! -MO Create a free webslte with CITIZENS FOR A BETTER GRANDVIEW Contact Us HOME _ VISION PROJECT STATUS CONTACT RESOURCES COMMENTS MORE... L_ '1 - _ We support the mission of Citizens For A Better Grandview: Mindy Ahler Reema Anwar Katherine Bass Patty Dronen. Susan Marty Eldridge Sally Euson Jennifer Hovelsrud Giovanna Ingram Lynn Johnson Ellen Jones Virginia Kearney Bruce Kieffer Alan Koehler Joseph Leach Rosanne Malevich Steven Malevich Hope Melton Bill Melton Kim Montgomery, chair Kurt Nisi Laura Nisi Katie Oberle Mic O'Brien Paul Thompson Linda Urban Louise Waddick Jeff Werbalowsky Mary Werbalowsky Catharine Williamson The mission of Citizens For A Better Grandview is to raise awareness, invite conversation, and join together as a community to preserve the public land at 5146 Eden Avenue for public use. We invite you to add your voice. Please join our Supporters List below. Name First Last Email Choose Any • Please add me to your email list • Please contact me about volunteering subrnit WTHER WAYS HELP Contact the Edina City Council today and ask them to immediately end the process to pursue redevelopment through the sale or lease of public land at 5146 Eden Avenue and to begin an open, inclusive process to identify and meet community needs through public use of this site. Sign up for our email list (above) Sign our petition here Write a fetter to the Edina Sun Current in cimnnrt of nrccnrwinn the nrihlir lQnri �af t;lAR Eden Avenue for public use Invite us to speak at your civic or service group Share this website with your friends, neighbors and other contacts Share this website on Facebook, Twitter and Nextdoor (go to nextdoor.com to find your online neighborhood) Create a free website with ,` Edina Council and Staff Re: the Golf and Fred proposal Attached is a copy, through this morning Thursday March 13, 2014, of a discussion held on Edina Talks, a two -month old replacement discussion page that has replaced the former popular PIE — Politics In Edina ,Facebook page. I believe you would want this for your record as Facebook reports a distinct 565 people are following this particular post and comments, to date. 565 is interesting because so 107 persons have actually joined the two -month old group so far meaning it has been passed around. Clerk Mangen is being provided with enough copies for council, interested staff, and perhaps a few others. Dick Novack 5805 Interlachen Blvd Edina, MN 55436 Edina Talks {� Contentious Council Meeting of City of Edina, MN (Local Government) over the golf course operations and the recommendation to close Fred Richards Golf Course by City Manager Scott Neal with Parks and Recreation Director Ann Kattreh. The public was heavily in opposition based on the apparent fast (30 days) process from when it was first proposed. Public also criticized the one option plan while some really blamed it was tied to the redevelopment of Pentagon Park - at the very least as to using the TIFF district money for financing. Give your opinions. The hearing video is below. This matter begins at 30:00 minutes into the video and is worth listening to. Public testimony is ended but the matter has been tabled 2 weeks during which they will accept written or emailed comment. Most council member also accept constituent calls. Phone numbers and emails are on the city website. City Council - Mar 4th, 2014 edina.granicus.com Live and Recorded Public meetings of City Council for City of Edina Like - Comment - Share - March 5 at 3:50pm . Edited • i,z 18 Lonni Simpson Skrentner and 5 others like this. Top Comments - f Write a comment... Kevin Staunton Not really sure what the point of taking a personal shot at the city manager is all about. He's doing his job -- raising a legitimate issue about substantial losses in one of the city's enterprise funds. He's a well - respected and very capable guy. Like • Reply • v6 4 - March 5 at 9:40pm RKWO Tyler Armstrong Fred Richards was and is a mainstay for young kids in Edina. I used to play there almost everyday in the summer as a kid and it would be a shame to lose it. Unless I'm completely uninformed, and it's no longer being use (I played it last summer and it was very busy the day I played), I really hope this doesn't happen. Like • Reply • 6 4 • March 5 at 4:10pm Kevin Staunton I have made a note -- Dick and Tyler both in favor of City spending. You don't see that every day. . All joking aside, it seems like the issue is about capacity. The stats I've seen suggest that we have more golf holes (45) than is typical and that usage of the total system is well below capacity. From what I understand, this is consistent with a general trend nationwide of fewer rounds of golf being played. Unless you think this trend will reverse itself or have some other way to increase demand, it makes sense to reduce capacity. The question then is -- what do you eliminate? Eliminating the Fred (nostalgia aside) makes some sense because it is separate from the rest of the golf complex and, accordingly, requires a duplicate set of expenditures. I hear concerns that Braemar is not kid - friendly. Thats valid but seems more efficiently addressed by changing Braemar rather than retaining excess capacity at a second location. Like • Reply • 6 2 • March 5 at 9:35pm Dick Novack A number of Edina's knowledgeable citizens roundly criticized the plan, offered alternatives and statistics showing the plan was "not as claimed." City staff appears to be doing it to leverage financing redevelopment of the Braemar golf facilities. Not because "The Fred" is not used and popular especially for youth and seniors. Listen, study and see what you think. My opinion is to agree with those who say this is too quick and needlessly too fast. From Facebook / Edina Talks Printed March 13, 2014 8:45AM Facebook will not order community page posts and replies in the order received. Please check date and times. Like • Reply • 4 2 • March 5 at 3:55pm , Edited Kevin Staunton You raise a good philosophical issue, Dick. To be clear, I do not subscribe to the theory that all enterprise funds need to break even or make money. I agree with your point about amenities -- there are certain things that are available in our community that we should be willing to pay for. The question is how much are willing to pay for each amenity. For me, it depends to some extent on whether that amenity is available in the private marketplace. I would not, for instance, support the notion of city liquor stores if we were losing money on those ventures ( a purist would say we have no business being in that business but that's another discussion). On the other end of the spectrum, I expect that we will not break even on something like the art center; we provide it as an amenity precisely because the private marketplace can't make it work. Golf probably falls somewhere in between -- while it's available in the private marketplace, the cost sometimes makes it inaccessible as a practical matter (especially for kids). The issue, then, is what constitutes -- as you put it -- "prudent'' investment in these amenities. I think the city has done some nice work over the last several years, for example, on improving the financial picture for the art center. It does not make money now (or even break even) but is not costing nearly what it was. The golf question is the same -- what is a "prudent" amount to invest in that amenity? When I see that demand for the amenity is at 26% of capacity, it doesn't sound "prudent." Whether we address that by eliminating the Fred, reducing holes /capacity at Braemar, enhancing the driving range to produce more revenue, finding some way to increase demand, or some other tactic is a legitimate debate. Like • Reply - March 6 at 9:32am WDick Novack We're on same page here. However, I was not pleased with "staff' statements about moving away from resident rates and offering other incentives. Our enterprise facilities now draw a lot of outsiders - who should pay reasonable rates. But I want a resident rate that gives credit for our using it as our amenity. I don't want to buy a full season discounted pass to once -in -a while take myself or grandchild to golf, or swim, or Edinborough, or skate. Places I already pay for with taxes. Discounted resident pay per use should stay. Like • 4 2 - March 6 at 10:08am Kevin Staunton You nicely articulate the rationale for a dual rate structure. Like , w5 1 • March 6 at 12:30pm ... ...... _. .. _ ............ . Write a reply... Dick Novack Kevin has started an interesting point - involving the words "spending" and "enterprise." Half a century ago when Edina started booming all "these things" were "amenities with no intent to make money. Every Edina homeowner expected a cost, and supported facilities - because it was for us. My parents were clear on this to me. The Muni made little money in the early days. Liquor expansion and our huge profitability came later - mostly feeding off of the luck of getting major retail development starting with Southdale. Golf, swimming, parks, ice were never intended to make money - they were for us to use. The discussion should include - should all of these things be evaluated only on the basis of payback - a modem phenomena - or, should we also consider the amenity value to US. I choose the latter, because it makes Edina what Edina is, and financially it is a big reason we have such a successful housing market. So yes I favor prudent amenity spending. It and schools turned the house my parents built in 1950 into something worth 32 times that now. That is what good amenities do for you. Maybe that is what the Neal opponent means. Like • Reply - March 6 at 4:57am • Edited Floyd Grabiel By the way, the Pentagon Park proposal has nothing to do with the Fred decision, and the Fred decision has nothing to do with the Pentagon Park proposal. Like • Reply • March 5 at 5:17pm Floyd Grabiel All that said, it doesn't take someone with a PhD in Economics to see what has happened to the game of golf .I%. !+ throughout the country and in Minnesota over the past 15 years: Less r playing, too many golf courses, costs going up. Like • Reply - March 5 at 5:16pm , Edited Floyd Grabiel The Pentagon Park development has NOTHING, repeat, NOTHING to do with whatever happens with Fred. It's okay to be for or against something, but stick to the facts. Like • Reply • March 5 at 5:12pm Dick Novack Not exactly Floyd. Part of the council discussion (above) brings in the new Pentagon TIF. Questioning by Member Sprague revealed that the TIF funds can be used on The Fred property IF it is no longer an Enterprise facility (golf charging money) and becomes a park, maybe water storage, etc. The TIF district can only be expanded to Fred if Fred is closed. I replayed Katreh 3 times and am pretty sure that is an unwritten part of the plan as it could fully pay for a lot. A big incentive for staff to want to kill Fred. Like • s8 1 • March 5 at 8:23pm • Edited - — �. Write a reply... David Langhoiz There is a reason why Scott Neal is no longer with The City Of Eden Prairie - ask some of your EP friends what their opinions and experiences of him are Like � Reply • 4 3 • March 5 at 6:54pm Paul Zdechlik The mayor brought up that the city had previously hired a consultant for this issue, and none of their recommendations included closing the Fred. I liked the mayor suggesting the idea of selling the Klune nine at Braemar for some housing lots. Klune is a difficult nine holes that most golfer don't like. I would guess the profits from the sale would pay for upgrading the driving range, Braemar and the Fred. Edina is lucky in that many young families want to live here for the schools and quality of the city's amenities. I can't take my kids to the executive course to learn how to play golf. It is too competitive and fast. Fred is a great asset. Please keep it for the future of Edina. Maybe this isn't about the Pentagon Park plan, but it does seem rushed. This needs thoughtful consideration of all options to improving the golfing experience and building Edina golf into a self- sustaining entity. Like • Reply • in 2 - March 6 at 5:18am ®Angelia David Watson To me what smells is the unnecessary speed. One month in public view? Staff says they have been working on it since last year - but not in public. The rush does seem attached to using money from Pentagon, only available if it is not a golf course. Maybe Fred should go, or the Klunie(sp ?). But that is for more PUBLIC study and consideration, for which there is no reason to rush. It is this kind of maneuvering, treading over the residents, that makes me distrust present Edina staff. Fortunately there is an election coming. Like • Reply - @6 1 • March 9 at 10:48am )ohn Capello Just checking but umm ...we still have that world hunger thing going on right? Like • Reply • March 7 at 6:17pm Laura Richelsen Hemler Just to clarify: seems Edina government doesn't want "more golf holes than typical" for a suburb like ours. They also want to reduce bottled water usage and wood smoke to less than typical. But bike lanes, sidewalks, and public art; they want those amenities to EXCEED those of a typical suburb. Seems a matter of priorities. And the residents can and should voice what their priorities are. I applaud the Save the Fred organizers. Like - Reply • March 7 at 3:30pm 565 people saw this post 1 Heather Branigin From: Kirsten I-lanes <Ilankirs @gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2014 7A6 PM To: Edina Mail Cc: jonibennettl2 @comcast.net; Mary Brindle (Comcast); joshsprague @edinarealty.com; swensonannl @gmail.com Subject: fred richards golf course To All Whom it Concerns: I'm a resident of Edina in the South Cornelia neighborhood and am concerned about the timeline involved with discerning the use of the Fred Richards Golf Course. I have lived here since Halloween 2012 and am incredibly glad my husband and I decided to buy property in this neighborhood. I looked all over Edina with my Edina Realty agents, taking tours of dozens of houses in every quadrant, and by far found these quiet streets to be the most valuable; I very much believe the neighborhood is as such because it is near enough but not too near to Southdale and other mercantile areas. If a decision is made about the golf course within the next few days, I think it would be a missed opportunity to see how many people use the golf course over this upcoming summer. I walk by that area often and love the paved bike path that was installed near Kellogg Ave. In particular, I remember the enthusiasm from many prospective buyers I witnessed at a open house on Trillium Lane held by Josh Sprague the summer of 2012 just before the construction of the bike path and Lake Edina area was improved. Please take some time to consider your decision about the best use of this golf course for Edina, and consider approving an ad hoc team of concerned residents to develop alternative proposals for this space. Together, I am sure we can all come up with the best solution for our city. Sincerely, Kirsten Llanes Heather Branigin From: Marc Andrew <marc @cityage.org> Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2014 10:27 AM To: Edina Mail Subject: Your Invitation to CityAge: Seattle Dear Mayor Hovland, I write to ensure you've received your invitation to attend the third edition of The New American City in Seattle on June 10 & 11. We're very hopeful that someone from Edina can join us. America's cities are the engines of the national economy. By 2040, the United States will add almost 100 million people, which stands to re -shape America's built environment. This two -day event will address the new models of development, innovation and partnership that are can drive a new era of growth in jobs and the economy. Speakers will join us from Boeing, Populous, Seattle, Paul Allen's Vulcan Real Estate, AutoDesk, Grosvenor Americas, McKinsey, San Francisco, NBBJ, JP Morgan Chase, the West Coast Infrastructure Exchange, Burns & McDonnell, and many others. Information on timing and registration is available at: www.cityage.org /seattle. Full background on CityAge and our prior events across North America can be seen at: www.citVage.org. Please let me know if you have any questions. We hope you can join us! Kind regards, Marc. Marc Andrew Partner CityAge America www.cityage.org 1 Heather Branigin From: Dale Stier <dstier10 @gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2014 10:38 AM To: Edina Mail Subject: Edina Golf Courses Dear Mayor Hovland, I have been following the story of the proposed closure of the Fred Richardson Golf Course in your city. I am a former golf course owner and former President of the Mn Golf Course Owners Assn. Currently, I am consulting in the golf and recreation business. In conversation with representatives from the "Save the Fred" organization, they mentioned that the option of using a golf management company to operate Edina's golf courses was dismissed without consideration. I am currently working with Billy Casper Golf. They manage 160 golf courses nationwide and have successfully turned around several failing municipal golf facilities for the cities of Chicago, Cincinnati, and Philadelphia among others, I. am puzzled by this apparent prejudice, and it leaves me wondering about the future o1'not only the Fred Richardson course, but the Braemar Facility as well. I would encourage you to take a minute to visit the website at billycaspergolf.coin. You owe it to yourselves and your constituents to consider all the options available to you in operating your golf facilities. Please contact me if 1 can be of any assistance. Dale Stier Change Course Consulting 612 - 201 -0116 dstierl0 @gmdil.com Heather Branigin From: Doug Nelson <dnelson @t heminikandaclub.com> Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2014 12:22 PM To: Edina Mail; joshsprague @edinarealty.com; swensonannl @gmail.com; Mary Brindle (Comcast); jonibennettl2 @comcast.net Subject: Fred Richards Mr Mayor and City Council Members I am sure you have heard from plenty of Edina residents over the past weeks concerning the possible closing of the Fred Richards Golf Course. I would like togive you my thoughts based on my knowledge of the golf business. I have been working at golf courses since the early 1970's and am currently employed at The Minikanda Club as the Pro Emeritus and am a resident of Edina. My wife and I both play at Braemar and Fred Richards. She plays the Clunie course in a Ladies group and always comes home minus,a few golf balls. When we play Fred Richards she feels much more comfortable because of the way it is set up. Golf in my opinion is meant to be played while walking and this is why many Seniors are attracted to Fred Richards. The senior population is growing and it is important to introduce the game to as many juniors as possible. The Fred Richards Course is set up perfectly for that. I feel it is important to not lose the Fred Richards Golf Course. It seems like the City is in a panic to find money to make repairs to a broken down facility (Braemar). Their financing solution happens to be giving up a wonderful Golf Course (Fred. Richards) that satisfies the needs of many Edina residents. In my opinion this is the easy way out. According to the City Manager Braemar has been losing money for the past 10 years. Who has been doing the Budgets and setting the expectations to the General Manager all those years. The way I see it shame on those who have let it go this far! It is not the Edina Residents fault but they are the ones who will be waiting in line to get on the other courses in the future because of this possible short sighted decision. Another Park ?? Does Edina really need another Park? We have a great Park System the way it is but they aren't over crowded every day. I live one block from Pamela Park and it is only busy when they have an outside event or tournament on the Softball Fields. Otherwise I would call it empty most of the time. Is this the Edina way of doing things? Far from it. If we need Ice we build a new facility. Baseball... we have some of the best fields to be found in the State. Swimming... we have developed a great outdoor facility. Edina resident pride themselves on having great facilities and great programs. It is one part of what makes Edina a great place to live. Taking away Fred Richards is the opposite. Yes the Braemar facility needs some work to get it back to a great facility. But it needs a Master Plan so that something doesn't get lost on the way. The Range has needed work for years. Residents have been hitting off of dirt or worn out range mats for a number of years. This isn't something that just happened this past year. I wonder if the grounds department seeded the hitting area last fall so Edina Residents would have some grass to hit off this spring and or summer ?? Yes I think the Range needs to be enlarged and lengthened because the ball is going further and safety has to be of a concern. Edina has the only Public Range in the area and could be a. money maker for the.Facility. , The Par 29 is fun but not an easy "short course ". There are many forced carries to the greens and many hills to walk up. Making it into a Par 3 course will not eliminate those things. The Clunie 9 has 2 holes that are virtually unplayable. (Holes 6 and 8) It also has a couple of steep hills that make it difficult for the Seniors and Juniors to walk. The Championship Course also needs some work to keep Guests coming from outside of Edina to play. Many fine Public Facilities have been built that makes this business very competitive. But I believe with proper conditioning and management Braemar could recover from the hole that it is now in. (When was it last rated in the top 75 in the Country?) There was talk about bringing in an outside company to train the employees on how to treat the guests. Isn't that the job of the General Manager when he or she hires the employees? At the Council Meeting I heard about how great the Junior Program was having 600 to 700 participants. In looking at the Edina Programs thatjust came out I believe that is maximum. We should never be turning kids away from these programs. I believe these numbers could and should be twice as big as they currently are...... but not if we close Fred Richards and close the Executive course for a season or two. Junior golfers are our future residents. There were also'comments made that ALL of the tee times were not being used. If all of the times were used no one would ever come out again. Play would be too slow, the course maintenance team would not have a chance to maintain it and the experience would keep golfers from coming back. Of course not all the tee times are being used!! Is the ice rink busy all day long? Are the baseball fields busy all day long? The MAIN thing is HOW WAS THE EXPERIENCE. And give your STAFF a budget that is attainable and ask them to work within those guidelines. Fred Richards doesn't have to be closed to accomplish these goals. Fred Richards is DIFFERENT than the rest of the BRAEMAR Facilities. It is friendly, easy to walk, and not as challenging as the other courses, The City of Edina should work at making all Facilities first class. It is what the Residents (and voters) would want. Edina is a great place to live would like to see this decision delayed so that future discussions could be held. Thank you for your time. Doug Nelson 6117 Oaklawn Ave Edina, MN Pro Emeritus The Minikanda Club Heather Branigin From: Broderick, Sean <Sean.Broderick @chsinc.com> Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2014 12:44 PM To: Edina Mail Subject: Grandview development process Please,do_ not pursue any private re- development options for the "Grandview" land without more public discussion as to the best use for the public land. I vehemently oppose a private sale without a full debate. Sean Broderick CHS 5500 Cenex Dr MS 365 Inver Grove Heights, MN 55077 PH 800 769 -1066 sea n.broderick @chsinc.com This outbound email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs Skyscan service. For more information please visit http: / /Nv%vw.synianteccloud.coni i Bill Neuendorf From: Lynette Biunno on behalf of Edina Mail .Sent: Friday, March 14, 2014 8:22 AM To: Bill Neuendorf Subject: FW: 5416 Eden Ave. Grandview District Good morning, This message has been forwarded to the Mayor and Council members and Bill Neuendorf. Lynette Biunno, Receptionist 952-927-88611 Fax 952 -826 -0389 C ;y' UunnoAEdinaMN.gov I www.EdinaMN.gov ...For Living, Learning, Raising Families & Doing. Business From: Karen,Haff fmailto:karen.haff @gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2014 9:51 PM To: Edina Mail Subject: 5416 Eden Ave. Grandview District I am writing to urge the City of Edina to immediately end the process to pursue redevelopment through the sale or lease of public land at 5146 Eden Avenue and to begin an open, inclusive process to identify and meet community needs through public use of this site. The public deserves to have input about a piece of land right in the middle of our"land - locked community. Opportunites like this do not come up often. Thank you, - Karen Haff March 11, 2014 RE: Closure of Fred Richards Golf course Dear Mayor James Hovland, City Manager Scott Neal, Parkboard Director Ann Kattreh, and Council Members: I have been a city of Edina resident for 44 years and currently live at 7505 Kellogg Avenue S (on the cul de sac) next to the' park and Fred Richards golf course. I realize you have heard from me`before; but I must reiterate my points of concern- regarding the above: 1) If the. intention is to turn the Fred Richards property into a park, what is the price tag of the development, bonds, and the yearly maintenance, costs? This decision is ostensibly.about saving money, or is it? As I said in my previous letter, parks do not pay for themselves. 2) 1 understandihat a master plan is in the future, but money is not available; if this is true, how cama financial decision be made about the future without a plan? Plan FIRST, DO Later. If a detailed plan is designed and accepted and you then need fiscal donations? I will be first in line. Do diligent planning. 3) Pentagon Office design: I believe the finality of a design is being pushed and perhaps orchestrated by the developers of Pentagon Office Park. City /Developer talks did occur at least a year before any public meetings in which designs were disclosed to the public. Even an amateur can see that a park design. would be in their best interest, and of course they have a Vested interest in the future of the land.' An investment of $500,000,000 is a quess,at best. Maybe that is in inflated dollars considering a development time for the 77`" street section may take 10-15 years, but even so, what's the rush? I will say that Mayor Hovland appeared to be the only person that seemed to grasp this vision. 4) We've had open hearings and again heard the same presentation by Scott Neal (not elected) which does not address the many questions asked. The decision to close Fred Richards cannot be made without answering one fundamental question: What will become of the space? 5) In summary, my discussions with neighbors and my own concerns leave me with the feeling that these hearings are an exercise without merit. We've been given a pitch that Edina's golf courses (i.e. Braemar) are losing money and that closing Fred Richards will "save" them. We know this is a farce. 6) What are our options? Few; remember it is election time. Legal action? This is unnecessary. Sincerely, Art Lowell p.s. After speaking with many of my neighbors, their feelings of anger, frustration, and distrust of this whole process are obvious. At the risk of sounding paranoid, and speaking only for myself, there is an undercurrent of deceit regarding the fate of Fred Richards. It seems a decision has already been made by a few that potentially negatively affects the many. Allen & Christine Nelson 4351 Parklawn Avenue #202E Edina, MN 55435-4636 USA 01311 2z 1)-D Lttol I 6-6'r� IV\ i'c'xl Cb-UW\LA H&NY-vVt3 Ob 44 Syr- i- COOL 0 L'a 4a ry me. flko a +D 6P-CVI. w WIL Ck,,&4-1, ; � :7 Z � AWAO k;V\A'" -VA r _j Z� &ev%L. vvu, &,,r" cux" e,d.e�'� c4YI't-j, auat� i4. m aV, 4""'6-,ZA VA�yw. Fla ay. _l�PJ ctrl +D "vvva, Heather Branigin From: David Mooty . <David @continentalgolf.com> Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2014 5:22 PM To: Edina Mail; Joni Bennett; Mary Brindle (Comcast); joshsprague @edinarealty.net; swensonannl @gmail.com Cc: John Stang; Derek Johnson; Colleen Wolfe; akellar234 @comcast.net Subject: Additional thoughts on Fred Richards golf course Mayor Hovland, City Council members and City Manager Scott Neal, After the meeting with City staff on Friday that I attended by telephone, I would briefly like to give you my thoughts on the future of Fred Richards golf course. I believe that the best course of action for Edina is to postpone the decision on the future of Fred Richards until the 2014 golf season is completed. There was discussion by Edina staff that the decision to close Fred Richards now was necessary because of the proposed Braemar driving range project. However, since the funding of the driving range project will be done internally, and any savings from the closing of Fred Richards will not occur until 2015 under the current proposal, there seems to be no logical connection between the driving range project and.Fred Richards. No other compelling reason was given by staff. on the need to decide now to close Fred Richards in 2015. There are several advantages to the City waiting until the end of the 2014 golf season to decide on the future of Fred Richards. First, the additional time would allow Andrea Kellar, the PGA and the other supporters of Fred Richards to prove what additional marketing and programming can do to the profitability of the golf course. Second, there are significant differences of opinion regarding the financial projections that have been prepared by staff. More time would allow for a thorough discussion of these projections to ensure the final recommendations upon which they are based are the best available. Third, and foremost, more .time can be spent on the creation of a-Master Plan for golf in Edina. Millions of dollars have been spent on Fred Richards, and many millions more are being discussed to improve the golf experience at Braemar. It seems quite reasonable to allowthe input of Edina residents and golf experts in this process and to spend an adequate amount of time doing so. Two months is not an adequate amount of time. An additional eight months would be sufficient to ensure that all reasonable options are explored and that Edina ends up with the best golf product for the most economical cost. If at the end of eight months of additional study the decision is to close Fred Richards, there would be little opposition. On the other hand, if the current proposal is adopted, there will be a large contingent of Edina residents who believe that the City has failed both in process and conclusion. Given the lack of any downside to an extension of time, I respectfully ask that the City Council vote to defer any decision on the future of Fred Richard.for eight months and approve the continued study of golf in Edina to ensure it reaches the best decision possible. Thank you. David Mooty. Heather Branigin From: Karen Haff <karen.haff @gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2014 951 PM To: Edina Mail Subject: 5416 Eden Ave. Grandview District I am writing to urge the City of Edina to immediately end the process to pursue redevelopment through the sale or lease of public land at 5146 Eden Avenue and to begin an open, inclusive process to identify and meet community needs through public use of this site: The public deserves to have input about a piece of land right in the middle of'our land- locked community. :Opportunites like this do not come up often. Thank you, Karen Haff 1 Heather Branigin From: Barbara Hoganson < barbara.hoganson @hardeninc.com> Sent: Friday, March 14, 2014 8:43 AM To: Edina Mail Subject: RE: save the fired - get final plan,done first Dear City Council, Thanks for giving a 2 week extension to vote on what to do with Fred Richards. However, the sarne points raised in previous email below are the same concerns that will exist in two weeks. Two weeks still is riot enoughtime. Again, what is the rush in voting on Fred Richards until the Braernar plan is finalized? I hear that we will lose. "$l million dollars." if we don't close. Fred Richards now. Not that anyone wants to waste money, but $1 million over the population in Edina would work out to be about $21 per resident in Edina'.. This is not outrageous to require such a sense of urgency that it must be closed right now. I would guess there are other expenses that could be trimmed back from the city budget to absorb this. There always are ways in any budget to cut costs. Or charge higher fees to residents that use Fred Richards, and see if any push back to use the course if it will require higher fees to keep it open. Edina residents have invested in Fred Richards for a lot of years. It is an asset of the community. If we keep it open for this next season, or until the Master Plan is finalized, to get all the details needed, then we can make the best solution for residents. A solution based upon people that live in Edina. I would guess there are other amenities in Edina that don't carry their weight based on usage. But if Edina residents don't mind paying them because they want to have them available, then that should be ok. Are there any Edina residents saying, we must close Fred Richards it is not worthwhile to keep open? I appreciate consultants recommendations but these people don't live here and there are other factors as mentioned below that should be taken into account. The residents that live here should have the greatest say in whether to keep Fred Richards open. I don't know what the best solution is right now but more time is needed before that decision should be made. All I know is I would sure like to have my questions below answered before any decision to close Fred Richards is made. And no one from the City is able to answer my first three questions which I think are the most critical ones before a decision like this should be made. Thank you again for delaying your decision to vote, or VOTE NO to closing Fred Richards at this time. Barbara Hoganson 5724 Duncan Lane Edina MN 55436 From: Barbara Hoganson Sent: Sunday, March 2, 2014 10:43 AM To: 'mail @EdinaMN.gov' Subject: save the fred - public process should be done Dear City Council and City Manager, Please vote no to closing Fred Richards on Tuesday March 4th. There is no need to rush the closure of Fred Richards before there is public input, public discussion and a master plan of the golf courses. Here are some questions I personally have around this topic that) would appreciate answers for as well. 1. Golf is on the rise for the 5 —17 years old. Parents are rethinking football, hockey, and sports that can cause concussions. Edina is all about families and supporting our youth. Fred Richards could become a significant destination to reach this age group. What would it take to make Fred Richards address this growing need? If not Fred Richards, what is going to replace it in Edina? Will the updated Braemar Golf course update these needs? And how will that be accomplished? 2. The Golf Association is looking to change the game to have it be shorter.in length, not as difficult to appeal to more youth and people in general. Is this really the time we should be dumping the Fred? Or how will this need to be addressed in Edina? Will the updated Braemar Golf course update these needs? Again, how? 3. In addition, it is -very important to remember that baby boomers will drive the game of golf for the next two decades as well. Baby Boomers are just starting to retire. And from my understanding, Fred Richard's target market is for youth and seniors. I have heard grandparents take their kids to the Fred to share a game of golf together. If not Fred Richards, what is going to replace it in Edina? 4. When taking away public land for residents, the process should be fair and open and residents should be able to understand the options. E.g. hold work sessions for open and honest dialogue, to really get the facts, survey residents electronically through City Extra as it is easy enough to do, have a vote electronically. As residents, we should at least know what would it take to keep Fred Richard's open and if not, what is going to replace it before you take it away. Will it remain a green space, or what are the options on the table? 5. Especially in this kind of matter when the city is a fully developed city, the City needs to think really long and hard in taking away public spaces from residents, especially when in all essence it is a park for shared enjoyment. Once it is gone, there is no going back. 6. How is the Fred any different than any of the other Parks in Edina? Could it be added to the Edina Park system? The other parks are not bringing in profits_ either, e.g. ice skating rinks, which is seasonal also, hire high schools students every year to sit in the warming houses, paying thousands of dollars, when I don't always see a lot of skaters. But I do want to continue to offer ice skating to residents. How does this compare to the cost /usage of Fred Richards in comparison the skating rinks seasonal cost budget? Let's begin the discussion on how we can upgrade Braemar and keep Fred Richards golf. Have work sessions for interested residents so we can have good honest dialogue. Residents are reasonable and once we understand the facts, then we can make smarter decisions together. Please vote no to closing Fred Richards until the residents requests and questions are answered. I also would greatly appreciate answers to my questions too. Thanks! Barbara Hoganson 5724 Duncan Lane, Edina MN 55436 952 - 926 -9190 2 Heather Branigin From: Patty <pastang @comcast.net >. Sent: Friday, March 14, 2014 9:04 AM To: jonibennettl2@ comcast .net;.swensonannl @gmail.com; Edina Mail Subject: Vote No to Closing Fred Richards Hello, Please vote no on closing Fred Richards golf course on Tuesday, March 18th. The only logical choice is to have.a master plan(by a qualified planner) for golf in Edina and the dollars associated with that plan made public before making any decision to close a historical amentity utilized by so many. Amenities don't have the burden of being profit generating so why are we forcing Fred Richards golf course to be under the microscope and not other amenities in Edina. Fred Richards executive course had around 30,000 more rounds than the executive course at Braemar- that should mean somthing. The reason is the relaxed atmosphere and flat landscape. Please listen to the residents. Vote no to closing Fred Richards. Respectfully, Patty Stang 1 Heather Branigin From: Perry, Erik <Erik.Perry@tennantco.com> Sent: Friday, March 14, 2014 11:16 AM To: joshsprague @edinarealty.com; Edina Mail Subject: Fred Richards Golf Course Josh, I live at 4916 Poppy Lane in Edina, and wanted to express a thought and a concern about the golf course issue facing the city. I am not an avid golfer but do appreciate the green space near my house. Having heard about the opportunity to make this into a park is very appealing to my family (we have two boys seven and four), but the comments at the last city council meeting made me wonder: 1) If one of the major drivers of the course consolidation is cost savings (future capital, annual maintenance etc.) and the fund for building these types of investments is very low, how will the city be able to afford the construction of the new park area? Are there funds from the county, state, etc. that can be tapped to help? Are there ways to charge a CAM fee to the new business park developers? This was very unclear to me. 2) If the Fred does get closed, I would love to volunteer my time to help determine the next best use for the area as we plan to raise our children in Edina and be here for many years to come. Every house. sold in our neighborhood seems to be a new young family, and it would be awesome to have input into the future. Thanks for your consideration in this matter. Erik Perry alion 'V'alue .;°:.:repro 11,3,,naaer .50Z iv:.:, l.i; }` s;js h: i,::3.; i www.tennantco.com Tennant Company I Creating 7 1-lea ler', safer, S 3'e:. _RtL", JACK RICE 4001 West 49th Street Edina; MN `55424 February 25, 2014 Dear Mayor Hovland and City Council Members Bennett, Brindle, Sprague and Swenson: It's nice to 'see the progress that's been made in the process of deciding what to do and how to pay for 5& and France Parking and Wayfinding Improvements.- It's been several years and represents hundreds of hours of time on the part of City staff and stakeholders. I particularly want to compliment the consulting team from Kimley -Horn. They held non - confrontational information sessioris.and reported back to those who attended. They updated information and listened to the business and "property owners, City staff and neighbors. This process was the reverse of the last attempt by other consultants in 2012. While there will never be total agreement on priority of improvements, funding and assessment specifics, it was encouraging to hear the many favorable comments from stakeholders at the public hearing on February 18 regarding Resolution No. 2014 -18. Some reactions and comments re the. February 18 meeting: - 1. It's discouraging to hear that once again the City of Minneapolis has turned a deaf ear to discussing joint concerns at 5& and France. 2. The suggested changes for employee parking permit fees are needed and reasonable. Some tweaking may be in order but it seems more than fair to me. 3. The total repair and capital costs include an elevator for the South ramp, extensive interior painting for all ramps, exterior painting of the South ramp and general repairs and maintenance. This is 66.4% of the total repair and capital cost and could reasonably be thought of as deferred maintenance that would have occurred earlier had the stakeholders been in agreement. 4. There seems to be no current debate about customer parking remaining free. About fifteen years ago the Southdale Medical Building was sold and the new owners installed fees for parking. There was an uproar from patients and doctors and the new policy was abolished in a month. "Customers First ", was repeated several times at the public hearing and that means continued free customer parking. 5. The "Dynamic Public Parking and Wayfinding System" is a very important piece of an upgraded emphasis on "management" of the ramps and general circulation at 5& and France. There will be a learning curve for the public but well worth it. Perhaps the merchants will come up with promotions to educate the public. r+ Mayor Hovland, et al' Page Two 6. While there are always questions about who should pay how much for assessments, the new matrix showing owners, use, zoning, square feet, required parking, provided parking and parking demand is a great tool. Maybe not perfect but very very useful. Congratulations! It looks like the stakeholders are on the same page. I hope the final wrinkles can be worked out before the next Council meeting and approval granted. Thank you, Otl'-� c : cott Neal Bill Neuendorf Rachel Thelemann To: MAYOR & COUNCIL tit ; Cn • f ��'�nRPOR�'��O • �seR Agenda Item #: IX. A. From: Debra Mangen Action City Clerk Discussion ❑ Date: March 18, 2014 Information ❑ Subject: Correspondence Action Requested: ' No action is necessary. Attachment: Attached is correspondence received since the last packet was delivered to Council Members. City of Edina • 4801 W. 501h St Edina, MN 55424 r�> 'i. To Mayor Hovland and City Council Members Bennett, Brindle; Sprague, and Swenson: Petition Opposing the Closing of the Fred Richards Golf Course SOL RM F' �4- /V Facebook: Save the Fred www.savethefred.org 1, the undersigned, am opposed to any action taken by the Edina City Council to close or alter the public use of the Fred Richards Golf Course, as proposed by Edina City Planner, Scott Neal, at the meeting of the Edina City Council on March 4, 2014. Further, in the event that the closing of the Fred Richards Golf Course is related in any way to any aspect of what is known as the Pentagon Park development, whether for water storage, ponding, stormwater drainage, or any other use, my signature herein represents my opposition to the pending PUD, TIF and all other applications submitted to the City of Edina by Hillcrest development for Pentagon Park. By my signature herein, I request that the Mayor and City Council deny the resolution to close the Fred Richards Golf Course, as presented by Scott Neal to the Edina City Council on March 4, 2014. Name Sianature Ades Phone # Email zJy- �/cUe�� ar ! �i �14A Cap J�r,�_Z�� `� gds S Z� ✓a 2.� i ��, sc� 51001 Um&vLduvt J GPI L QLL, as ci (1�� M C �� e, �, ---- -- C�sjp5 G�ilLlnwh °r->y-7-40f C y� fi�ss l�G C abka- mN S-W3 b 6O -7- L, i C , 3; s12 �sz °,.0 IS 1 5�` 4- (&M fb S Facebook: Save the Fred www.savethefred.ore 1, the undersigned, am opposed to any action taken by the Edina City Council to close or alter the public use of the Fred Richards Golf Course, as proposed by Edina City Planner, Scott Neal, at the meeting of the Edina City Council on March 4, 2014. Further, in the event that the closing of the Fred Richards Golf Course is related in anv wav to onv osvect of what is known as the Pentagon Park development, whether for water storage, ponding, stormwater drainage, or any other use, my signature herein represents my opposition to the pending PUD, T1F and all other applications submitted to the City of Edina by Hillcrest development for Pentagon Park. By my signature herein, l request that the Mayor and City Council deny the resolution to close the Fred Richards Golf Course, as presented by Scott Neal to the Edina City Council on March 4, 2014. Name Sianature Address Phone# Email 6dafrel 4e spa ,� i bgo.q ��.,��s - <4S7 qsz - 741 -31$0 a_XI k ` (L.Vj �C� t�p1j O COQ Cctj'r%�� R-0 `'? R 1z13 0% ie ,'V,w(uvL, 11 `3y- l� Spa I r� P 1 S �� a 'Iyl 9511 EDI AA '3LOD �'D /oJ�9 MfW -55g2 L/ 95---92.5-- L dt 5�a i/� (�CG��Cc N IS ^ UZq . I � ,- z o' CSmc yI (tMcs � GV1C� (� 512 S�zcude,�✓ cr��e �'S2 9 IZ 'S edrma -sgg3 0969 t✓lmYYl e{Nlurerv��vnsn- CQ� 4 tweK mf //,l J� � � s I U , � ,i l/✓ LL. �d�r U MN S�� Zb? Z �I li ��. ar✓slrr�;" � C G� �t , • 5F�► � 4q 2 BIZ — MaA�t� 1 ��M I Tacebook: Save the Fred www.savethefrod.o_rg t, the -undersigned, am opposed.io any action taken by the. Edina City Council to close or alter the public use of the. Fred'Richards. Golf Course, as proposed by Edina City Planner, Scott Neal, at the meeting of the Edina. City Council . on March 4, 2014.. Further, in-the event_ that the closing of the Fred Richards Golf Course is related in any wawte -ay aspect of what is known as the Pentagon Park development, whether for.woter storage, ponding, stormwater drainage, or any other use, my signature herein represents my opposition to the pending PUD, T!F and all other applications submitted to the City of Edina by Hilicrest development for Pentagon Park. By mysignature herein; l.request that the Mayor and City Council deny the resolution to close the Fred Richards Golf Course, as presented by Scott Neal to the Edina City Council on March 4, 2014. Name = ignature _Address Phone # Email 1,VeVZi,t -115 z c/ �/ 3 L�•u yS� - 7Zb- j 5 cf Cd rC'C %� /Io c. se, e e - r- jl� q 5W Y/ z Of WA h 'trot Oqlt Get SOL . It�l►A � � MIA a-ME C Facebook: Save the Fred www.savethefred.or he undersigned, am opposed to any action taken by the Edina City .Council to close or alter the public use of the ed Richards. Golf Course, as proposed by Edina City Planner, Scott Neal, at the meeting of the Edina City Council on March 4, 2014.: Further, in-the event that the closing of the Fred Richards Golf Course is related in any way4a -erty aspect of what is, known as the Pentagon Park development, whether for water storage, ponding, stormwater drainage, or any. other use, my signature. herein represents my opposition to the pending PUD, TIF and all other applications submitted to, the City of Edina by Hillcrest development for Pentagon Park. By my signature herein, l.request that the Mayor and City Council deny the resolution to close the Fred Richards Golf Course, as presented by Scott Neal to the Edina City Council on March 4j 2014. Name Signature.. Address Phone # Email -7 len , a GLOC',VIasscz� tOSA a L �- MA14 N 44r13 e-m*cKotL o � 8&03�� MPe-LC' osky � r IV 4413 C, Ok 6l ' � -M �R� P C-1 I�osy—'le Gmoo { 4 � 1 � ele a."' r. / Lj LI Oct C_\ 0. Or �. °' qCM-1- S3%Ofo$ 1 `°�v�nsonmic�el a �,,,•t�t, c —% U 5, `l KGr fT � f- rL- J hhem.l f--ye@ yG��, • �„� fj co w 5. �s y �o5��r 03/oK.� fl 93o9v G \tY C!. � S�p� Tapp �C,a Pa 6- lot% GII A� .004 Coq . ur~ `Facebook: Save the Fred www.savethefred.or I, the' undersigned, am opposed to any action taken by the Edina City Council to close or alter the public use of the Fred Richards. Golf Course, as proposed by Edina City Planner, Scott Neal, at the meeting of the Edina City Council on March 4, 2014:: Further, in-the event that the closing of the Fred Richards Golf Course is related in any way4o -eny aspect of what is known as the Pentagon Park development, whether for water storage, ponding, stormwdter drainage, or any other use,'my signature herein represents my opposition to the pending PUD, TIF and all other applications submitted to the City of Edina by Hillcrest development for Pentagon Park. By my signature herein, I request that the Mayor and City Council deny'the resolution to close, the Fred Richards Golf Course, as presented by Scott Neal to the Edina City Council on March 4, 2014. Name S, ignature 'Address Phone # Email y ylq _ANi over- 91M -11 RIP leAl 52 h6flecot `off eo/ d 14 ��C 13 `Facebook: Save the Fred www.savethefred.or `he undersigned, am opposed to anyaction taken by the Edina City Council to close or alter the public use of the M Richards Golf Course, as proposed by Edina City Planner, Scott Neal, at the'meeting of the Edina. City Council on March 4, 2014.. Further, in- the event that the closing of the Fred Richards Golf Course is related in any way4o-i ny aspect of what is known as the Pentagon Park development, whether for water storage, ponding, stormwater drainage, or any other use, my signature. herein - represents my opposition to the pending PUD, TIF and all other applications submitted to' the City of Edina by Hillcrest development for Pentagon Park. By my signature herein, l.request that the Mayor and City Council deny the resolution to close the Fred Richards Golf Course, as presented by Scott Neal to. the Edina City Council on March 4, 2014. Name 0 Y ._ Signature Address Phone # Email er 1 �s6s C a« rc q�z -9to 6731 �i� c_e.,IreeAe <Fy4 400. 1 �60) ariemar 169- Sao MiQr -_ 4501 cArzM- CT �7'Z'4 Za ti 0cf z _8;jel >�'�� 1 Jrj56,J _7L d/ Cat C % �� ysO2 DuhPror,7 CI- 9sa 9a� OA57 rm 74,& , ys��1�uKk�v�1�{ 311�-(aSv- (41V OAA i e . MVCc; rA% 0111 OVC7Zeol C(2_)"uVO�1'CfJvL- D.s�.lE 7,4 q0 €divtloor B p— 'A Dy QVbf VSM� I� c, a 2.00 SNu1S5 ---- Who a le- .752- - 9:40 - o Isom 44- 12".e Ale s - 6,774- X80 aZ z D ICU SEAL CiAs%tJ - U VIA ?0 S, . 0 Y ._ Tacebook: Save the- Fred www.savethefrOd.org f, the undersigned, am opposed to any action taken by the Edina City Council to close or alter the public use of the - Fred Richards Golf Course, as proposed by Edina City Planner, Scott Neal, at the meeting of the Edina City Council. on March 4, 2014.: Further, irLthe event that the closing of the Fred Richards Golf Course is related in any way4""y aspect of what is known as the Pentagon Park development, whether for water storage, ponding, stormwater drainage, or any other use, my signature herein represents my opposition to the pending PUD, TI and all other applications submitted to the City of Edina by Hillcrest- development for Pentagon Park. By my signature herein, I- request that the Mayor and City Council- deny' the resolution to close the Fred Richards Golf Course, as presented by Scott Neal to the Edina City Council on March 4, 2014. Name - S Addres s P honer #% Emai`l .. Jo n Won 'f7- / VK / 1WII 466 j A / .: "" ,/-" *46S Vlk- -ss 43 s �, 1. a.. <' c�w.r�i • c v.� r,� btiJ v� e-E 4w t, `lam �Vlo j! LZduOlax Qs Z- J2 7 -�l�g n ION !4 q L,,) d,- ��— IS-1 4)& - SG i'� r r L 0 1 Z- C a v J . tew v �P - CITY 01. )6 5 91 /e t9 y yy3 2- � &J- (r�=_ S EAL 17 l3 /V d 5 9d ° ' 9j y AR u�) ki Sd VI `� Lf 4 1 e? 5 2 ED � jyq ,_1 L�Jkw„► �. o, vz -152 Iqu_Vb50 s C&, _ Ar h�i n OP 6Lrr., bt(. ,)ham 1sd 1 - 99, qa(I p 61(mt(d iAA /Op e 400. ° 6, NI m l, h .5 oo 4M o, v 4837 )Iwhhvl\ Y, I LIJ ck N iy41 13 "Tacebook: Save the Fred www.savethefred.or he undersigned, am . opposed to any action taken by the Edina City Council to close or alter the public use of the -d Richards:.Golf Course, as proposed by Edina City Planner, Scott Neal, at the meeting of the Edina. City Council on March 4, 2014:, Further, in. the event that the closing of the Fred Richards Golf Course is related in any way4aAwy aspect of what is; known as the Pentagon Park development, whether for water storage,' ponding, stormwater drainage, or any other use, mysignature herein represents my opposition to the pending PUD, TIF and all other applications, submitted to`: the City of Edina by Hillcrest development for Pentagon Park. Sy my signature herein, l request that the Mayor and City. Council deny the resolution to close the Fred Richards Golf Course, as presented by Scott Neal to the Edina City Council on March 4, 2014. Name -. Signature Address_ Phone # Email - N � NT�� "V ►- x`-'13 "3 (sari L jf\v\ CSEAL MAR 1 7 201 REQUIE -7791 9/MNl - (o.. ' lir 1�(1ti 74-7 WCL;>f 'A09�, t . ah2 t,* G/ 461 �Z Z / e, l (' A"i 744q W l ohe.Gi' �jSZ Z50- ro 5�ovf '� C��f ✓r� I %7!� . en b✓ 5 S 3533 l76 vt SO yt (� w 5M /��j� 4 'I S U se*j Ts. 1R.. 50 V L� ct��,, S��f3S 5u53 0 C e it; -s -7313 W S (e r e %5v- 6-3'Y3 � qe r n73 1 3C SC C'.', e't ,; h�r l•3 •t "Facebook Save the Fred www.savethefred.or t the undersigned, am opposed to any action taken by the Edina City Council to close or alter the public use of the Fred Richards Golf Course, as proposed by Edina City Planner, Scott Neal, at the meeting of the Edina. City`Council on March 4, 2014.. Further, hz the event that the closing of the Fred Richards Golf Course is related in any way-temw aspect of what is ; known as the' ,Pentagon Park development, whether for water storage, ponding, stormwater drainage, or any other use, my signature herein represents my opposition to the pending PUD, TIF and all other applications submitted to:the City of Edindby Hillcrest�development for Pentagon Park. By my.signat_ ure herein, l.request that the Mayor and City. Council deny the resolution to close the Fred Richards Golf Course, as presented by Scott Neal to. the Edina City Council on March 4, 2014. Name . �gnature `Address _ _ ... Phone # Email X314 W Slvom br. , 9 � s A OAn Lo %4;/ • MI C Z3d 2 vvv,� h 1 1 W n (L-q5 f- 92�•�f31S �o G, h l ►�„h n -2-_., 7 Z ys )- - RT2c ---, la W lvo 7 12-1 oe %t n G lava �l 716a C,3 Shore - r. CD 1,2 y77 heaulfe.a� PGkesml�. �J � .� � n for► � � � r � v � v U� ��` 3 r r a Cq f - y- � � -I' �� l V LIS'Q6 C%�e W-o is (f g z �SG �Sz7 9jla -�W r L �? pE 17 p dim k WWW.S"E THE FRED.ORG '. the undersigned Edina resident, respectfully request the Edina City Council on March 18th, 2014 to vote to DELAY ne decision on the closure of Fred Richards Golf Course until after the 2014 golfing season. Making a decision to close any golf holes in Edina before a master plan. for the Edina golf enterprise is studied and developed does not serve the best interests of Edina golf, it's patrons, residents, neighbors, city staff and city council. Name Signature Address Phone # Email - �V�I�c�L Oct y � � 4-;z q,;Fecv (VWE J--, i4 ti X52 5- 6LaJ® fp- e lo hrs I/ wi - �i[/L� LOC- j 4S'av g�cvr9� cN, Ali/ �..^ c72-i4' !) i 7 I I qS� `,)D I'In tl� �JY j L 1 `b V}J11 ECG I na. t M� SSy�.� LID b T' it ,� � � MAR 1 7 2014 2/46 GIT c4 RE � 71 1+114,` A4 -IL Zf) - �,, r X2 ` J� r L (1 I L.1 ✓J "c aI C WWW.SAVE THE FRED.ORG I, the undersigned Edina resident, respectfully request the Edina City Council on March 18th, 2014 to vote to DELAY the decision on the closure of Fred Richards Golf Course until after the 2014 golfing season. Making a decision to close any golf holes in Edina before a master plan for the Edina golf enterprise is studied and developed does not serve the best interests of Edina golf, it's patrons, residents, neighbors, city staff and city council. Name Signature Address �Q I Tor 6 Pis coltj,p _ 0 o 4j 11 ArF- ��•15 0(i� -73 t L '2t U ws v. a 0�- 7ao� �Zo I 7 vV ►-A- 06 N. =1�w ;,-4k A n 6rg -- (GL w'�I O W , 4. e—,, e —I, h;rn,�t.� . y IA I ......... WWW.SAVE THE FRbOr.ORG 1, the undersigned Edina resident, respectfully request the Edina City Council on March 18th, 2014 to vote to DELAY the decision on the closure of Fred Richards Golf Course until after the 2014 golfing season. Making a decision to close any golf holes in Edina before a master plan for the Edina golf enterprise is studied and developed does not serve the best interests of Edina golf, it's patrons, residents, neighbors, city staff and city council. Name Signature Address Phone # Email A S :.0i7. - w 7 2, - J, L Vbr cl, �wi �_�� TW V w'ox Lx r ca, r ( MI. tie. lei � el -&3y) -Vt W 1 7214 6A c "ale LL 3Z-q OAL -L /a Vilkvt W -17 6 5qs� I WWW.SAVE THE FREMORG I, the undersign d Edina resident, respectfully request the Edina City Council on March 18th, 2014 to vote to DELAY the decision orr:the closure of Fred Richards Golf Course. until after the 2014 golfing season. Making a decision to close . any golf. holes in Edina before a master plan for the Edina golf enterprise is studied and developed. does _not serve. the best interests:of Edina. golf, it's patrons, residents, neighbors, city staff and city council. Name Signature Address Phone # Email � �kc 01st 01 FV0wtli �,. 95a _ 11 a6 6t Ievnija L7 LO r w 6 Y Cec� i� .i`1cicQ ygJ7 �ondel( D ✓- a 52- s�6- �`Z G �c�. fL 2Z- W4 ro .-Ij /[qLt p�k 5 � )-i�,yd DV V1 -Zbq !M GL' 4665 G,I�,,d�� OLIO i �C qc)(5c Ncl 'I qs�) I I GIT C ysllo � �(Z' 2 � btAL MAP 17 2014 �c1y► S(kO1Z j i �J 1; the undersigned Edina resident, respectfully request the Edina City Council on March 18th, 2014 to vote to DELAY the decision on the closure of Fred Richards Golf Course until after the 2014 golfing season. Making a decision to .lose any golf holes in Edina before a master plan for the Edina golf enterprise is studied and developed does not serve the best interests of Edina golf, it's patrons, residents, neighbors, city staff and city council. Name Signature Address Phone # Email 13 2z -L- 46, '(7 TIJAN )A Amr, a7 6zc Ath 9 11- re L� $01 141b15eus �P-zY.6d 675 1 \.._. �-�,� �, 5 �[!)U(' j'�� jJ(r V� �i Y�! -7 -0 "?7 �IF,T.CIG ` %(rf 2Y allot /ON t , I Ij � �� S Its ✓S i Sc�S �1 - i � r �l 1:4tr�� ., � �ll%E� ��/N �.< o /1, jJ�ui YL` - I1��, tiD,L t,�G�G� �S L,� 17Zliti-bl I �z G� b8 R uo --f7if r .r(64 a C �� l.Lj �� Z otse 1/i 40 2 P � uu h � � �( SEA L t MILL, X14 4 fix, WWWSAVETHE FREQ::O.R.G 1, the undersigned Edina resident, respectfully: request the Edina city Council on March 18th, 2014 to vote to DELAY the decision on the closure of Fred Richards Golf Course until. after the 2014 golfing season. Making a decision to close any golf holes in Edina before a master aster plan for the Edina golf enterprise Is.studied and developed does not serve the best interests of Edina golf, it's patrons, residents, neighbQrs,.city staff and city council. Name ISignature I Address Phone .# Email ,rZ--V;2'7577--7 4—d'ell 'V 1ee> r/ I " v,��llt :f N X I, , s5��1v5 t 2 F-. cLk()j Al,, e 7221 0, Ltw q52 V6 law - t qs a ay 7- 01 Tat, C76 V (I (<!; (Z 01� , \C C S 6,4KL nkJ lorVO ovl�� ',/ n9l)7 Sz�� U C;2- fz# 35 55; It,1% JA t 0) Ave. Ca. .5 9 SfA%- N X Irt&V-V --7) cLk()j Al,, e 7221 0, Ltw q52 V6 10 rV C. C4 - t (I (<!; (Z 01� , \C C S 6,4KL nkJ lorVO ovl�� ',/ n9l)7 Sz�� U C;2- fz# 35 55; It,1% JA t 0) Ave. Ca. .5 9 SfA%- W WWW.SAVE THE FRED.ORG the undersigned Edina resident, respectfully request the Edina City Council on March 18th, 2014 to vote to DELAY the decision on the closure of Fred Richards Golf Course until after the 2014 golfing season. Making a decision to close any golf holes in Edina before a master plan for the Edina golf enterprise is studied and developed does not serve the best interests of Edina golf, it's patrons, residents, neighbors, city staff and city council. Name S Signature A Address P Phone # E Email LN0077 1 q 5 Z q'ZZ J [. 1 71�I�ull z I zd 1 1 1 1_ 1 rN i V C o h) „6cs r J J c' —�� , (cl �cr(� s s!�u L L�!;% 1 �i v v1(Z os��'�� C nA t .corn � (PIZ t tl*,�MCA �aYpe rLt WWW.SAVE THE FREMORG I, the undersigned Edina resident, respectfully request the Edina City Council on March 18th, 2014 to vote to DELAY the decision on the closure of Fred Richards Golf Course until after the 2014 golfing season. Making a decision to close any golf holes in Edina before a master plan for the Edina golf enterprise is studied and developed does not serve the best interests of Edina golf, it's patrons, residents, neighbors, city staff and city council. Name Signature Address Phone # Email lz� S � TO� ��' � SLt,�S � �,SZ — "i�r l o!`� r' C'cr; ' •'•� -n� tn rLelwL, 19-53��S .- 1��'�" l � I' �► (� • ( �•IZ 730 b .; a �•� �r � v� 3 cQ �. r e v 1LJU I W HU V\2 ` V-vey Q 1"V-� �` +�pT1 �1 ( �� 9C1� A��► {s� ZZ� "bZl3 Lc��.�, /VIN 7y0, ��. J''� Jul �� %� (i �1 �, �� cu .i �,f ,.'•- � F-_ � rI° ` S� C �''Yv1 e jc,} ice y6OC) s y52,9Z9. h1t-- . WICI �+_ a` ie z4,L o.. 4j k- t,�cyL,�, t Pc.ruyl,L nk 0- %j ,7 1 ,r y 3ti 7 Vc r�C��..v, 5 J-7 -54, 1 JQ� �V 7L1c,� �v 7��'`z lv�S>_ SEAL t/l , e `�„ i h �vl't� _ `�� ; 4� Ir Z`I — 7� 1 12014 f 7 41 re ON 1. a r fc l r <V jlJ W1NW.SAVE THE FRED.ORG ', the undersigned Edina resident, respectfully request the Edina City Council on March 18th, 2014 to vote to DELAY the decision on the closure of Fred Richards Golf Course until after the 2014 golfing season. Making a decision to close any golf holes in Edina before a master plan for the Edina golf enterprise is studied and developed does not serve the best interests of Edina golf, it's patrons, residents, neighbors, city staff and city council. Name Signature Address Phone # Email 6 -7;>-7 q y 11'� T� 4 1 ��l� I PO �G , 1 1� y Sly o �Qc 'A' 0 S u t((L� 14 6 I�Ac °Hec� 2`1 9S9 -27 e l20 ,, O IV c - - & ' Mori - z 5V r � JIA- �L � �� `� '- GT C -� I S EAL It{ \, f, J �• 7Q MAR 17 2014 Ik 1 1 I C i C D\9 WWW.SAVE THE FREMORG I, the undersigned Edina resident, respectfully request the Edina City Council on March 18th, 2014 to vote to DELAY the decision on the closure of Fred Richards Golf Course until after the 2014 golfing season. Making a deci ' !17 Y close any golf holes in Edina before a master plan for the Edina golf enterprise is studied and develope c serve the best interests of Edina golf, it's patrons, residents, neighbors, city staff and city council. MA2014 Name Signature Address Phone # Email Fl E® i ti 1 i i I I I i 4 J oLG�Sd� �, I�( W J-?.oT Dr (� /Z-fs6s ff6J�i h lqC, v4 te�/hW►Qv�N1�;f'�LuM ✓��IM !�� '! (��I�� /`- - �•� .�7�6 Vw!�L (�cGLCi� �151`%�/ -`%N9 ytr�y✓r�C'C�t7ui:� �L'YV1 • � qpj 1j,- , t�C,r�OS�� VY►S{?r C� �a7 �rrUl` %lC��U fj `lS�t y�} 3S "137-51,-; 61311(Ij6" -' ( `r_ (�O-Mi Cdi /J A-1, C aC r J e1JY,c L l �.jl�e�o..�1�� St's 1'�av�� (�� tz�- (��o� -I s,►�.v�.t� ©c�.c��F. v�� C '� . L 7- 7 — WIC C ` Ss %a Z oc(.v x /i / 0 �JY �v ��ihls.eu�Cynr G�US.aa�e 5� � L �►�,�,� lt{IaZ .7SZ' 3�3 36 13 l�Og f l � t o�n A 1(,, Coe--t Z- `3 �P3 5� ,,�1 I1tJAI, e"M V(-? 7 .Y14n /rww. i ti 1 i i I I I i 4 v �r to WWW.SAVE THE FREMORG the undersigned Edina resident, respectfully request the Edina City Council on March 18th, 2014 to vote to DELAY ae decision on the closure of Fred Richards Golf Course until after the 2014 golfing season. Making a decision to close any golf holes in Edina before a master plan for the Edina golf enterprise is studied and developed does not serve the best interests of Edina golf, it's patrons, residents, neighbors, city staff and city council. Name S Signature A Address P Phone # E Email r �.. r 5 5D7.,-7 W odifde L41e o 52- qZo- Gc�z�►�Y� �' 'fit f e e45s. 141 -L17fi 5 M i� �v WWW.SAVE THE FREMORG I, the undersigned Edina resident, respectfully request the Edina City Council on March 18th, 2014 to vote to DELAY the decision on the closure of Fred Richards Golf Course until after the 2014 golfing season. Making a decision to close any golf holes in Edina before a master plan for the Edina golf enterprise is studied and developed does not serve the best interests of Edina golf, it's patrons, residents, neighbors, city staff and city council. i'llm -e 1/ S i� 2 (w S�4 Name Signature .Address Phone # Email � r �l�^Z.`!(/�� '�lw' �Y1�Z•IGi v'�fr'd r! ti �C,jC�- -�,i✓� K' -7215 AA v l r c4-' (.H Z —Cj 3 `1 And -c "s oh � - 7J,)-3L�7 GIwe,�2 77 (3 57 y gyp. Y SEAL , k V MAR 17 2� Je �`�. - �ot9Q9 6T a Ooutcd �soa hat 7C 61�4" �11�5 Cam, 44\a L tj 1��/ 1rfC�tnL�rc`,(l�l. /c n1 1�('i�ir ►� / �C1 1PI -1 r `, L 110-4 c.w y- hv, �" w� �c1-1 5-5. 5 P� rrxn i q�1Z'��1LLnUM `i5? - z, 5 35 S ShtiaU 6Y1 G�►o0 v�M i i I 1 I: WWW.SAVE THE FREMORG I, the undersigned Edina resident, respectfully request the Edina City Council on March 18th, 2014 to vote to DELAY the decision on the closure of Fred Richards Golf Course until after the. 2014 golfing season. Making a decision to close any golf holes in Edina before a master plan for the Edina golf enterprise is studied and developed does not serve the best interests of Edina golf, it's patrons, residents, neighbors, city staff and city council. Name Signature Address Phone # Email lei c i ` 60 e ve 1 Je�sc y h:.y1i � 4/S /G�/w.,, � � 76 �av�l s� � ,,c�, J `� �n, vL1 I 1 r4f Lit 1S3g2q_1¢5 xul 1- ; c d tjrws mxrl Coj �I it ,_.�L;i�.,, .� st.� F � -�� 1 v� C� � ° r . �?�G�,r'a�- �i 7 -� v L /�lll � ,. ► �M �' � /:�ll�+ -ems-. ,�' `•J�- j ` r�- 1 �,✓,�� ls`I��1�� . � _ Imo, C �(,�t►� L ��G�il 1 ��L� �lt htlii� �'fl �7 -1 �ff�e�� 'I i',� mvlie G CITY XO'SIEALO AR 17 2014 R� I G. \k 6 G i WWW.SAVE THE FREMORG I, the undersigned Edina resident, respectfully request the Edina City Council on March 18th, 2014 to vote to DELAY the decision on the closure of Fred Richards Golf Course until after the 2014 golfing season. Making a decision to j close any golf holes in Edina before a master plan for the Edina golf enterprise is studied and developed does not serve the best interests of Edina golf, it's patrons, residents, neighbors, city staff and city council. Name Signature Address Phone # Email lorU� av P/��d 49 521-3 V �LEx / ^L✓`2v � ��G>.c.� 95z `�zv- ct3�� cia /�e.��0-YG1�. Ni F ( Z.p H -)IJ.c qsz z4V 31-;, - �-hnli , Shcuw , fj�St,i1�ro `� 2. to -3k7L + '� tiA1�rF1 �Rn► '� i�,i `� Z(C '� ►'t� ? or+ 15Z9z�lZ � K}�or�5e � GC, �n� - &I 1rtza cL43Nclen, 572-1 6rc-),9 0 �-5 70 '-1z. EJ GNP 1 �1rfJ�fil� q(101 lbr-exlc A 7-ISI /zo L G" ✓%j�ji GG PA LkL poi ( ky53 Fc&,-)oA�Dr G 12. �a� oldo�av�� Ir+nSh,co ..-e Z .2y31 44r 11��J,r 1 VJJQJQ L612 .,� cISZ 3 &S3 ��z��lar,� (�3� l.�w�� Lam• ��z.v '6lA.r.(�c��A -[� �. 1u� .713� �+ �h�� Old �5� Z3r� ' �TSIo V �.lw - �,sv -n yaa� D"ilrr�Zar�'o i�dy -2, Jg,� - �� -aSrS� QCl2 QNI d�4'n ©I�Yrt E'�11 a(Yytacl A 41\� Vii Lk 'QF SEAL MAR 1 72014 RE cL �d;n . "\ i I, the undersigned Edina resident, respectfully request the Edina City Council on. March 18th, 2014 to vote to DELAY the decision on the closure -of Fred Richards Golf Course until after the 2014 golfing season. Making a:decision to ;lose any golf holes in Edina before a master plan for the Edina golf enterprise is studied and developed does not serve the best interests of Edina golf, it's patrons, residents, neighbors, city staff and city council. Name Signature Addres�s� Phone # Email (0o, on VI �i yrJ%i Njx;jl, ,r c(� nc` Pi,0;21f.6V:) 9 All n C - 2 , -1Q O'''1 glll J rs oc ESL _ 10 L r Db ll IV5 /oCol� /Prf 9�3�5 -�i/huEJ %r i"541. c�� c //$: SEAL MAR 1 12014 'J WWW.SAVE THE FREMORG I, the undersigned Edina resident, respectfully request the Edina City Council on March 18th, 2014 to vote to DELAY the decision on the closure of Fred Richards Golf Course until after the 2014 golfing season. Making a decision to close any golf holes in Edina before a master plan for the Edina golf enterprise is studied and developed does not serve the best interests of Edina golf, it's patrons, residents, neighbors, city staff and city council. Name Signature Address Phone # Email 'PZAjA1Ac7>c —.r•r . DA" 45.2, W JAl 4A-,%jE 9S;?-- i2-9p , O,y �p ��✓�� 6 ®�Dy� vow .1110 '7 �^ 001, e � j7S�u 6(2- `�7 �(06 LC6w �d'%,u, IGty► a5�3� �aI ��( o--- __ - A) f AA, 2f= Y'd� 1� J vG 7 tics s ill ► cam gyp, CITY', SEAL MAR ;1 77 2014 0 WWW.SAVE THE FREMORG the undersigned Edina resident, rbspecifully,request the -Edina City Council on March 18th, 2014 to vote to DELAY the decision on the o-closdre of Fred Richatds.Golf -Course until after the 2014golfing season. Making a decision to close any golf holes in Edina before a master plan for the Edina golf enterprise is studied and developed doeshot serve the best interests of Edina golf, it'spat.rons,jesidents, neighbors, city staff and city council. Name Signature Address Phone #: Email / p.i/y` Sd 1 �1 (�y _ J l/� ! �(�'9 �'fIl ��r� �r = (p � � � 2'�• � oXAAQ �� °, y. . �� S �� s� �s a 6; � �� 0521JZs 3 1A <A/ e- po .1,;P, N . IT S L �MAR 17 2014. FRECIEWEii y WWW.S"E THE FREMORG I, the undersigned Edina resident, respectfully request the Edina City Council on March 18th, 2014 to vote to DELAY the decision on the closure of Fred Richards Golf Course until after the 2014 golfing season. Making a decision to close any golf holes in Edina before a master plan for the Edina golf enterprise is studied and developed does not serve the best interests of Edina golf, it's patrons, residents, neighbors, city staff and city council. I game Signature Address Phone # Email ��►� (�vt� yet Lip 1T;llILkV'& ; �V , Vf ;)CAL - 7f), f MAR 1 12014 ' R ti Heather Branigin From: jjellen341 @aol.com Sent: Friday, March 14, 2014 12:18 PM To: Edina Mail Subject: Fred Richards Executive Golf Course Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed Please explain the push to close Fred Richards. No clear and concise reasons for closing this course were presented at the March 4th meeting. This course is played by residents who do not enjoy the hassle at Braemar which has many leagues and hard to get tee times. Why does Parks /Recreation not even list the course as a community resource? Edina needs the course, please keep it open. Joe Jellen, 5221 Minnehaha Blvd 1 Heather Branigin From: Paul Jensen <p)ensen3132 @earthlink.net> Sent: Friday, March 14, 2014 12:367PM To: Edina Mail Subject: The fate of Fred Richardson golf course Follow Up Flag: Follow.up Flag Status: Completed To: James Hovland, Mayor, Joni Bennett, Mary Brindle, Josh Sprague, and Swenson, I wonder why the decision has to be made so quickly on the fate of the Fred Richardson Golf Course? I have been to meetings in which this was discussed by,our city officers and then citizens could make their comments. I'm sure you will agree that there is great resistance by most of the citizens towardclosing this fine golf course. Long lines of people waited to speak their piece in support of saving the golf course. The golf course has great value beyond just being a golf course. It's part of the neighborhood for those who live in south Edina. People enjoy living in Edina because it's a quality community that has opportunities for all people to enjoy and improve themselves. We have fine Adult Education and sports programs. isn't golf part of what makes Edina a great community'-to live in? Does not two good golf courses, an excellent long course and nice modest size course, speak of the quality of this community? The golf course increases property values, not just people who live on the golf course but for all of Edina. People like to brag about living in a Edina because of the opportunities in this community and this is reflected in all Edina property values. Anything else that would be put on that land will require expenditure for maintenance. A park? We have a nice park close -by called Arneson Acres, I believe. We've not done much to publicize this park and it seems that only a few people use it. Why haven't we advertised it and made it nicer with picnic areas and other things to make this park more appealing? It would seem. redundant to make another park where the golfcourse was. Sports fields? We have good practice and playing fields. There is much land below ]dina. l ligh School For sports fields. Sports are wonderful for youth and even young adults, but I don't think it's wise to bring that amount of noise into a busy neighborhood, especially when'we have plenty of other sport fields in our city. There hasn't been much discussion about what the golf course site would be used for if the course is abandoned. Is there some hidden ideas about this? I believe that we citizens Edina should know what the plans are for this land if not for the golf course. I live on the golf course and I would certainly I like to know what that land would be used for. I believe the land is being used in the best possible way now. The golf course is attractive and it provides a great buffer between the commercial area on the south side of the golf course and those of us who live on the north side. I wrote the following letter assured a short while ago. I believe that some of those ideas are still correct and more importantly. It would be a great mistake to close the golf course if we have not decided what the land would be used for. I live on the golf course and I would certainly like to know what plans would be for that land. I .believe the land is being used in the best way possible now. The golf course is attractive and it provides a great buffer between the commercial area on the south side of the golf course and those of us who live on the north side. I wrote the following letter a short while ago. I believe that some of those ideas are still correct the more importantly I believe that it would be a great mistake`to close the golf course. Sincerely yours, Paul Jensen To: James Hovland, Mayor, Joni Bennett, Mary Brindle, Josh Sprague, and Swenson, : I am a homeowner and I live beside the Fred Richardson Golf Course. My address is 7445 West Shore Dr. 1 have lived here and enjoyed the golf course for 47 years..I played golf on that course through the years until I became handicapped four years ago. Even though I am handicapped I still enjoy the view of the golf course! I was at the Town Hall meeting related to.the Golf Course last Tuesday evening, but I was outside the meeting room so I could not hear most of what was said: As I understand the problem is economic —too few golfers are playing the course to make it profitable. These following your home suggestions might be considered. Edina has are two short golf courses, Braemar and Fred Richardson Golf Courses. For economic reasons I would suggest the following: l) Close the Braemar Short Course and make Fred Richardson into an even better course than it is now. The reason for this is that the Fred Richardson golf course is longer and more interesting than the Braemar course. The Fred Richardson course enhances the property value of those who live close to it. The aesthetic value of the Fred Richardson course is outstanding. The Braemar short golf course does not enhance any anyone's property or aesthetic values. 2) Close the small clubhouse that serves the Braemar Golf Course and Bracmar Driving Range. This would eliminate personnel and their salaries. The Braemar Driving Range can stay in the same place and be managed from the main clubhouse. Coin- Self -Golf. Ball Dispensers would be placed at the driving range so that it would not even be necessary to go into the Braemar clubhouse use the driving range. 3) After the Fred Richardson Golf Course has been enhanced as being the Best Short Course Around, it should be advertised in the Braemar Clubhouse, as well as the Edina Sun Newspaper and other places. The Fred Richardson Golf Course has never been advertised well. It was not even advertised from the Braemar Golf Course Clubhouse or from these other sources. 4) The Fred Richardson. Clubhouse is in a bad location. Going through the industrial area and entering through what seems to be other building parking lots reduces the interest on the course. The clubhouse should be located where it would be much easier to direct people to it. I would suggest moving or building a new clubhouse on the north side of the golf course. There would be easy access from 70"' St: going south on W. Shore Dr. or Wooddale, then east on Sedum; south on Kellogg for just a very short distance. There's -a wide easement on Edina property at this site. This accesses to.this large tract of land that I believe is owned and maintained by Edina is inaccessible to anybody right now except the property owners whose yards back up to it. There is room for a new clubhouse and parking on this site.. It could be very attractive. Easy signs on 70'h and Sedum would identify the way to the new clubhouse. I believe this was not considered because commercial traffic in a residential area was considered undesirable: But the driving to and from a golf course would not create a lot of extra traffic. Wooddale Avenue would be the most accessible and it could be improved and widen some prior to the opening of a new clubhouse. 5) From a marketing standpoint, I would recommend having a golf -pro at Fred Richardson and have group golf lessons starting with young kids. Getting park board leagues trained and leading competition between leagues and other schools could help increase the morning use at the golf course. I can't speak about this but this nice golf course should be marketed. I ask that you consider some of these suggestions seriously. Thank you for your consideration, Paul Jensen.. This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. 3 .Heather Branigin From: Hanson, Bill <Bill.Hanson @Pentair.com> Sent: Friday, March 14, 2014 12:48 PM To: Ann Kattreh; Scott Neal; Eric Roggeman Cc: Edina Mail; Home (fizwill @juno.com) Subject: Fred Richards Executive Golf Course Hello: I'm hoping one of you can help me with this question regarding the Golf Course Operations Study I have been reviewing the eight proforma scenarios detailed in the study. In the Non -GAAP cash reconciliation section there is an item called "Other Accruals", which in all scenarios adds to the cash balance. The "Other Accruals" entry on the Without Fred Richards sheet for 2014 is in the neighborhood of $1,500,000 greater than "any of the other sheets. I'm Wondering if you would be able to provide a quick explanation of what items would be included in this entry. I'm having difficulty understanding how closing the golf course would suddenly infuse this much cash. Thank you. Respectfully, Bill Hanson 7457 West Shore Drive Edina, MN 55435 Home email: fizwillPiuno.com BIII Hanson Senior Engineer Pentair Equipment Protection Hoffman Enclosures Inc. 2100 Hoffman Way Anoka, MN 55303 Office: 1.763.422.2429 bill.hanson @pentair.com www.hoffmanonline.com Proud to offer Hoffman products Confidentiality Note: This e-mail message and all attachments to it are intended only for the named recipients and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not one of the intended recipients, please do not duplicate or forward this e-mail message and immediately delete it from your computer. 1 Heather Branigin From: Jean Holm <jholm921 @gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2014 7:44 AM To: Edina Mail Subject: re: Save The Fred! Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed Mayor Hovland, I am asking you and Edina City Council Members to Save Fred Richards Golf Course. I ask you to vote to move forward with the Braemar driving range, but please delay a decision on closing Fred Richards Golf Course until after the 2014 golf season. Save the Fred presented supporting financial arguments proving there is NO REASON for the council to rush this decision before further consideration of the issue is undertaken. This golf course has served this community for over 40 years and deserves more than a month of consideration. Thank you for listening to the residents of Edina. Jean Holm 20 Year resident of Edina 1 a 4 Heather Branigin From: chappy6420 @aol.com Sent: Saturday, March 15; 2014 11:11 AM To:. Chad Millner. ' Cc: Edina Mail; JONIBENNETTI2 @COMCAST.NET,, Mary Brindle (Comcast); JOSHSPRAGUE @EDINAREALTY.COM; swensonann1 @gmail,com Subject: positive experience with Chad Millner Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed , Hi Chad, I realize this "thank you" is months after the fact, but it is still loaded with appreciation. Remember.me? I am Laurie Chapman and live at 6420 Aspen Road at.the end of the cul -de -sac. Last November I returned home from my cabin to find that Center Point'Energy had torn up part of my front yard and that a large section of my fence had been taken down and left down. I was concerned because I was unable to let my dog out in my yard without taking him out on a leash. I gave you a'call and you came out to my house within a half an hour to access the situation. You were prompt, friendly, answered all my questions regarding what happened and many questions about the upcoming road re- construction, that is set to take place on my street this spring. You volunteered to call Center Point Energy for me.to have them come out and fix my yard and put my fence back up. They came promptly and did exactly that. I was very impressed with you and how you handled the situation. It was a pleasure working with you. Chad, thank you very much for your help and making the experience of working with you and the City of Edina a very positive one. Laurie Chapman 1 F, Heather Branigin From: fizwill @juno.com Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2014 1:11 PM To: Edina Mail Subject: Fred Richards Executive Golf Course - $1,500,000 cash accrual Follow Up Flag: Follow-up Flag Status: Completed Hello Mayor Hovland: This is a follow upon our discussion this morning during the Walk with the Mayor event at Southdale with respect to the Golf Course Operations Study. I have been reviewing the eight proforma scenarios detailed in the study. In the Non -GAAP cash reconciliation section there is an item'called "Other Accruals ", whiiffi in all scenarios,adds.to the cash balance: The "Other Accruals" entry on the Without Fred Richards scenario is unique.,The entry for,2014'is roughly $1,500,000.greater than that of any of the other scenarios. I'm wondering if you would be able to provide insight into what items:would,be included in this entry. I'm having difficulty understanding how closing Fred Richards Executive Golf Course suddenly infuses this much cash into the golf enterprise. An interesting observation is that if it makes sense to eliminate this accrual from the analysis, the golf enterprise cash position actually improves if the Fred remains open. Thank you. Respectfully, Bill Hanson 7457,West Shore Drive Edina, MN 55435 Home email: fizwill @iuno,com 1 Heather Branigin From: F Hanson <felhanson @gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2014 3:18 PM To: Edina Mail Subject: Petition Signers Voice Anger and Frustration Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed Dear Mayor Hovland: During the last few evenings, I and a few others have been taking a petition around to our neighbors that asks the city council to delay the Fred Richards vote and to create a master plan. So far, I have personally collected nearly 150 signatures. I would say I have a 95% signing rate. I would like to share with you that while I talk with my neighbors, they have taken the opportunity to tell me how they are feeling about the Fred Richards Golf course issue. They are glad that someone is listening to their opinion. A number of them feel their emails are ignored and certainly that any views they voice are brushed off as unimportant. Many petition signers are angry and frustrated, but these emotions are directed especially at the PROCESS of the closing as much as at city council members. Some of my neighbors feel that this issue has been rushed to the point where they have become distrustful; they have a profound feeling of the city not listening to what they have to say. For myself and for many petition signers, it is true to say that we are not wedded to the idea of having a golf course (and my house backs up onto it). What is important to us is to feel that the process should be seen to be fair and thoughtful-, that if a contingent of residents is strongly questioning the process, the city council members would see this as a time to be responsive, not rigid. To live up to the community's expectations of impartiality, and to demonstrate flexibility on this contentious topic, I respectfully request that you vote to delay the decision on closing the Fred Richards Golf Course and use 2014 as a year for planning. Regardless of the future outcome, you will find that many more residents, including me, will completely support the city's decision and will value the fact that city council members respected due process and remained open minded on this issue. Sincerely, Felicity Hanson 7457 West Shore Drive Edina 55435 952 848 -4910 1 Heather Branigin From: 'fizwill @juno.com Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2014 5:26 PM To: Edina Mail Subject: Fw: Fred Richards Executive Golf Course - $1,500,000 cash accrual Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed Hello Mayor Hovland: Since sending the attached I have taken a closer look at the proforma scenario for closing the Fred and have,found that there is a Miscellaneous expense that-is for roughly the same amount as the cash accrual I was wondering about. It looks like the two entries essentially cancel each other out. I'm sure there is an accounting reason for the way,in which these items were presented as expenses and accruals. Please ignore my original question, and I apologize for my confusion. Respectfully, Bill Hanson -- - - - - -- Forwarded Message ---- - - - - -- From: "fizwill @iuno.com" < fizwill @iuno.com> To:,mail@EdinaMN.gov Suljject: Fred Richards Executive Golf Course - $1,500,000 cash,accrual Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2014 18:10:52 GMT Hello Mayor Hovland: This is a follow up on our discussion this morning during the Walk with the Mayor event at Southdale with respect to the Golf Course Operations Study. I have been reviewing the eight proforma scenarios detailed in the study. In the Non -GAAP cash reconciliation section there is an item called "Other Accruals ", which in all scenarios adds to the cash balance. The "Other Accruals" entry on the Without Fred "Richards scenario is unique. The entry for 2014 is roughly $1,500,000 greater than that of any of the other scenarios. I'm wondering if you would be able to provide insight into what items would be included in this entry. I'm having difficulty understanding how closing Fred Richards Executive Golf Course suddenly infuses this much cash into the golf enterprise. An interesting observation is that if it makes sense to eliminate this accrual from the analysis,,the golf enterprise cash position actually improves if the Fred remains open. Thank you. Respectfully, Bill Hanson 7457. -West Shore Drive Edina, MN 55435 Home email: fizwill @iuno.com I Heather Branigi,n From: fizwill@juno.com Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2014 12:33 PM . To: Edina Mail Subject: Fred Richards Executive Golf Course ., Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed .Dear Mayor Hovland: I have no doubt that you have the best interests of the Edina community at heart as you perform your duties as a city council member. I'm also sure you understand that some proposals before the council have the potential for being more contentious than others. The prospect of closing FREC is certainly a tough pill to swallow for many, but the bigger issue is the feeling of having no voice in the matter due to the extremely short timeframe for public comment. According to the staff report /recommendation, the staff has been working on the proposal since Spring /Summer 2013, yet public comment was first solicited with the January 30 informational meeting at Braemar when the draft proposal was presented. The final presentation to the Park Board was less than two weeks later, and the same proposal was presented to the City Council on March 4, just three weeks later. Statements made during the March 4 by Member Sprague and Member Bennett illustrate their belief that rumors that reach the community constitute community involvement. They cited emails received last year from residents in reaction to these rumors as proof that there has been opportunity for the community to voice their opinion. I strongly disagree that communications instigated by rumors constitute involvement in the decision- making process. If a decision on the future of FREC is made at the upcoming March 18 council meeting, there will have been less than seven weeks of community involvement start to finish. Instead of deciding the fate of FREC at this meeting, the council needs to vote to postpone the decision until the end of 2014 to ensure that the entire community, rather than just city staff and elected officials, have reached a consensus. Respectfully, Bill Hanson 7,457 West Shore Drive Edina, MN 55435 1 Heather Branigin From: fizwill @juno.com Sent: Monday, March 17, 2014 7:07 AM To: _ Edina Mail Subject: Fred Richards Executive Golf Course Follow Up Flag: Follow. up Flag Status: Completed Dear Council Member: There is a critical,omission in the staff report on golf operations that has also been overlooked in the discussions to date. Has anyone considered the absolutely unique opportunity that exists for making FREC a real money- generating component in the golf operations? The renewed vital.ity that will come with the new Pentagon Park redevelopment creates the perfect environment for.substantial revenue growth of FREC. Not only will there be much more activity and interest in the area,.but deficiencies. in the FREC can be addressed during the development, such as poor access to the golf course. Since the city" is contemplating investments -in the golf enterprise, wouldn't it make sense to use the . Pentagon redevelopment to jump start a,renewal of FREC's prospects? Please allow more time to consider the other exciting options open to the city regarding FREC. Vote to table the decision on FREC, and take a closer look at the real opportunity for golf in Edina. Respectfully, Bill Hanson 7457 West Shore Drive Edina, MN 55435 1 Heather, Branigin From: Brant Haenel <bhaenelC@modernclimate.com> Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2014 1:05 PM To: Edina Mail; jonibennettl2 @comcast.net; Mary Brindle (Comcast); joshsprague @edinarealty.com; swensonannl @gmail.com Subject: If this is about finances... Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed Hello Mayor Hovland and City Council Members, Thank you for taking the time to consider answers and options beyond those given in the city staff's recommendations on Braemar golf operations; specifically the closing of the Fred Richards golf course. Before the scheduled March 18th meeting and vote, I'm wondering if we yet have a complete answer that addresses root of the question? Specifically, if we need to take financial action regarding Edina's golf offering, including the future of the Fred Richards, where are the details in those answers that include the estimated capital costs to transform the Fred Richards into something else, along with the assoicated maintenance costs? After options have been explored, perhaps the Fred Richards needs to close. But until the city accounts for of least an estimated range for these budgets, I don't know or understand how we can collectively arrive at a finanically prudent decision. Without this detail, there's too much fuel for speculation surrounding ulterior motives and hidden agendas with the options on the table. Before making a decision on the future of the the Fred Richards golf course, can you please work to uncover and weigh the complete financial picture? And thank you in advance for your consideration. Brant Haenel 4520 Sedum Lane, Edina Brant Haenel Chief Strategy Officer i't liln�-�4! fis 1f'i6t.)a��4r?} +=rn7 i.ii rri v: bhaenel(a-)modernclimate.com Modern Climate ,00 i' r:i'liiexy�.it'rl :.., 'fiti`l� No "y Minneapolis, NIN 55403 :all us: 6-12-343-8180 hftp: / /modernclimate.com Heather Branigin From: PAUL A HOKENESS <phokeness @msn.com> Sent: Sunday, March 16,2014.2:42 PM To: Edina Mail; swensonannl @gmail.com; jonibennettl2 @comcast.net; Mary Brindle (Comcast);joshsprague@edinarealty.com Subject: Closing of the Fred Richards Golf Course Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed Honorable Mayor and members of the Edina City Council, It was with sadness that I read the articles in the paper about the closing of this wonderful little course. My wife and I`are.recently retired and she has told me for years that she would consider taking up the game of golf after she retired. I've always thought this would be a good activity for us to play together. I'm an average golfer at best and think that this little course is perfect for my wife and I, as she has just had a knee replaced and I'll, be looking at the same operation in a year or so (my basketball, football, and. racquetball days are behind me) and that's why I need a new knee and and..a more relaxing less intensive sport to be involved in. My neighbor and her elderly Mother played this course for years and they just loved it. I've been there once and the-course was well maintained, the turf and 'greens were wonderful, and the staff were very friendly and helpful. I was a Parks and Recreation professional for 37 years and oversaw the operation of two different par -3 courses, one in Burnsville and the other in West St. Paul. Though rounds fell off over the years I, saw a huge:influx in young golfers. The First Tee program attracted many new young golfers and I understand the youth program at Fred.:Richards is very popular. I would assume that the bonds for that course are retired and there should be no reason you can't afford to keep the course in operation. I'm sure the golfers wouldn't object to higher green fees and raising the season ticket prices. Perhaps attracting more leagues and increasing the advertising. I think there are a lot of people that don't even know the course exists. One of the articles said that if the course is closed it would still remain public land. As you well know park land, trails, playgrounds and athletic fields aren't cheap to operate and most of them collect no revenue. I think it would be in the best Interest for the City of Edina to keep the course open and treat it as a wonderful asset that you can be proud of. I look at golf courses differently than a financial person would. To me they are a "basic set of services" that can be enjoyed by many people and a good way to preserve open green space. I'm hoping you do the right thing and keep the course open and if you do I'll be one of the first people to buy,my season pass and sign up for lessons. I also have a lot of friends that would also follow me to the first tee! Sincerely, Paul Hokeness, retired Parks and Recreation Director 612 -207 -2085 Heather Branigin From: Tom Sullivan <thomassullivan87 @gmail:com> Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2014 3:07 PM To: Edina Mail; jonibennettl2 @comcast.net; joshsprague @edinarealty.com; Mary Brindle (Comcast); swensonannl @gmail.com Subject: Save the Fred Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed Dear Mayor Hovland and City Council Members, I am writing in strong support of the Save the Fred campaign. I have spent the past two weeks reading up on the issue and have come away with these thoughts: 1) I am extremely disappointed that the decision to close the Fred would be made with so little input from neighbors. I find myself wondering if these types of quick decisions would be made in other parts of town. 2) We spent years and had several community input meetings when the City was preparing to reconstruct 70th Street. That was a process that included stakeholders'and actively sought input from those affected by the work being contemplated. Why did we not follow the same course with the Fred? 3) It is my impression that the City had been working on the schedule preferred by Hillcrest Developers. I am happy to read that both Hillcrest and the City have emphatically denied that the Fred and the Pentagon project are coordinated or connected. This is good news! It allows the City to take its time in deciding what to do with our city golf courses. 4) I understand that Edina says it is losing money on its golf courses. I also understand that the Fred does not lose money. Why are we considering closing a course that covers its cost and is a treasured asset of the community? 5) Clearly,, Braemar is the site that is bleeding money. Why not consider changes to make that course profitable? It seems tome that we can consider each golf course separately.. 6) Your logic appears to be: Close the profitable course and pump money into the money losing course. What's next? If the Braemar Ice Arena started to lose money, would we decide to close some of our outdoor rinks? The message is: slow down and commit to involve the residents and stakeholders that would be affected. Let's have a process that our citizens can support. Respectfully Submitted, Thomas Sullivan 4512 Hibiscus Ave Edina, Mn 55435 Heather Branigin From: Marie Sullivan <mariesullivan87 @gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2014 3:20 PM To: Edina Mail; Joni Bennett; Josh Sprague; Mary Brindle (Comcast); ann Swenson; Cary Teague; Scott Neal Subject: Fred Richards Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed Mayor Hovland, City Council Members, Planning Director and City Manager, If Mr. Nick Hunzelman is correct in.his letter to the The Sun Current last week that Fred Richard's is not losing money, it suggests either of two very serious situations: 1). The City Council was unaware that Fred Richard's is profitable. 2). The City Council knew Fred Richard's is profitable but, having ulterior motives, chose to ignore the truth. If either of these two scenarios is correct, the injustice is, even more serious because the city publicly based their reasons for wanting to close the golf course on this misinformation! Please help me understand how I can interpret this. Is it true that Fred Richards is not losing the money the city suggested it is? Is it true the city is just looking for ways to spend more on Braemar which IS losing money? Is it true the city council has already decided to make this land part of a Pentagon Park development? This decision needs to slow way down. There needs to be more input from residents, more study, and above all, clear and accurate information so people don't feel there are hidden agendas or deliberate misinformation for ulterior motives. Sincerely, Marie Sullivan i Heather Branigin From: Susan Soule <sulb3so @comcast.net> Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2014 5:14 PM To: Ann Swenson; Josh Sprague; Mary Brindle (Comcast); Joni Bennett; Edina Mail Subject: Fred Richards Golf Course Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed Dear Mayor Hovland and City Council Members, I urge you to Save Fred Richards Golf Course. I have written before and enumerated my reasons which extend beyond those of the immediate neighbors of the course. The last few years have been atypical in terms of course finances (golf dome fire, weather) and, as former General Manager Valliere has written, Richards is now paid for and could be come a profit center with promotion by experienced golf marketing professionals. The cost and ongoing expenses of convertinq the course to a new use and then maintaining it have not been clarified. Perhaps most importantly, the process has been flawed. It has been rushed and lacked communitv involvement. Compare this to the Grandview District planning. I would urge you, at the very least, to delay a final decision on the closure pending further study and community involvement. Thank you Sincerely, Susan Soule 7324 West Shore Drive Edina 1 Heather Branigin From: Heirigs, Wayde <Wayde.Heirigs @ATK.COM> Sent: Monday, March 17, 2014 8:33 AM To: joshsprague @edinarealty.com; Mary Brindle (Comcast); Edina Mail; jonibennettl2 @comcast.net; swensonannl @gmaiLcom Subject: Fred Richards Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed At the last city council meeting, Ann responded to questions from the council that a plan keeping.Fred Richards open for another year had been prepared and the alternative . was chosen. This is inconsistent with the responses we get when we talk about different alternatives with the staff (see response below). I have read the materials sent to the council in advance of Tuesday's meeting and understand a master plan is now.being developed: I think it is premature to vote on closing Fred Richards until look at all the alternatives can be reviewed and studied. There is no risk to delay the vote until after the master plan is developed. Wayde Heirigs Vice.P4sident, Chief Accountant and Interim_ Treasurer Alliant Techsystems Inc. 7480 Flying Cloud Road Eden, Prairie MN, 55344 Office 952- 351 -3016 Cel1.612- 695 -7399 From: Ann Kattreh [mailto:AKattreh(5�EdinaMN.gov1 Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2014 12:11 PM To:`Heirigs, Wayde Subject: RE: Park Board meeting Hi Wayde, More research is needed on our end to answer your questions directly. We did not create a scenario which would keep Fred Richards open for a year and then close it:. I'll respond as soon as possible. We have not prepared a plan for rept.i.rposing Fred. Richards. We intend to involve several stakeholders, including the City Council, Park Board and. neiglabors to determ_i.:ne the ft.tt.u:re uses for the park space. Sincerely, Ann Ann Kattreh, Parks & Recreation Director 952- 826 -04301 Fax 952 - 826 -0385 AKattreh(c?EdinaMN:gov I wvnv.EdinaMN.gov ...Fier L[ving, Lmmin;, Raising Families Doing Business From: Heirigs, Wayde [ma i Ito: Wayde.Hei rigs @ATK.COM] Sent: Friday, February 14, 2014 2:12 PM 1. 1 To: Ann Kattreh Subject: RE: Park Board meeting Ann thanks for the information. I do have a couple question. On page 11 you say If a driving range project is to begin in the fall, of 2014, it is critical for a,decision on the closing of FREC early in 2014. Final design, watershed approval and.the bidding process will take several months Why is 2014 so critical and why would you close Fred Richards in 2015 when the executive course'at Braemar is closed? On page 29 of 75 you show lost revenue of'$142 and reduced expense of $65 during the construction Wouldn't that revenue or at least 50% of those rounds be played at Fred Richards if it were open in 201.51 At the Park board meeting it was said that the Braemar Operations need the savings from Fred Richards to pay for the driving range expansion. On page 25 of 75 you say closing Fred Richards in FY15 will reduce revenue by 1.69k and expenses by 228k thus saving the city 59K. I do not see why a decision needs to be made in 2014 to Close Fred.Richards as closing Fred Richards wilf.not pay for the Range expansion priorto need for the money. Actually if 50% of those rounds that would have been played at the Braemar executive course(71k) were to be played at Fred Richards then keeping Fred Richards open in 2015 saves the city 121( So I am asking why do we need to make a decision in 2014 and why would you close Fred Richards during the . construction? So far the explanation are not adding up. Thank you in advance for your response Wayde Heirigs Vice President, Chief Accountant and Interim Treasurer Alliant Techsystems Inc. 7480 Flying Cloud Road Eden Prairie MN, 55344 Office 952 -351 -3016 Cell 612 - 695 -7399 From: Ann Kattreh [mailto:AKattreh(cDEdinaMN.gov] Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2014 2:47 PM To: Heirigs, Wayde Subject: RE: Park Board meeting Hi Wayde, It is on Page 11 of the attached packet. Thank you, Ann - Ann Kattreh, Parks & Recreation Director k ._ `•. 952- 826 -0430 1 Fax 952 - 826 -0385 Mattreh(cD Edina MN.Qov I www.EdinaMN.gov ...For Living, Learning, Raising Families & Doing BUSiness 2 From: Heirigs, Wayde [mailto:Wayde.HeirigsCa)AlX.COM] Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2014 2:38 PM To: Ann Kattreh Subject: Park Board meeting Ann, last night one of the Board Members mentioned all the capital improvement needs at Fred Richards if we were to leave the..course open. I do�not see that in the packet of information I received. Could you please forward that information to me. I think she reference page 11. Thank You Wayde Heirigs Vice President, Chief Accountant and Interim Treasurer Alliant Techsystems Inc. 7480.Flying Cloud Road Eden, Prairie MN, 55344 Office 952 -351 -3016 Cell 612 -695 -7399 3 Heather Branigin From: Sent: To: Subject: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Heirigs, Wayde <Wayde.Heirigs @ATK.COM> Monday, March 17, 2014 8:47 AM joshsprague @edinarealty.com; Mary Brindle (Comcast); Edina Mail; jonibennett12 @comcast.net; swensonannl @gmail.com FW: Golf Course Recommendation for Tuesday Night Follow up Completed I sent an e-mail earlier about closing Fred Richards and stated there is no risk in delaying the vote. Even the staff point out the only risk is we may change our mind and not commit to the plan to reduce our costs. If we are afr'a'id-6f not committing to closing the Fred in November that tells me the following: 1. We are unsure of our decision 2. We have not explored all the options I think a decision as big as this should not be made prior to a master plan being developed. Especially if we ma "y change our minds and regret that decision later. There may be something better. I disagree the pressure may be off in the fall. If we do not achieve our revenue projections from the driving range expansion the pressure will be even greater to reduce our costs. Wayde Heirigs Vice President,- Chief Accountant and Interim Treasurer Alliant Techsystems Inc. 7480 Flying Cloud Road Eden Prairie MN, 55344 Office 952 -351 -3016 Cell 612- 695 -7399 - - - -- Original Message - - -- From: Scott Neal [mailto:sneal @EdinaMN.gov] Sent: Sunday;,March 16, 2014 10 :37 AM To: Heirigs; -Wayde Subject: RE: Golf Course Recommendation for Tuesday Night Wayde. - If we are going to have a new driving range in place in 2015, we must make that decision now. If we are going to fund that project with future cost reductions, I think it is prudent to commit to those reductions now rather after the driving range contract is awarded. If we award the driving range contract prior to making the decision on cost reductions, there is a chance that we will not commit to the cost reductions in the future because the pressure to make them will be off. If we award the driving range project based on hypothetical future revenues, there is a chance those revenues will be achieved, which means we will have increased our debt load and not reduced our operating expenses, which will take us in the wrong fiscal direction. Scott 0 Scott Neal,:City Manager 952 - 826 -0401 Fax 952 - 826 -0390 sneal @EdinaMN.gov I www.EdinaMN.gov ...For Living,, Learning, Raising Families & Doing Business - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Heirigs, Wayde [mailto:Wayde.Heirigs @ATK.COM] Sent: Friday, March 14, 2014 4:48 PM To: Scott Neal Cc: colleenwolfe5 @comcast.net; derek.johnson @genmills.com; Ann Kattreh Subject: Re: Golf Course Recommendation for Tuesday Night Scott please,explain how your approach has lower risk by making that decision now verses at the end of the year. Sent from my iPhone > On Mar 14, 2014, at 3:40 PM, "Scott Neal" <sneal @EdinaMN.gov> wrote: > > Good Afternoon Colleen, Derek and Wayde — > Per our discussion last Friday, I wanted to get back to you about what staff will be recommending to the Council at the March 18 Council' meeting concerning the future of the Fred Richards Golf Course. Attached in the staff report that is included in the Council's prep packet for the March 18 meeting. The staff report provides responses to a number of the questions that were raised during the March 4 public hearing and also provides our recommendation at the end. > Our staff recommendation has not changed. We continue to believe the.most appropriate response to the current and future goals we have for the City's golf enterprise is to close the Fred Richards course at the end of the 2014 season. After meeting with the three of you, we have a much better understanding of your proposal. We believe that our proposal leverages cost reductions that are under our control while your proposal leverages potential revenues that might result from marketing and operational changes. With respect, we believe our proposal has an overall lower level of risk, which we believe makes it more feasible. > One new element of the staff's recommendation is that we will recommend to the Council that we initiate the - master planning for Braemar Golf Course immediately. had previously recommended to delay that master planning.,proces's until after the driving range is completed. We have identified a new source of revenue that is available and'appropriate for that task. We will also recommend to the Council that they direct staff and allocate funds for the master planning process for the Fred Richards Golf Course, if they decide to support the recommendation to close the course..' > > Speaking for staff, we understand the sensitivity of what we are proposing. We know it is not popular. There are no cheerleaders for austerity. Many supporters of The Fred are accusing us of "not listening" 'to.their concerns. Believe me, we can hear their concerns. We understand their concerns. But at the same time, we have a received.a broader mission from the City Council to improve the financial performance of our recreational facilities. That mission is the driver of our,analysis on this issue. We will not beg or badger the.Council "to adopt our recommendation, -but, we will continue to recommend our plan because we believe it helps bring our municipal golf enterprise to the future we desire for it. >. In the end, this is ultimately a City Council decision. Staff will implement their decision. > > Best Regards, z • Scott Neal • City Manager • <Item VIII B Golf Course Operations Study .docx> 3 Heather Branigin From: DENA <dtortorelis @comcast.net> . Sent: Monday, March 17, 20149:51 AM To:. Edina Mail Subject: Vote to delay closing Fred Richards Follow'Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed Dear Mayor Hovland, i, am writing to ask you to please delay a decision on closing Fred Richards Golf Course until after. the 2014 golf season! There is no reason for the council to rush this decision before further study and consideration .of the issue is undertaken. Fred Richards golf course has served the community for over 40 years and deserves more than a month of consideration! Once it is gone, it can never be brought back. This is a wonderful and useful place for many people and I can't imagine an Edina without it! Please hold off voting to close it!! Sincerely, Dena Tortorelis 7441 West Shore Drive, Edina 1 Heather Branigin ..From: Elaine's Gmail <elainekoyama @gmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 17, 2014 1:06 PM To: Edina Mail;jonibennettl2 @comcast.net; Mary Brindle (Comcast); joshsprague @edinarealty.com; swensonannl @gmail.com .Cc: szimmerman @interlinxassociates.com; leekzirrimerman @earthlink.net Subject: Fred Richards Golf Course Follow Up Flag: F61low u'p Flag Status: Completed I see that there's a petition to "save the Fred." I felt compelled to express my opinion, that while Fred Richards is a wonderful asset to the community, golf numbers are down, and we have one of the best golf courses at Braemar. I would 'rather see the city funnel their resources to Braemar, support and expand this community course that is competitive with private clubs, and cut the losses at Fred Richards. We all have fond memories of Fred Richards —my kids all played there at some point —but we have to move on, face financial reality, and invest where we will get the best return for our money. We can then repurpose Fred Richards into something more relevant to the community. Regards, elainekoyama @gmail.com Cell: 612- 940 -5002 6608 Nordic Drive Edina, MN 55439 1 I Heather Branigin From: Melanie McCall <melaniemccall @comcast.net> Sent: Monday, March 17, 2014 1:43 PM To: Edina Mail Subject: For the City Council regarding Fred Richards Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed 'f bAhe City Council: .Please indefinitely defer the vote to close the Fred Richards golf course. Fred Richards is a- unique resource, in particular for the kids and the seniors in our community, k am also strongly opposed to any loss of public space to support any "ponding" or Storm Water Drainage for the private new development at Pentagon Office Park. Respectfully, Melanie McCall 306 Dearborn Court Edina, 55343 Heather Branigin From: Gary Soule <gsou_lel @comcast.net> Sent: Monday, March 17, 2014 2:27 PM To: swensonannl @gmail.com; Mary Brindle (Comcast); jonibennettl2 @comcast.net; Edina Mail Subjects' Braemar Operational Proposal Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed Dear Edina Council Members, I am very supportive of both Braemar and of Fred Richards. I am current member and a past president of the Braemar Men's Club, the largest in the state. Improvements do need to be accomplished at Braemar. I support that completely. I am also very supportive of junior golf, which really holds the future for golf in Minnesota and elsewhere. I have voluntarily run the Braemar Junior Leagues program at Braemar for 17 years. 2014 will be my 18th year. It is harder and harder to increase the involvement of kids into golf, what with all of the competing activities that they seem to have. Nevertheless, the Braemar junior programs are full every year, again the largest in the state. Fred Richards is a nearly ideal venue to introduce young golfers into the game. It is completely paid for and, if I understand correctly, with all of the capital investment paid for by money from the Braemar enterprise, with the exception of the last year's payment. Fred Richards has been generating positive income. There has been very little, if any, promotion of this golf course to the greater community. With the proposed development to the south of Fred Richards, including a hotel, the potential for achieving maximum course usage with a bit of promotion should be very great. When I was a businessman who traveled for my work, I frequently would look for the opportunity to find a golf course where I could play 9 holes within proximities to my hotels. Fred Richards could well be that course for future tenants of the hotel, as well as, an opportunity for leagues for the new businesses that will reside in the new complex. I could continue to attempt to list the reasons that I support keeping Fred Richards open. However, I heard many, many good and reasonable reasons expressed at the 3 meetings that I have attended regarding this proposal. Not much more needs to be said. Perhaps my very greatest concern is the process that has occurred regarding this proposal. My educational training is at the master's level in Community Organization. This process has lacked the barest of fundamentals regarding involvement of the community. This is a big deal. This proposal cries out for community involvement. Mayor 1 Hoveland's suggestion that Fred Richards be kept open through the 2015 season makes great sense. This would give the city time to really involve the community in a meaningful way. I am hopeful that the council will moveAhe Braemar portion of this proposal forward, while extending more time to involve the community and seek alternative options to the closing of Fred Richards at the end of the 2014 golf season. Respectfully, Gary Soule 7324 West Shore Drive Edina, MN 55435 952- 925 -5053 2 Heather Branigin From: Kris Quicksell <kris @weglaw.com> :on behalf of Jane Prince <jane @weglaw.com> Sent: Monday, March 17, 2014 3:46 PM To: Edina Mail; 'City Council Member Joni Bennett'; Mary Brindle (Comcast); 'City Council Member Josh Sprague'; 'City Council Member Ann Swenson'; 'City Attorney Roger Knutson' Subject: Letter to Mayor Hovland, Edina City Council and City Attorney Roger Knutson Attachments: 3 -17 -14 Letter to City of Edina re Save the Fred.pdf, Kevin Holm Sworn Statement 031714.0df, Mary Hughes Sworn Affidavit 031714.pdf; Renee Hunzelmari Sworn Affidavit 031714.pdf Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed March 17, 2014 BY ELECTRONIC AND U.S. MAIL Mayor James Hovland Members of the City Council City Attorney Roger Knutson City of Edina 4801 W. 50LI, St. Edina, MN 55424 Mayor Hovland, Members of the City Council and City Attorney Knutson: I have been retained by a group of residents involved in the Save The Fred Organization (hereinafter "my Client ") to call your attention to significant legal issues about the connected actions before the Edina City Council on Tuesday, March 18. It is my intention by way of this letter to preserve the citizens' rights through any means necessary including judicial review. Based on the information in the affidavits attached hereto, clearly Councilmember Josh Sprague has a conflict of interest as defined in Minn. Stat. § 471.87 and described in Minnesota A.G. Op. =430 (Apr. 28, 1967). The City Council must investigate this conflict of interest and Councilmember Sprague must recuse himself from any voting regarding Fred Richards golf course and the Pentagon Park Redevelopment. Furthermore, based on false and incorrect statements of City Planner Cary Teague at the most recent City Council Meeting held on March 4, 2014 regarding the City's denial of a determination that the connected Fred Richards and Pentagon Park project fail to meet the requirements for a Mandatory EAW pursuant to Minn. Rules 4410.4300, my clients will take all actions necessary to require the City to conduct an environmental review as required by the rules. Specifically, the actions before the City Council at issue are: ® Preliminary Rezoning From MDD -6 to PUD and Overall Development Plan, Pentagon Revival, Resolution No. 2014 -29 Consideration of Citizens' Petition For Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for Conversion of the Fred Richards Golf Course in Edina, Resolution No. 2014 -30 ■ Golf Course Operations Study ■ Pentagon Park Redevelopment - Authorizing Preparation Of Redevelopment Agreement The aforementioned legal issues are presented herein. FACT SUMMARY The residents of the neighborhoods adjacent to the Fred Richards Golf. Course (hereinafter "the Fred ") having neither been notified nor engaged in a public process, have learned that the closing of the Fred is linked directly to the redevelopment of Pentagon Park by Hillcrest Development. The records show that Hillcrest has been in negotiations with the City of Edina, its staff and City Council, for over one year, dating back to fall of 2012. Edina City Manager Scott Neal retained a consultant to look into consolidating golf operations in May 2013. My Client learned of the proposed closing of the Fred through a newspaper articleM in which Mayor Jim Hovland stated, "If the corLsultant should recommend consolidation of all the city's golf operations at Braemar... no such decision [on the future of the Fred] would be made without extensive public input." On October 7, 201.3 at an open. house hosted by .Hillcrest about the redevelopment of Pentagon Park, my Client saw for first time several exhibits (included in the City Council's March 18 meeting packet) that showed the Fred replaced with parkland and an integrated storm water system. Speaking for Hillcrest, Scott Tankenoff told my Client that he had been in discussions with City Council Members about Pentagon Park for approximately one year. Councilmembers had assured Tankenoff that a decision on the fate of the Fred was forthcoming, Tankenoff said, because of that decision's direct impact on the Hillcrest's plans. On November 5, 2013, Mayor Hovland met with a small group of concerned neighbors (including my Client) regarding the future of the Fred, and assured them that there would be an open, participative and extended process to ensure that all viewpoints would be heard, and neighborhood involvement n-iaximized. On December 11, 2013 meeting of the Edina Planning Commission, Hillcrest submitted its development proposal to the Planning Commission with two alternatives: a "Mini.malist" option with the Fred in place, and a "Larger Vision" option, involving the repurposing of the Fred, and the linking of new trails. At the meeting, Tankenoff expressed a strong preference for the second option, and acknowledged the importance of integrating the Fred into the redevelopment. On January 30, 2014, at a public meeting held at the Braemar Golf Course, City Manager Scott Neal presented City's Golf Operations Study, a six -point plan which included closure of the Fred. Contrary to the assurances from city officials since August 2013, there was no evidence that the City had considered any plan that did not include closing the Fred. On February 11, 2014, a public hearing was held at the Edina Parks _Commission on the City's Golf Operations Study, includingahe plan to close the Fred. On March 4, 2014, City Manager Neal acknowledged that the City of Edina had received a request for a Mandatory Environmental Assessment Worksheet, related to the conversation of'the Fred Richards Golf Course. City Planner Cary Teague told the City Council that in conversation with staff of the Environmental Quality Board, the project at issue did not trigger the requirement for a mandatory EAW. ISSUES COUNCIL MEMBER SPRAGUE HAS E> ACCESS AS A PUBLIC OFFICIAL VTIAL INFORMATION TO WHICH RECUSE HIMSELF FROM VOTING ON ALL RELATED MATTERS. L GAIN, AND MUST The'attached sworn statements provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that Council Member Sprague has used information to which he has access from confidential negotiations and meetings with Hillcrest Development to influence purchasers and sell homes in the Lake Edina neighborhood. These business tactics go directly to Council Member Sprague's character and fitness to hold public office in Edina. The affidavits show that Council Member Sprague said that Hillcrest was in negotiations to land a [major internet corporation] as a tenant.[ 21 A post card mailed to homes throughout the Fred Richards neighborhood on Saturday, March 15, reads: "Josh Sprague Gets The Job Done," with photos of several homes he recently has sold in the immediate neighborhood of the Fred. The affidavits demonstrate that Council Member Sprague is willing to profit from information he alone has access to as a council member, and is willing to leverage his vote to keep the prornises he makes to prospective buyers. Council Member Sprague's demeanor also conveys to prospective buyers that they.will have confidential access to a rnenlber of the Edina City Council. Further, it should be immediately alarming to City Attorney Knutson, if not to the whole city council, that Council Member Sprague's strongly stated support of pending zoning applications related to the Pentagon Park proposal may already have put the City of Edina at risk of potential lawsuits in connected.land use actions related to the Pentagon Park redevelopment. Council Member Sprague has set the stage for successful claims of procedural due process violations by future appellants in all land use matters at Pentagon Park.I31 THE CLOSING OF THE FRED TO FACILITATE THE DEVELOPER'S PREFERRED PENTAGON PARK REDEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE TRIGGERS A MANDATORY EAW UNDER STATE LAW. In its recommendation for denial of the request for a Mandatory EAW, staff states that closing the golf course is not a "project" as the term is defined in Minnesota Rules 4410.0200, Subd. 65, because the closure of the Fred would not "result in the physical manipulation of the environment, directly, or indirectly." - In the packet before the City Council for its March 18 Meeting, Hillcrest Development presents its preferred alternative, based on closing.tl-ie Fred, which results precisely in turning the golf course into a, park that.accomrnodates the stormwater runoff and.ponding requirements of Pentagon Pa k. The exhibifs that are included in your council packet are sufficient to demonstrate such physical manipulation The.council,.packet is rife with language that demonstrates project linkage. For example „the document, Pentagon Park Master Term Sheet,” Paragraph 17 (b) pertaining to Stormwater Runoff, states that "In the event that the city decides.to change, the public use of the Fred Richards golf course site, both parties will work cooperatively to explore opportunities to improve water quality.and utilize storm water as an amenity or feature." This alone constitutes "manipulation of the physical ,environment" in the 84 -acre parcel, niaking.the requirement for the EAW mandatory. At tlae March 4 City Council meeting, Council Member Sprague discussed a significant financial benefit available to the City through the,linkage of th-e. two projects. Regarding the Fred, he explained, "If it remains a golf course, you can't use TIF for the adjacent development. If it's.no longer, a golf course, it can be used for stormwater management, trails; sidewalks, pathways... and for maintenance." Citing the Centeiznial Lakes development, "where you have a CAM [a tenant's con-u-non area maintenance charge] to support adjacent public space," he pointed out, "At Pentagon Park, you could charge a CAM that would help support the park." "Yes," Council Member Sprague concluded, "TIF is a potential funding source for both capital improvements and maintenance of a future park on the site." In effect, Council Member Sprague makes clear that closing of the Fred is a prerequisite to the development of the future park on the 84 acre parcel, through the availability of TIF final-icing. According to the Minnesota Rules 4410.0200, Subd. 9c, this linkage fulfills the requirement for a mandatory EAW.141 Scott Tankenoff also demonstrates that closing the Fred is a prerequisite for Pentagon Park: "There comes a point where we can't wait," Tankenoff said. "Ate we integrating our land or not. "151 Tankenoff makes no secret that his preferred project depends on closing the Fred. When City Council votes to close the Fred and simultaneously votes to advance the Pentagon Park redevelopment, it removes all doubt that Pentagon Park is an 84 -acre project, requiring a mandatory EAW. IRREGULARITIES EXIST'CONCERNING THE ADVICE PROVIDED TO CITY COUNCIL BY CARY TEAGUE REGARDING THE REQUEST FOR A MANDATORY EAW At the city council meetin.g.on March 4, Development Director Carrie Teague falsely stated that in a telephone conversation<with the staff of the Environmental. Quality Board, he was advised that the project, that was `the subject of a Citizen Petition for.an EAW, "did not fall within the mandatory category." In a follow up discussion between my Client and the staff of the EQB, my Client learned. that this 'statement is false, because. EQB staff do not offer such advice-as a matter of laul.. The determination of whether a mandatory EAW is required must be made by the Responsible Governmental Unit, the City of Edina, not the EQB. GIVEN THE SERIOUSNESS OF THESE MATTERS, MY CLIENT REQUESTS: 1. That Council Member Sprague be required to recuse himself from voting on the future of the Fred Richard Golf Course, and all related matters, on Tuesday, March 18, and at any date in the future. 2. That if the City Council determines that no linkage exists between the Fred and the Pentagon Park Development, that the City delay its decision regarding the Fred indefinitely and laurich a ..thorough evaluation and public process aimed at preserving it. 3. That the City Council table its action on the mandatory EAW, while it investigates irregularities relating'to Development Director Teague's assurances, determinations' and representations of statements made by EQB which he made at the March 4 city council meeting. 4. That this letter serve as a request, pursuant to the Mirulesota Government Data Practices Act, Minn. Stat. § 13.O1,.et seq. for all communications including emails between Council Member and Hillcrest Development relating to the Pentagon Park Development and the Fred Richards Golf Course, for the time period beginning on January 1, 2013, through the date of the responses. 5. My Client renews the request of July 22, made on its behalf, under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, for all information relating to the change in use, improvement or redevelopment of the Fred Richards Golf Course, or face penalties pursuant to Minn. Stat, 13.08. Finally., . with a sincere interest in resolving all the issues raised herein, My Client welcomes the opportunity to enter into constructive discussions with the City of Edina and Hillcrest Development to explore ways. to accommodate stormwater, ponding and related needs of the proposed Pentagon Park development within a permanent public Fred Richards Golf Course. Sincerely, Jane L. Prince for WEINBLATT & GAYLORD PLC J LP:kq Encl. CC: (without enclosures, via electronic mail) Minnesota Attorney General Lori.Swanson Hillcrest Development Minneapolis Star Tribune Edina Sun Current Weinblatt & Gaylord, PLC 5 5874 Blackshire Path Inver Grove Heights; MN 55076 Phone: 651- 292 -8770 Fax: 651- 223 =8282 or 651 -451 -5872 NOTICE: This communication may contain privileged or other confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient; or believe thatyou have received this communication in error, please do not print, copy, retransmit disseminate, or otherwise use the information contained herein. Also, please notify sender thatyou have received this communication in error, and delete the.copy thereofyou-have received. Thankyou. i i i I tit Edina council has nol decided firlure of Fred Richards course, Edina Sun Current, August 7, 2013. 12) The.affiant was told the name of the corporation, but it is not our intention by way of this letter to reveal the subject of confidential negotiations between the Developer and prospective tenants. 131 See Continental Property Group, Inc. v. City of Minneapolis, 2011 WL 1642510 141 In its denial of the need for an EAW, staff states, "Closing of the golf course and the proposed Pentagon Park redevelopment are not a connected action as that term is defined in Minnesota Rules 4410.0200, Subd. 9c. One project does not induce 'the other, one `project' is not a prerequisite for the other, and'both.'projects' stand alone." lsl Sam Black. Is rliere room /b,goi l'in'Penragon Park plan? Minneapolis /St. Paul Business Journal. Dec. 6. 2013 i AFFIDAVIT 01: RENEE i It1NZ)rLMAN STATE O.F N1INNE:SOTA _ ) ASS. COUNTY OFI--ENNEl'iN ) . RENEE :HUNZI:LM AN, being dull' sworn, does state: I attended an open house hosted by Edina Reality and Ed:i 'iaa City Council Member Josh Sprague on March 15, 2014, at 7000 West Shore Drive. After briefly looking in basement of the house, I was greeted by Josh, who shared a tern• details about the house, Josh then pointed out the house proximity to the mani Edina parks in the area. He showed me a deta.i.led packet of printed information that showed the parks in the Cornelia neighborhood. Mr. Sprague rent on to explain that he was an Edina council .me.niber and alter the upcoming cite council aneeting, t=rod Richards Golf w-ould most likely be repurposed to become athletic fields with walking; paths and retention ponds .ry similar to Centennial Lakes Park. Using; a. neap f.ro.na his mnbile device, Mr. Sprague further explainer{ the Fred Richarcis property would have Nine, Mile Project bikini; trails running through a Portion of the propert--. 1:1r.Sprague pointed oul the Pentagon Office complex Ivill be rebuilt with retail, office space:, diia.n.ing and eventually high density ho.isi_ng. He pointed out that the developer is cur.rendy negotiating with Google Maps tas a potential terlant. Further Affiant saVeth not. C�ENL,I:. HUNZEl..A4AN Sul-)scribcgci and 4,worn to before nne this i' Da v . ref I V'ti __:'.__ � `.. - - -f 2014. NO1'APY PUBLIC a ANIiA. RAVI fiA.0 t4 N(i iARY PUK IC - MINNESCITA Kevin's notes re: Josh - Sprague From an ,open house hosted by Josh for the sale of a. home on West shore drive near 70 street. 3/1:6/201.4 After getting a brief intro of the house "and it'-s spec.'s and taking a tour of the house, I asked Josh what he-could tell me about the area; He immediately pulled out his phone to show me an airial map of the area and the location of the house. - He showed. me the location Cornelia school and spoke of its amazing principle. - Ile pointed out Cornelia Take and pool, and Arneson Acres. -He then jumped to the stream that runs through the area west of 1005 how it connects to the lake can the east side of 100, that there is a Hike /bike path system that runs along the stream and then explained that the plan is to have it connect to a path that will continue on through what is now a golf course (hred .Richards) then continue through. the neighborhood into the centennial lakes area and on into Richfield. - "The only section that has to be converted to link it all together is the golf course and "if it gets approved" the plan is to convert that area into a park area wit ..paths and ball parks, etc. -We then, talked about how the Pentagon Office park area is to be converted to all new class A office space with retail for residential as well as housing and Condo's. 50 Million Dollars has already been committed to that project. -Ile then told nee about the Centennial lakes extension under the Galleria mall. -fie finished with, this area of Edina should do very well over the next several years with all the new amenities that `are in the works. t DE.T3 )RA ,f F01 1-Y . NOTARY PU SO Sgt STATF.OF' MINNii NtOTA ' MY COMM ISSIONGXPIRLS JANUARY 31, X017 AFFIDAVIT OF MARY HUGHES STATE OF MINNESOTA )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN MARY HUGHES, being duly sworn, does state: On Saturday, March 15, 2014 at approximately 1:10 p.m., I had a conversation with Edina Council Member Josh Sprague at the open house he was hosting at West Shore Drive. I asked Josh to tell. me about the neighborhood. Josh explained how convenient the location was to .most major roads, showed me on his phone how convenient the house was to shopping and then proceeded to show me parks that were in the area. He mentioned how park - friendly Edina is. He said that the present Fred Richards course would be closed for future parks and developments. He mentioned that there would be restaurants and bike patltis and run -off streams, etc., in the area which is now Fred Richards. He went on to explain how this new bike path would connect to the nine -mite creek plan and how it would allow people to travel to the Mall of America and all the way to Minnetonka. I told him that sourided great. I asked how people would get to the bike path and he was very vague. He didn't go into detail where the path would be. But when I asked if you could enter the bike path fron-i this neighborhood, he was very .positive and said that you would be able to enter at multiple places. He went how to say how amazing the future area would be and that it would be awesome with all the new restaurants, etc. That is about the extent of the conversation. Further Affiant sayeth not. MARY HUGHES Subscribed and sworn to before me this l-?rhday of March, 2014. NOTARY PUBL,I(., SANDRA K MARTHALER W EINBLATT & GAYLORD PLC ATTORNEY.S & COUNM.oRs A-r LAW 5871 Blackshire lath Inver Grove Heights, MN 55076 Telephone: (651) 293 =8770 Frm (651)233_8287 j Wcbsite: www.wcglaMeorn March 17, 2014 BY ELECTRONIC AND U.S. MAIL Mayor James Hovland Members of the City Council City Attorney Roger Knutson City of Edina 4801 W. 50th St. Edina, MN 55424 Alan W. Weinblult Kathleen A. Gaylord Jay Benanav Jane L. Prince Mayor Hovland, Members of the City Council and City Attorney Knutson:. I have been retained by a group of residents involved in the Save The Fred Organization (hereinafter "my Client ") to call your attention to significant legal issues about the connected actions before the Edina City Council on Tuesday, March 18. It is my intention`by way of this letter to preserve the citizens' rights through any means necessary including judicial review. Based on the information in the affidavits attached hereto, clearly Councilmeinber Josh Sprague has a conflict of interest as defined in Minn. Stat. g 471.87 and described in Minnesota A.G. Op. 430 (Apr. 28,1967). The City Council must investigate this conflict of interest;and Councihnember Sprague must recuse himself from any voting regarding Fred Richards golf course and the Pentagon Park Redevelopment. Furthermore, based on false and incorrect statements of City Planner Cary Teague at the most recent City Council Meetingg held on March 4, 2014 . regarding the City's denial of:a determinatioii that the connected Fred Richards and Pentagon Park project fail to meet t11e requirements for a Mandatory EAW pursuant to Minn. Rules 4410.4300, my clients will take all actions necessary to require the City to conduct an environmental review as required by the rules. Specifically, the actions before the City Council at issue are: ■ Preliminary Rezoning From MDD -6 to PUD and Overall Development Plan, Pentagon Revival, Resolution No. 2014 -29 ■. ''Consideration of Citizens' Petition For Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for Conversion of the Fred Richards Golf Course in Edina, Resolution No. 2014 -30 ■ Golf Course Operations Study ■ Pentagon Park Redevelopment - Authorizing Preparation Of Redevelopment Agreement The aforementioned legal issues are presented herein. FACT SUMMARY The residents of the neighborhoods adjacent to the Fred Richards Golf Course (hereinafter "the Fred_ ") having neither been notified nor engaged in a public process, have learned that the closing of the Fred is linked directly to the redevelopment of Pentagon Park by Hillcresf Development. The records show that Hillcrest has.been in negotiations with -the City of Edina, its staff and .City Council, for over one year, dating back to fall of 2012. Edina City Manager Scott Neal retained a consultant to look into consolidating golf operations in May 2013. My Client learned of the proposed closing of the Fred through a newspaper article' in which Mayor Jim Hovland stated, "If the consultant should recommend consolidation of all the city's golf operations at Braemar...no such decision [on the future of the Fred] would be made without extensive public input." On October 7, 2013 at an open house hosted by Hillcrest about the redevelopment of Pentagon Park, my Client saw for first time several exhibits (included in the City Council's March 18 meeting packet) that showed the Fred replaced with parkland and an integrated storm water system. Speaking for Hillcrest, Scott Tankenoff told my, Client that he had been in discussions with City Council Members about Pentagon Park for approximately one year. Councihriembers had assured Tankenoff that a decision on the fate of the Fred was forthcoining, Tankenoff said, because of that decisions direct impact on the Hillcrest's plans. On November 5, 2013, Mayor Hovland met with a small group of concerned neighbors (including my Client) regarding the.future'of the Fred, and assured them that there would be an open, participative and extended process to ensure that all viewpoints would be heard, and neighborhood involvement maximized. On December 11, 2013 meeting of the Edina Planning Commission, Hillcrest submitted its development proposal to the Planning Commission with two alternatives: a "Minimalist" option with the Fred in place, and a "Larger Vision" option, involving the rep urposing of the Fred, and the linking of new trails. At the meeting, Tankenoff expressed a strong preference for the second option, and acknowledged the importance of integrating the Fred into the redevelopment. On January 30, 2014, at a public meeting held at the Braemar Golf Course, City Manager Scott Neal presented. City's Golf Operations Study, a six -point plan which included closure of the Fred. Contrary to the assurances from city officials, since August 2013, Edina council has not decided future of Fred Richards course, Edina Sun Current, August 7, 2013. there was no evidence that the City had considered any plan that did not include closing the Fred. On February 11, 2014, a public hearing was held at the Edina Parks Commission on the City's Golf Operations Study, including the plan to close the Fred. On Marche, 2014, City Manager Neal acknowledged that the City of.Edina had received a request for a Mandatory Environmental Assessment Worksheet, related to the conversation of the Fred:Richards Golf Course. City. Planner Cary Teague told the City Council that in conversation with staff of 'the Environmental Quality Board, the project at issue did not trigger the requirement for a mandatory EAW. ISSUES COUNCIL MEMBER SPRAGUE HAS EXPLOITED CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION TO WHICH HE HAS: ACCESS AS A PUBLIC OFFICIAL FOR PERSONAL FINANCIAL GAIN, AND MUST RECUSE HIMSELF FROM VOTING ON ALL RELATED MATTERS. The attached sworn statements .provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate-that Council Member Sprague has used information to which he has access from confidential . negotiations and meetings with Hillcrest Development to influence purchasers and sell homes in the Lake Edina neighborhood. These business tactics go directly to Council Member Sprague's character and fitness to hold public office in Edina. The affidavits show, that Council Member Sprague said, that Hillcrest was in negotiations to land a [major internet corporation] as a tenant.2 A post card mailed to homes throughout the Fred Richards'neighborhood on Saturday, March 15, reads: "Josh Sprague Gets The job Done," with photos of several homes he recently has sold in the immediate neighborhood of the Fred. The.affidavits demonstrate that Council Member Sprague is willing to profit from information he alone has access-to as a council member, and is willing to leverage his vote to keep the promises he makes to prospective buyers. Council Member Sprague's demeanor also conveys to prospective buyers that they will have confidential access to a member of the Edina City Council. Further, it should be immediately alarming to City Attorney Knutson, if not to the whole city council, that Council Member Sprague's strongly stated, support of pending zoning applications related to the Pentagon Park proposal may already have put the City of Edina at risk of potential lawsuits in connected land use actions related to the Pentagon Park redevelopment. Council Member Sprague has set ,the. stage for Z The affiant was told the name of the corporation, but it is not our intention by way of this letter to reveal the subject of confidential negotiations between the Developer and prospective tenants. , . successful claims of procedural due process violations by future appellants in all land use matters at Pentagon Park.3 THE CLOSING OF THE FRED TO FACILITATE THE DEVELOPER'S'PREFERRED PENTAGON PARK REDEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE TRIGGERS A MANDATORY EAW.UNDER STATE LAW. In its recommendation for denial of the request for a Mandatory EAW,.st~aff states that closing the golf course is not a " project" as the term is defined in Minnesota Rules 4410.0200, Subd. 65, because the closure of the Fred would not "result in'the physical manipulation of the environment, directly, or indirectly." In the packet before the.City Council for its March IS Meeting; Hillcrest Development presents its preferred alternative, based on closing the Fred, which results precisely in turning the golf course into a park that accommodates the stormwater runoff and ponding requirements of Pentagon Park. The exhibits that are included in your council packet are sufficient to demonstrate such physical manipulation . The, council packet is rife with language that demonstrates project linkage. For example, the document, "Pentagon Park Master Term Sheet," .Paragraph 17 (b) pertaining to Stormwater Runoff, states that "In the event that the city decides to change the public use of the Fred Richards golf course site, both parties will work cooperatively to explore opportunities to improve. water quality and utilize storm water as an amenity or'. feature. This alone constitutes "manipulation of the physical environment" in the 84 -acre parcel, malting the requirement for the EAW mandatory. At the March 4 City Council meeting, Council Member Sprague discussed a significant financial benefit available to the City through the linkage of the two projects. Regarding.the Fred, he explained, "If it remains a golf course, you can't use TIF for the adjacent development If it's no longer a golf course, it can be used for stormwater 'management, trails, sidewalks, pathways... and for maintenance." Citing the Centennial Lakes development, "where you have a CAM [a tenant's common area maintenance charge] to support adjacent public space, he pointed out,. "At Pentagon Park, you could charge a CAM that would Help support the park." "Yes," Council Member Sprague concluded, "TIF is a potential funding source for both capital improvements and maintenance of a future park on the site." In effect, Council Member Sprague makes dear that closing of the Fred is a prerequisite to the development of the future park on the 84 acre parcel, through the availability of TIF See Continental Property Group, Inc. v.. City of Minneapolis, 2011 WL 1642510 financing. According to the Minnesota Rules 4410.0200, Subd. 9c, this linkage fulfills the requirement for a mandatory EAW.4 Scott Tankenoff also demonstrates that closing the Fred is a prerequisite for Pentagon Park: "There comes a point where we can't wait," Tankenoff said. "Are we integrating our land or not. "5 Tankenoff makes no secret that his preferred project depends on closing the Fred. When City Council votes to close the Fred and simultaneously votes to advance the Pentagon Park redevelopment, it removes all doubt that Pentagon Park is an 84 -acre project, requiring a mandatory EAW. IRREGULARITIES EXIST CONCERNING THE ADVICE PROVIDED TO CITY COUNCIL BY CARY TEAGUE REGARDING THE REQUEST FOR A MANDATORY EAW At the city council meeting on March 4, Development Director Carrie Teague falsely stated that in a telephone conversation with the staff of the Environmental Quality Board, he was advised that the project that was the subject of a Citizen Petition for an EAW, "did not fall within the mandatory category." In a follow up discussion between my Client and the staff of the EQB, my Client learned that this statement is false, because EQB staff do not offer such advice as a 171atter of lazy. The determination of whether a mandatory EAW is required must be made by the Responsible Governmental Unit, the City of Edina, not the EQB. GIVEN THE SERIOUSNESS OF THESE MATTERS, MY CLIENT REQUESTS: 1, That Council Member Sprague be required to recuse himself from voting on the future of the Fred Richard Golf Course, and all related matters, on Tuesday, March 18, and at any date in the future. 2. That if the City Council determines that no linkage exists between the Fred and the .Pentagon Park Development, that the City delay its decision regarding the Fred indefinitely and launch:a thorough evaluation and public process aimed at preserving it. 3. That the City Council table its action on the mandatory EAW, while it investigates irregularities relating to Development Director Teague's assurances, determinations and representations of statements made by EQB which he made at the March 4 city council meeting. " In its denial of the need for an EAW, staff states, "Closing of the golf course and the proposed Pentagon Park redevelopment are not a connected action as that term is defined in Minnesota Rules 4410.0200,.Subd. 9c, One Vroject does not induce the other, one 'project' is not a prerequisite for the other, and both 'projects' stand alone." Sam Black, is there room jar goljin Pentagon Park-plan? Minneapolis /St. Paul Business Journal, Dec. 6, 2013 4. That this letter -serve as a request, pursuant to the. Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minn. Stat. § 13.01, et seq. for all communications including emails between Council Member and Hillcrest'Development relating to the Pentagon Park Development and the Fred Richards Golf Course, for the time period: beginning on January 1, 2013, through the date of the responses: 5. My Client renews the request of July 22, made:on its behalf, under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, for all information relating to the change in use, improvement or redevelopment of the Fred Richards Golf Course, or face penalties pursuant to Minn. Stat.13.08. Finally, with a sincere interest in resolving all the issues raised herein, My Client welcomes the opportunity to enter into constructive discussions with the City of Edina and Hillcrest Development to explore,ways to accommodate stormwater, ponding and related needs of the proposed Pentagon Park development within a permanent public Fred Richards Golf Course. Sincerely,, �janernce for WEiNBLATT &GAYLORD PLC JL P:kq . Encl. CC: (without enclosures, via electronic mail) Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson Hillcrest Development Minneapolis Star Tribune Edina Sun Current Heather Branigin From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Scott /Ann: Derek Johnson < Derek.Johnson@genmills.com > Monday, March 17, 2014 4:32 PM Scott Neal; Ann Kattreh Edina Mail; Joni Bennett; Mary Brindle (Comcast); joshsprague @edinarealty.net; swensonannl @gmail.com; John Stang Otstang @comcast.net); colleenwolfe5 @comcast.net; Wayde Heirigs (wayde.heirigs @atk.com) Golf Course Recommendation for Tuesday Night Item VIII B Golf Course Operations Study-with STF response .docx Follow up Completed Thank you for your time on Friday, March 7`'. You and your team were very respectful and understanding of our concerns. We also want to thank you for sending us a copy of the Council's prep packet and your team's commentary. We are copying the City Council on this response since we will not be given the opportunity to speak to your comments in tomorrow's Fred agenda discussion. Please find attached a list of comments and questions (in red font) tied to your prep packet document. We also wanted to address a few additional items that came up in our correspondence: 1) We agree that operational expense savings from closing a course (including Braemar Exec in Option 3) are likely less risky than revenue generation ideas; however, we would add that you have an aggressive revenue assumption in expecting 40% of Fred players to move to the Braemar Par 3 - especially given the Braernar 1 -year course closure. As a result, one could even argue that the overall risk level of our Option 3 (Closing Braemar Exec course) carries the least amount of risk. a. You also had a number of revenue generation assumptions in the rest of your 6 -step strategy, that you felt confident in at the time. We used these same assumptions in our analysis, so want to be sure it's clear to the Council that we have not been more aggressive in our assumptions. 2) Your comment that a new source of revenue has been found to fund Braemar improvements confirms that closing the Fred is not a requirement for the Driving Range expansion. In addition, your cornment that you will recommend Council allocates funds to the Master Planning process for Fred's future use confirms there will be a significant $ investment to convert that space into something else - and should be factored into the analysis. 3) We appreciate your acknowledgment that a Master Plan makes sense before further actions are taken, but disagree with the idea that the Fred Richards decision should take place separately from this planning process. From our discussions and your position on funding the Driving range expansion, it's clear that any decision to close Fred Richards is not critical at this time and only introduces unnecessary risk with two course closures during the Braemar construction phase. To have an effective Master Plan, all existing assets need to be considered in that discussion. As a result, delaying the decision to close Fred and including it in Master Plan discussions will only result in a stronger outcome. In closing, we understand your position, but are hopeful that Council will see our logic and make a different decision. It's clear from what we've read and discussed there is no rush to make this decision and it's also clear that an effective Master Plan should include Fred Richards in the discussion. Thanks and regards. Derel<Johnson To: Mayor and City Council From: Ann Kattreh Parks & Recreation Director Date: March 18, 2014 Subject: Golf Course Operations Study ' G �j Agenda Item #: VIII.B. Action Discussion ❑ Information ❑ Action Requested: Provide direction to staff regarding the golf operations proposal including the recommended closing of Fred Richards Golf Course. Information / Background: At the March 4, 2014 City Council meeting the findings of the staff golf operations study were presented. The City Council held a public hearing regarding staffs six point proposal, including closing of the Fred Richards Golf Course. The City Council directed staff to respond to additional options presented by the Save the Fred Association and to answer additional questions that were posed at the council meeting. Staff prepared a list of questions posed at the meeting. The questions and staff responses are as follows: Are there unique maintenance requirements pertaining to instability of soils at Fred Richards Golf Course? The course is built over swampy organic soils. These types of soils are highly compressible and are susceptible to settlement. Please see the attached Fairway Rehabilitation Analysis recently completed by SEH (Attachment B). 2. What are the numbers of golf holes in neighboring cities? The Minneapolis /St. Paul metro area has 2,610 holes of municipal golf, ranking 1 18th nationally with .1,281 residents per hole of golf. Only 13 of the 2,451 municipal courses nationally have 45 or more holes of golf. Edina is one of the 13 municipal courses to have 45 holes of golf. In surrounding communities: St. Louis Park has 18 holes of municipal golf (owned by Minneapolis Park Board), Bloomington and Golden Valley have 27 holes of municipal golf, Minneapolis has 81 municipal holes (in Minneapolis), and Hopkins, Richfield and Eden Prairie have none, - The Edina community has lots of other amenities these communities lack: Golf Dome, Indoor Playground, Centennial Lakes, and upcoming Sports Dome. Why compare our offerings in golf? '"`�r�'`�`�� ,�;�i°�•��-*�� =�sr y , 'ter".-- ��+, -•� °�-��r+�- 4- � � w,y..:,.� � ...,��-._�`. s �.:,��.�+�z�� A.�:;� ?�,� City of Edina - 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 REPORT / RECOMMENDATION Page 2 Some recent course closings are: Hidden Creek — 18 (Owatonna, 2010), Pine River — 9 (Pine River, 2010), Parlcview — 18 (Eagan, 2012), Lakeview Golf of Orono - 18 (Mound, 20.13), Red Oak Executive — 9 (Mound, 2013), Elm Creek — 18 (Plymouth, 2013), Sundance — 18 (Maple Grove, 20 14) Mississippi National — 36 (Red Wing, course closed with future, undecided), 3. What were the renovations done at Hyland Greens in Bloomington and why? Bloomington had two executive courses at Hyland that were not operating near capacity and it did not have a solid driving range. The range was small, uphill and hit only off mats. - Hyland eliminated one of their 9 hole executive courses and expanded their driving range and training facilities. Hyland is also going to modify the remaining nine holes to accommodate Footgolf, where players kick soccer balls from hole to hole where 20" or 22" cups are added.. 4. What are the recommended course closings in Minneapolis? Why? The Fort Snelling nine hole course has 2 par 3's, six par 4's and one par 5. It is a shorter course that should have appeal to seniors, kids and beginning golfers, but because of the redundancy and tremendous needs at all of the courses, it has been recommended to close this course. You're missing the primary reason it was recommended to be closed in the Minneapolis Golf Study - location: "Golf course near airport suggests that the facility should be closed." The Theo Wirth Park Par 3 is a nine hole par 3 course. It is in bad shape, along with the 18 hole course at this location. It is recommended to turn this facility into a training facility with a 9 or 18 hole entry level course, a driving range, short game practice facility and putting course, 5. Explain the process that staff went through to come up with the staff recommendations? In July 201.:3 staff began to study the operation of the City of Edina golf enterprise. The goal of the operational study was to make golf operations cover 100% of its operational costs including future bonding needs so that the city is able to improve its facilities to ensure our ability to provide high quality golf facilities along with superior service to our customers, The expectation of the municipal golf operations in Edina is that it will cover not only its own operating expenses, but its capital expenses as well. The staff approach started with a comprehensive evaluation of all aspects of golf operations including the grill, banquet facility, pro shop, driving range, golf dome, current pricing structure, current patron card program, programming, leagues, lessons and the conditions, utilization and revenue per round of the courses. Information provided in the NGF report along with the - report from Matt Fulton were also considered. Staff reflected on current golf trends and future predictions of the golf industry and generated numerous pro formas that included multiple assumptions to formulate our recommendation. Options were considered that would increase golf operational efficiencies, including equipment, maintenance, staffing, registration, POS, and marketing. REPORT/ RECOMMENDATION Page 3 Potential revenue generated by the new practice range is crucial to the success of the plan. Creating the largest and best maintained practice range in Minnesota will drive customers to Braemar, thus potentially increasing the interest in golfing at the Braemar golf complex. Staff believes that the recommended six step plan gives the golf course operations the best chance to cover 100% of its operating.costs and also fund its-own future capital improvements. 6. Explain strategies to accommodate junior golfers at Braemar. How are you going to make it more welcoming to girls, women and juniors? In anticipation of the new operational changes which include the closing -of the Fred Richards Executive Course, Braemar is looking at creating more,inviting spaces for both adult and junior golfers at the Executive Course/Par 3 area and in the clubhouse. For adults, the expansion of food options (including some beer and wine), planned redesign of building furnishings /layout and the addition of outdoor seating should make the area more appealing. Staff will meet with Fred Richards' leagues to work on options for their leagues to be at. home at the Braemar Par 3 for the 2015 season. New programming to attract these groups will include Family Twilight Zone, Fore and Pour, Glow Golf, Movie Night, and Women's Night at the Dome. Staff is also creating new junior group lessons for kids aged,as young as six. This year a successful junior promotion was offered on Martin Luther r King Day and President's Day at the Golf Dome in addition to the Kids Kamps that have been in place for`over 10 years. In 20.1.5 additional times'and age group offerings will be provided for juniors at our courses and at the golf dome. The minimum age for these programs was lowered to age six. Parents are looking for more options for kids in this age group. The Executive. Course will be open to kids as young as six this year during new Family Twilight Zone specials during non -peak evening time on weekends this season. Other proposed programs for 2015 are: Adult Player Development Series — A program similar to the Junior Development Program with two different levels. The program will focus on every aspect of the game in a small class ratio as well as playing time with the teaching pro on the course. Girls Golf League — A short lesson followed by playing on the executive /par 3 course. Women mentors from the women's leagues will walk with the girls on the course to focus on golf rules and etiquette. Adult/Youth Golf Lesson — This is intended to introduce a child to golf. Adults and their children /grandchildren can learn to enjoy golf together. The class will teach rules and etiquette, full swing, short swing and putting. Women's Golf Camp —A women's only camp will be offered at Braemar. Staff is also pursuing more non -golf programming options for Braemar and the Golf Dome such as offering the space as a play area during the fall before the dome opens for golf. REPORT/ RECOMMENDATION Page 4 One customer service training focus will be providing welcoming and inclusive service and attention to people of all ages and abilities. When facility remodeling is being considered, youth participants will be consulted to determine how to make the facility most comfortable and welcoming for them. 7. What changes are being recommended to the clubhouse? Staff recommends a renovation of the grill area to provide new food prep and storage area as well as a new service counter, menu boards, etc. Access to the restrooms on the upper:devel needs to be improved, and clubhouse furniture replaced. New carpet, paint, curtains and light fixtures should be considered and would provide a brighter and more updated look without high cost. Eventually, more significant changes are needed including renovating the spaces in the lower level. 8. What changes can be made to the Clunie 9? Without completing a master plan,, it is difficult to say today exactly what can or. should be done to the Clunie 9 (19 — 27), or.to the Castle (1 -9) or Hays (10 — 18) nines. Some options for consideration are to shorten the nine to create a "short course. nine ", change sand traps and greens to make the course play easier and implementing a Tee It Forward program. This nine is a likely candidate for changes to provide a shorter and easier experience to replace the executive course experience and to make the nine more enjoyable for kids, women and seniors. ,It is beneficial to the golf operation to have 27 holes of regulation golf, so having a "multi use" nine would be ideal. Walking distance may be increased from green to tee in order to shorten holes. 9. Will we be able to achieve our revenue projections when the Braemar Executive Course is renovated to a par 3 course? The Braemar Executive. Course is popular for many golfers, but many also feel that it is too difficult. It currently has two par 4 holes and the remaining 7 holes are par 3. The proposed renovation would create an improved play experience, especially for golfers looking,for an easier and more casual experience with a sh`o'rter time commitment. This course will provide a perfect introductory experience for kids as well as a fun course experience for less competitive leagues. Staff believes that there will be no drop in rounds. — If this is the case, you need to redo your financials. Currently, you forecast a drop in rounds with the conversion to a Par'3 ... you're analysis states "lower demand.for.par 3 vs. executive" — worth approx. - $30,000 less revenue per year. We plan to aggressively market the renovated course while providing programming to feed players into this course. We believe that we will be able to achieve our revenue projections with a renovated par 3 course. The trend is for a faster, easier and less expensive golf experience. The decrease in length /distance will be offset by a better course design, playability and conditions. This offers a potential for increase in play by juniors, seniors and family play. REPORT / RECOMMENDATION The following chart provides a comparison of the existing executive courses to the renovated Par 3: Hole 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Yardage Par Executive White 190 110 142 152 326 113 295 144 157 1,629 29 Richards White °' : 119 137 254 130 142 168 168 299 158 1,575 29 Richards Blue 131 164 298 147 150 200 .175 320 °182 1,767 29 Par 3 White 160 165 125 110 160 120 175 135 185 1,335 27 Some benefits of the change from Executive to Par 3 Course: Page 5 • The most difficult bunkers are currently on the executive course. This is a challenge for casual golfers. The new design eliminates most of the bunkers and makes the remaining ones much more playable. Staff has witnessed p'eople:hitting three or more time's -and still not getting out of the Executive bunkers. • # I on the Executive Course is long and difficult. The new # I is more playable. • The two weakest holes ( #2 & #3) on the Executive Course are eliminated. New #3 and #4 look scenic, providing a better experience. • #8 on the Executive Course is a'difficult hole over water. The new #9 provides a better finishing experience and eliminates the carry over water from thelorward tees. • Experienced golfers. can work on their short game and novice golfers will have plenty of challenge. It _will be a good stepping stone to a longer course experience. • A shorter course might-offset the hills for walking. • The renovation provides opportunities to create more playable tees and greens. • Fred Richard's yardage from the white tees is 1575 yards. The proposed par 3 is 1335 yards. The difference is not significant. • A par 3 takes less time to play. • The new par 3 course is more appropriate for novice golfers and young kids. — Seems like you have a lot of concerns with Braemar Exec in current state in terms of play for beginners /youth (bunkers, hole #I, hole #8, hills); and you've heard from current Fred- Richards novice/youth -that the Fred course is ideal for them. We think you've confirmed our position that Braemar Exec is not ideal' and Fred is for these players. • The par'3 eliminates the driver for many:adults which provides the most likely opportunity for an errant shot. — As a novice adult or Senior, they want to learn to hit drivers off the tee. Why is this a good thing? • Driving range netting increases safety for golfers on the regulation and par 3 courses.- No safety, issues at Fred today. • The longest holes on the proposed par 3 course still surpass most of the regular executive course customers driving abilities (they can't hit the ball 175 or 185 yards off the tee) and will consequently not alter their initial club selection. — Supports our argument that a Par 3 is not a course to learn to play golf, or have a full golf experience in an easier Exec length course setting. Most Adult players will not be able to use woods, and when kids hit, they will be limited to woods (tee) and high irons., (within 50 yards of green). How will they learn to use low to mid irons in a fairway setting? REPORT / RECOMMENDATION Page 6 10. What is the revenue comparing Braemar Executive Course to the Fred Richards Executive Course for the past several years? What is the revenue per round? Braemar Executive Course Fred Richards Executive Course . Revenue Revenue Rounds Revenue Per Round Rounds Revenue Per Round 2007 22,510 2007 26,499 2008 22,038 2008 25,875 2009 22,856 $231,191 $10.12 2009 25,965 $217,749 $8.39 2010 18,578 $189,873 $10.22 2010 21,965 $203,595 $9.27 2011 16,631 $153,310 $9,22 2011 19,073 $175,542 $9.07 2012 17,617 $202,734 $11.51 2012 19,361 $188,550 $9.74 2013 15,377 $176,242 $11.46 2013 15,934 $170,628 $10.71 2014 2014 TOTAL 135,607 $953,350 $10.50 TOTAL 154,672 $956,064 $9.43 Average 19,372 Average 22,096 Rounds, Rounds 11. What are the revenue projections if we convert the Braemar Executive Course into a par 3 and keep Fred Richards open? Staff assumes that this is the baseline scenario. The premise of this question is that golfers won't play the renovated par 3 course like they played the executive course. Staff does not agree with that premise. - Your current analysis contradicts this statement, See #9 above, 12. What was the capacity before the addition of the Clunie 9? What are the financial projections if we close the Clunie 9? The largest number of rounds played prior to the addition of Clunie was 54,500. The course was crowded and rounds were taking 5.5 hours. Golfers were not happy. The impact of the elimination of the Clunie 9 would affect open play, group outings and approximately three evening leagues. In 2013 the three evening leagues generated approximately $34,000 and two 27 hole tournaments generated $25,000. When we host 18 hole tournaments we utilize the open 9 holes for league play or for open play. The Friday mornings junior regulation leagues play Clunie which allows open play to begin when the course opens for the day. Without Clunie, open play would begin at approximately 8 a.m. on Fridays. The evening leagues probably couldn't be accommodated on the original 18 as there is already little room for public play in the late afternoon and early evening hours. Demand would also exceed supply on weekends and REPORT/ RECOMMENDATION . Page 7 holidays. junior league, tournament scheduling and open play would have to be re- visited. Approximately 25% of rounds are played on Clunie. 13. Are there benefits to doing a master plan, before closing Fred Richards? The master plan suggested is for the 27'holes at Braemar. The.goal of the master plan will be to plan for the needed improvements to the original 18, while determining:the best utilization and combination of all 27 holes. Staffs plan is to provide a renovated pan3 in the executive course location and a "transitional ". nine to accommodate golfers who are looking'for a more challenging experience than the par 3 course, but are looking for a shorter and /or less demanding 9 holes. Staff envisions all golf on one campus at Braemar including premier training facilities, par 3, executive or shorter transitional nine and regulation 18 hole course. With the limitations of the existing executive course and driving: range expansion sites, one par 4 hole could be added, but it would not provide the best course configuration for the remaining eight holes. It was determined that the`b'est use of land and course layout would be for a par 3 course, only eliminating two par 4 holes. 14. What are the financial projections if we close the Braemar Executive Course and keep Fred Richards open? As shown in Question #10, between 2009 and 2013 the difference in revenue at the two courses was only $2,714 while the difference in number of rounds was 19,065. This is primarily due to the' discounting of rounds to market Fred Richards Golf Course. — would like to see supporting documentation that it's marketing discount driven and not driven by mix of patrons (Senior discounts, or Youth discounts if there are any). Would also like to understand if you include Patron cards in this analysis, and if it's just more patron card usage at Fred driving the discount. Finally, if anything, this represents an opportunity to increase rates at Fred (more so than Braemar Exec) or change existing discount programs at the Fred course to generate additional revenue. Very little if any discounting of rounds has occurred at the Braemar Executive Course. However, we spend approximately $30,000 per year for new equipment at Fred Richards. At Braemar all of the equipment is shared between the 36 holes. One full time staff person is employed at Fred Richards. We have no full time staff people dedicated to the Braemar Executive Course. Staff believes that there are also advantages to having 36 holes at one location that don't show up in the raw green fee numbers. A golfer at the Braemar Par 3 might buy range balls and eat at;the Braemar Grill. This helps us to create a golf "ecosystem" at Braemar that is better than having golf on two separate . campuses. There is a stronger likelihood that a golfer who starts at the Braemar Par 3 will make Braemar their preferred golf course for the future. 15. What are the financial projections for closing the Braemar Executive Course and Fred Richards during construction? This is accounted for in the-City Staff Plan. Revenue losses and expense savings are factored into the City Staff Plan. Actual losses will depend on construction schedules, weather, future decisions about when we open, how we stage the project, watershed district approvals, etc. However, this is not a REPORT/ RECOMMENDATION Page 8 recurring situation that will affect the ending cost recovery goal of 101 % that we believe that we can achieve year after year. It is a one event that will involve some pain to achieve our long -term goal of a sustainable enterprise. - As we have discussed, delaying Fred closure to 2015 minimizes this pain and keeps golfers within the Edina golf community. 16. Is it more profitable to delay closing Fred Richards Executive Course until after construction is complete at Braemar? There are many factors to consider, including weather, exactly when the courses would close and when they would be able to re -open and how many golfers would transfer from Braemar to Fred Richards. Our first goal would be to keep as many golfers at Braemar as possible during construction. This could take place in the golf dome and on the regulation course. Staff believes that the profit for delaying the closing of Fred Richards until after construction is complete at Braemar would be negligible. It will not be any easier to close Fred Richard in 2015 than it is in 2014. — Don't disagree from your vantage point, but it will be easier on golf patrons and your community, who will have a more positive opinion on how city government is run and its inclusion of the community in making decisions — it also provides time for including the Fred Richards future state in overall Master Plan discussion. This is really not a difficult decision (delay) and is better for everyone (with no financial impact). It is not ideal, but not uncommon to completely close a course during construction. Staff will work with customers and leagues to prepare them for the inconvenience of the closing, shorten their leagues as needed and communicate with customers and accommodate them as best we can at Braemar and in other golf programs and activities. We experienced a similar situation when our golf dome was closed for an extended period of time. Customers were not happy with the length of time that it took us to rebuild the facility, but we communicated with them regularly and opened the new facility with an excited customer base which has returned to us while still. having other opportunities for practicing golf nearby. — Entirely different circumstance. There was not a 2^d Edina golf dome they could play at during this construction. We still don't see how its a good. business decision to close a course that could be useful while another is under construction. There are numerous public courses within 5 miles of Edina that current Braemar Exec patrons could go to during construction and never come back — significant risk. How many indoor golf domes are within 5 miles of Edina besides the Braemar dome? Don't you think that was the primary factor in why they came back once it was operational (distance). 17. What are the financial projections of selling the Clunie 9 and developing the land? Staff did not consider this option. Previous City Council and Park Board direction has not been supportive of selling city owned park and open space for development. We will explore this option if the City Council would like us to; however, staff does not believe that it is in the best interest of our golf operations. 18. What are the financial projections of making the driving range even larger? REPORT/ RECOMMENDATION Page 9 This renovation will make the largest driving range in the state. Staff does not believe that there would be significant benefit to making the driving range larger. We do not believe that it would be practical to size the range to meet the highest demand levels when most of the day we are not at rapacity. If needed, the driving range. could be expanded toward the west, requiring regulation course hole #I to be shortened. -This would be a welcomed change to this long hole. Another option would be to. expand the north teaching area into a "members only" practice area. A new parking lot could be added off Braemar Boulevard for the "members only" practice facility and a higher rate would be charged for this amenity.. Save the Fred Association Golf Operations Proposal Staff. and the City Council received a Golf Operations Proposal from the Save the Fred Association. It was presented to the City Council on 3/4/2014. Tlie City Council asked staff to review and respond to their proposal. On Friday, March 7 staff met with Rick Ite's (President of the Braemar Men's Club), Colleen Wolfe (Save the Fred Committee Member), Dave Mooty (Golf Course Management), Paul Kelley (Honorary President, Minnesota Section PGA), Derek Johnson (Save the Fred Finance Team Member) and Wayde Heirigs (Save the Fred Finance Team Member). Staff present were Scott Neal, Ann Kattreh, John Wallin, Eric Roggeman, Susan Faus, Todd Anderson, Tom Swenson, Mary Wooldridge, and Amy Smith. The assumptions that were utilized to prepare the Save the Fred Golf Operations Proposal were discussed along with the City Staff Plan, its assumptions and implementation timelines. The Save the Fred Association Golf Operations Proposal Option 2 involves creating a lot of new revenue at Fred Richards through "marketing" and rate increases. This might be difficult to achieve while the city still operates 45 holes of golf open at two campuses. This option does not invest any additional dollars in marketing but counts on the same return at Fred Richards as staff projected with 36 holes concentrated.at Braemar. These revenue increases from marketing are more optimistic than staff assumptions. Option 2 also includes, all City Staff Plan staffing reductions, which will not be possible while keeping all courses open. — Not sure;.we understand your comments here. To be clear, we used the same revenue % increase as you did in your staff plan. It was not the same $ return as all 36 holes (just same % increase off a lower base). Asa result, our assumptions were not more optimistic, but rather the same. Your 6 step strategy includes a staff reduction independent of the Fred Richards savings. It is calculated as "reduce I full -time position, net of part -time adds" and equals roughly $50,000 per year. How is this assumption no longer possible with Fred'open? The Save the Fred Association Golf Operations Proposal Option 3 assumes that closing the Braemar exec is roughly equal to closing FR. This could be problematic for several reasons. — We don't think it's roughly equal, we think it's worth, significantly more due to the capital avoidance (Braemar Exec course construction & Irrigation replacement), and potential lower capital requirement for conversion to a future land use. We spend approximately $30,000 per year for new equipment at Fred Richards. At Braemar all of the equipment is shared between the 36 holes. - Your need for maintenance equipment is primarily driven by two things: REPORT / RECOMMENDATION Page 10 1) Time requirements — you need all courses to be ready for play in advance of I:n, tee time in the early morning 2) Usage —, the more equipment is used, the sooner it needs to be replaced Even if you share equipment at Braemar, the Braemar Exec causes the equipment usage to increase, and we would expect it needs maintenance to be performed at the same early morning time,as the other courses in order to be.ready on time. As a.result,.eliminating.that course will result in less future equipment purchases (less usage and time constraints). Help us''understand how this is not the case? We also want to address the NGF Golf study, which commented "Richards tends to get carts and other equipment as 'hand -me- downs' from the Braemar operation, which is appropriate given the structure of the Edina golf system. ci Why do you think you need new equipment at Fred every year in the future, when it seems like you are not doing this now? • One full time staff person is employed at Fred Richards. We have no full time staff people dedicated to the Braemar Executive Course. Operating expense and equipment savings projected are high. — Our understanding is that there are some personnel that operate both the Driving Range and Braemar Exec combined, and its fair to think that you could either- come down a part -time with Braemar Exec closed, or at least change to a lower paid employee if just dispensing range balls. We did factor in a lower personnel expense at Braemar Exec as a result (roughly $45,000 less expense per year vs. Fred); so want to be clear that this was factored into analysis and not a discrepancy vs. your beliefs. • Staff believes that there are also advantages to having 36 holes at one location that don't show up in the raw green fee numbers. A golfer at the Braemar Par 3 might buy range balls and eat at the Braemar Grill. This helps us to create a.golf "ecosystem" at Braemar that is better than having golf on two separate campuses. • There is a stronger likelihood that a golfer who starts at the Braemar Par 3 will make Braemar their preferred golf course for the future. 0 The concept of closing the Braemar Executive Course might have the same opposition from golfers and neighbors as closing Fred Richards. — Potentially true. This is a primary reason why we would recommend any closure be considered as part of a Master Plan with community involvernent. This is not what is happening right now with the Fred decision. 4P Future CIP projects are not accounted for in The Save the Fred Association Golf Operations Proposal Option 2 or Option 3. — They were not factored in your analysis, either; and the first significant potential investment is not until 2020 and is very much unknown. Including these in a Master Plan study will give you a better idea of timing, $ scope, and ranking of necessity. You may find these Fred investments in 2020 and beyond are not critical for Fred (similar to NGF recommendation). REPORT/ RECOMMENDATION Page II Staff is more comfortable portraying these options as different visions for the future instead of trying to find things "wrong" with the Fred Richards Association assumptions. Staff remains confident in the proposed City Staff Plan which leverages projected savings from the closing of Fred Richards Golf Course and projected Braemar golf and driving range revenues while concentrating all personnel, equipment and financial resources at Braemar in order to fund the driving range expansion project. This will also favorably position the golf enterprise for the future which will allow us to continue to invest in our core golf product at Braemar. What is the demand for golf in the future? We've heard from some that "growing the game" is important, closing Fred Richards is short sighted and if we keep 45 golf holes and provide better marketing that the golfers will come — we understand this is a risk; hence are inclusion of option 3 and encouragement for staff to brainstorm additional options beyond these through a Master Plan. This is possible, however after studying 15 years of decline in golf operations it is not difficult to come to a different conclusion. Staff believes that now is the time for difficult action in order to best position our Braemar golf enterprise for the future. Recommendation Staff requests that the City Council consider one of the following options: I. Do Nothing A. Keep Fred Richards Golf Course B. Make no improvements at Braemar 2. Staff Recommendation A. Close Fred Richards Golf Course at the end of the 2014 season B. Begin driving range and executive course renovations in the fall of 2014 C. Begin Braemar master plan after driving range and executive course renovations are completed 3. Staff Recommendation- with Revisions A. Conditionally close Fred Richards Golf Course - what do you mean by "conditionally"... what would this decision be tied to in the future? B. Begin driving range and executive course renovations in the fall of 2014 C. Begin Braemar master plan in 2014 4. Do Everything A. Keep Fred Richards Golf Course Open B. Begin Braemar master plan in 2014 C. Begin driving range and executive course renovations in the fall of 2014 D. Improve Braemar per the master plan 5. Save the Fred Association Option A. Make a decision on the future of Fred Richards Golf Course in November 2014 B. Begin driving range and executive course renovations in the fall of 2014 C. Complete Steps 2 — 6 of City Staff Plan 1. Invest in Improvements at Braemar 2. Modify Prices and Discounts 3. Outsource Ancillary Services 4. Expand Marketing REPORT / RECOMMENDATION Page 12 S. Improve Customer Service Staff continues to recommend Option #2: Staff Recommendation. Attachments: Attachment A — March 4, 2014 City Council Meeting Agenda Item # VI.B. Staff Report Attachment B — Fred Richards Golf Course Fairway Rehabilitation Analysis - SEH 1 Heather Branigin From: Karen Houle <houle @ulanguage.co,m> Sent: Monday, March 17, 2014 5:25 PM To: Edina Mail Subject: Save the Fred Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag`Status: Completed To: Members of the Edina City Council I respectfully request that you defer indefinitely the vote to close the Fred Richards Golf Course. It is a unique resource in our neighborhood used most frequently by families, children and seniors and would be greatly missed if closed permanently. I am also strongly opposed to the loss of this public space so that it can be repurposed as a pond or storm water drainage location for any new private development. Sincerely, Karen M. Houle 7409.Kellogg Avenue Edina, MN 55435 952.922.9112 home Heather Branigin From: Judi Harvey <judihary @hotmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 17, 2014 5:33 PM To: Edina Mail; jonibennettl2 @comcast:net; joshsprague @edinarealty.com; awensonannl @gmail.com; Mary Brindle (Comcast) Subject: re:, Fred Richards Golf Course - further study needed Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed Mayor Hovland and Edina City Council Members, I'm writing to ask you to reconsider the closure of the Fred I Richards Golf Course and take time to study the options that are available to keep it open. There should never be a rush to do something that cannot be undone, and I am concerned that Councilman Sprague is pushing this to move ahead too quickly. Taking more time to make this decision will only serve to make sure that everyone's concerns and ideas are heard. The citizens of our city are very creative. I've seen some very interesting ideas proposed by people opposed to the course closure. Why can't these proposals be given some though instead of moving quickly down.a path of no.return? More park space and golf course space is not being developed in the city. This is true everywhere. We are not a community that can annex or expand. We are also a community that is fairly well off. There should be no rush into this, especially since there is opposition from citizens that is compelling. All change is.not good - and there has been a lot of good change as of late in our city - much of it positive. I think the walkway connecting Centennial Lakes and the Edinborough development is very nice. But perhaps the Fred Richards course could play an integral part of.that connection. The City is trying to promote a more active lifestyle for our kidsan.d senior. citizens. What better=way than something people of all ages can do outdoors? The Fred Richards is a user friendly course - and I think it is much better fit for the needs of the southeast end of Edina. Players who may need more time -not as great at golfing or are just learning - find this course a less intimidating course to play. People without several -hours on their hands to play golf can actually get out and complete a round relatively quickly. The City can never replace that green space and. layout again ' and demographically do we really want to have fewer amenities (outdoor amenities I'm talking about) for our community? If there is a way that the course could be altered a bit to allow for lower maintenance, or if it could be promoted more for beginning lessons - I think it would be a wonderful resource for the City. Maybe work with some of the area schoolsmore. If Edina just wants to make golf appealing to the people who play more frequently and have more leisure time .... and who can afford it, then it is not even trying to (1) grow the sport - as it has fallen off a great deal among younger players who have difficulty finding the time to play, and (2) facing reality that we are a diverse community and we should try to make our recreational activities accessible to more people who may not have cars (goodness knows if we are trying to encourage people to go outdoors and exercise, this is a lot more enjoyable than walking in many neighborhoods of Edina that do not have sidewalks. Maybe we could put a walking path for seniors around the golf course if that is part of the issue. I have not studied the financial impact in great detail, but this is a valuable resource to the community. It will not hurt anything to take a little bit more time to study this big change. I would ask that any final decision be postponed. This is a big enough change to our community lifestyle and list of amenities that we need more time, not less. Developers will wait. There is no need to rush,-and I would endorse Mayor Hovland's suggestion that we slow down this process. Thank you. Judith Harvey 6608 Naomi Drive Edina, MN `55439 Heather Branigin From: Sarah Stoutenburgh <sallystout @centurylink.net> Sent: Monday, March 17, 2014 5:49 PM To: Edina Mail Subject: Upcoming vote on Fred Richards Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed Dear Mayor Hovland and City Council members, During the March 4th council meeting I Beard Mayor Hovland suggest the possibility of selling the unpopular Clunie 9 for residential development. (I heard this at an earlier time from an avid golfer.) This would solve so many financial problems and think should be given serious consideration. Josh Sprague said that this issue has gone on a very long time and a final decision be made ASAP -March 18th. Time looks very different from here. Some heard rumors last summer but nothing solid to dispel them ... no.real information. It took a long time for our elected people to communicate what was going on. It is hard to believe that money can't be found somewhere in Edina's coffers to allow for bids and acceptance of such to improve the.driving range. I am not ignorant that there are designated funds that probably cannot be touched. We all want golf excellence and profitability in Edina. Let's not close a small, active and important part of that operation too hastily. Great ideas and corrective measures are possible. I strongly request each of you vote NO on closing Fred Richards Golf Course at this time. Sarah H Stoutenburgh 7449 West Shore Drive N' r • r RECOMMENDATION w91N��1 O e' tr� U) • ��GORPOPI'�F'O • lass To: City Council Agenda Item #: X. A. From: Scott Neal Action EK Discussion ❑ Date: March 18, 2014 Information ❑ Subject: Noise Oversight Committee (NOC) Resolution Regarding Recent FAA Action on RNAV at Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport Action Requested: Move to support NOC resolution regarding recent FAA action on RNAV at Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport. Information / Background: Attached is the resolution provided at the Noise Oversight Committee's March 6, 2014 meeting, along with a previous letter to the FAA from MSP Executive Director Jeff Hamiel. Attachment City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 r� v 'a MINNEAPOLIS- ST.PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (MSP) NOISE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE (NOC) RESOLUTION # 01 -2014 REGARDING FUTURE FAA PERFORMANCE -BASED NAVIGATION (PBN) /AREA NAVIGATION (RNAV) STANDARD DEPARTURE PROCEDURE DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION EFFORTS AT MINNEAPOLIS -ST. PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (MSP) ) WHEREAS, the NOC is the primary advisory body to the full Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) on topics related to aircraft. noise at MSP; and, WHEREAS, NOC members have been officially selected to represent their respective community group and airport user group constituencies and vote accordingly; and, WHEREAS, the NOC is a balanced forum for the discussion and evaluation of noise impacts around MSP including the identification, study, and analysis of noise issues; and, WHEREAS, since 2007 the NOC has advocated for implementation of Performance -Based Navigation (PBN) procedures in the form of Area Navigation (RNAV) to enhance existing vectored noise abatement procedures at Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport (MSP); and, WHEREAS, in late 2010, amidst the ongoing NOC dialogue on RNAV noise abatement procedures, the Federal Aviation Administration determined it was moving forward with an airspace -wide Performance -Based Navigation (PBN) procedure design and implementation process in the form of Area Navigation (RNAV) Standard Instrument Departures (SIDs) and Standard Terminal Arrival Routes (STARs) on all runways at MSP; and, WHEREAS, the NOC realized there were expanded considerations such as capacity, noise mitigation, and operational efficiency, beyond just noise; that would factor into the process as a result of the transition from a locally- focused noise procedure enhancement initiative, to an FAA headquarter -driven airspace -wide effort; and, WHEREAS, on March 22, 2011 the NOC sent a letter, and the MAC Commission sent a similar letter on May 16, 2011, to the FAA requesting that the Agency's process include w various measures in the form of five noise related activities including -noise impact analyses, community engagement, information sharing, and noise - reducing procedure design considerations; and, WHEREAS, following the March 2011 NOC letter, FAA representatives indicated that the project scope did not include the requested analyses and community engagement/information sharing activities; and, WHEREAS, the NOC structured' a plan to attempt to provide the desired analyses and community engagement/information sharing activities (planned to require approximately six months to complete) following receipt of the FAA's final proposed procedure tracks; and, WHEREAS, in early September 2012 the MAC and the NOC,received the FAA's final proposed procedure tracks and shortly thereafter, in mid - September 2012, the FAA requested the MAC's support for the procedures by the end of November 2012 to avoid jeopardizing the procedure implementation by delaying publication by more than a year beyond the planned 2014 dates; and, WHEREAS, the NOC analyses and community engagement/information sharing activities were accelerated and the planned six month timeframe was shortened to approximately, a month-and-.a-half to aid in the MAC's consideration of the procedures on the FAA's requested timeline; and, WHEREAS, at the November 19, 2012 MAC Commission meeting over one hundred residents living northwest of MSP expressed passionate concern regarding the speed of the process and lack of FAA efforts to engage communities on the noise impacts of the procedures; and, WHEREAS, at the November 19, 2012 MAC Full Commission meeting, in consideration of the residents' concerns, the MAC voted to support the proposed STARs to all runways at MSP and the proposed SIDs off all runways except Runways 30L and 30R; and, WHEREAS, since the November 19, 2012 MAC Commission meeting, NOC City Representatives have received increasing concerns from their constituencies located southeast and south of MSP regarding the possible noise impacts of RNAV implementation on their neighborhoods;: and, WHEREAS, in February 2014 the FAA determined the RNAV STARs can be implemented as proposed and that the partial implementation of RNAV SIDs at MSP is not possible for safety reasons; and, WHEREAS, the FAA's proposed RNAV STARs integrate the use of Optimized Profile Descents, are overlays of existing arrival paths, reduce noise impacts under the arrival paths, and reduce fuel burn and associated emissions, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Noise Oversight Committee of the Minneapolis - St. Paul International Airport that: The NOC supports the following FAA actions related to any. possible future RNAV SID design and implementation. at MSP, and requests the MAC's support of the following provisions to be communicated to the FAA: 1. The NOC remains supportive of the RNAV STARs as presented and the FAA should move forward with the implementation of these procedures at,MSP. 2. The FAA RNAV STAR procedures should incorporate Optimized Profile Descents for all runways at MSP. 3. Prior to the commencement of any future RNAV SID design and implementation efforts at MSP, the FAA must present to the NOC and the MAC a case study of the successful implementation of RNAV at an airport with similar challenges to those existing at MSP, which includes the airport's location adjacent to densely populated residential areas. The case study should detail, how the FAA's proposed design and implementation plan for MSP builds on the proven successes at the other similarly- situated airport. 4. Any future FAA RNAV SID design and implementation plans must, in addition to the above, be structured in a way that incorporates the provisions communicated in Mr. Jeff Hamiel's February 1., 2013 letter to the FAA regarding future FAA community outreach efforts related to RNAV implementation at MSP (See Attachment 1). 5. The NOC acknowledges the FAA will .need adequate time to prepare the requested case .study and community outreach plan, and as such, the'FAA's future implementation of RNAV SID could be delayed until said study and outreach plan are finalized. Adopted by the Noise Oversight Committee of the Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport this 6th day of March 2014. Representative . Vote Oleson Aye Miller Aye Petschel A e Quihc . Absent Fitzhenry Aye Bergman Aye Hennessy Aye Carlson Absent Erazo Aye Underwood Aye McQuillan A e Christiansen A e Resolution adopted by a unanimous vote of 10 to 0. IL Chris ne Sirois ron, NOC Secretary I Attachment 1 METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS CONaVMMON :r6 ►Pt 19 °Ah }o Minneapolis -Saint Paul �Intemational Airport i t 6040 - 28th Avenue South • bfinneapolis, MN 55450 -2799 r : Phone(612)726 -8100 0 at t e ` Office of Executive Director fly .4+RPOR -0 February 1, 2013 Mr. Dennis Roberts Director, Airspace Service Orville Wright Bldg. (FOB10A) FAA National Headquarters 8001ndependenceLAve., SW Washington, DC 20591- Dear Mr. Roberts, 1. am writing to follow up on. our January, 15, 2013 meeting regarding the Federal Aviation Aministration's (FAA) Performance -Based Navigation Implementation (PBN) efforts at Minneapolis -St. Paul .International Airport (MSP). As you' know, on November 19, ,2012, the MAC provided support for "partial implementation" of the FAA - proposed Area Navigation/Required Navigation Performance (RNAV /RNP) Standard Terminal Arrival Routes (STARs) and RNAV Standard Instrument Departures (SI,Ds), with the exception of the Runways 30L and 3011 RNAV SIDS to the northwest of MSP. As part of our discussion, you asked that we provide a framework for the FAA's consideration in its community outreach efforts at MSP to facilitate any future implementation of RNAV SIDs. Our recommendations are as follows: 1. Timins We recommend that the FAA focus on the partial implementation proposal supported by the MAC. FAA efforts tore- engage the communities on the possibility of RNAV SIDs on.Runways 30L and 3011 should commence in July 2.015 after the partial. implementation proposal has been Implemented and there has been ample time between partial implementation and follow -on outreach efforts. This will allow for successful Integration of the procedures and data gathering in support of follow -on efforts. L f =fFAA Leadership as a Qftical Component Local FAA AIr Traffic Control representatives (Mr. Rydeen and his team) should be placed in lead positions when communicating with the public and strategizing on the appropriate allocation of FAA resources in addressing community concerns. The insight and .years of experience that Mr. Rydeen and his teary: -can provide will help. to ensure that FAA resources are directed toward community initiatives,'the successful completion of which will be critical to ensuring local needs and expectatlons!will be addre ssed in the p cess and conflict minimized. Moreover, including local FAA Air Traffic. Controlin decisions related to procedure design and publishing schedule development should ensure that future community Initiatives, and the time required to complete them adequately, are not excluded.from the. overall FAA planning process. 17�e MetmpolitaaAitpmis Commis�m►ia m.a�cn,aflve acu0n �plofs . www.0mpaitpoat00a� ReB— Ahp-lm AUU.An • ANOKACOUMT/U AM • CRYML • PLYM GAUD • IAM II.MO • &VXr PAMD0%%nX" 3. Holistic Outreach Any future FAA efforts to re- engage communities northwest of MSP (such as Richfield, Minneapolis, or Edina) in support of RNAV SID Implementation on Runways 30L and 30R, should also include a component intended to reach out to the communities impacted by the partial implementation of RNAV procedures. The p)an should include components for engaging the communities to the south and east of MSP to receive "feedback on how the procedures are impacting communities. Moreover, the effort "should include a - willingness on behalf of the FAA to consider procedure changes to address community concerns, in circumstances where such changes would not impact safety or efficiency. 4. Early Coordination with Local Community Leaders Future FAA efforts to re- engage communities around MSP must begin with outreach to key community representatives in each of the cities located within a defined area around the airport (at a minimum this should include communities that have expressed interest in this Issue to date) to establish community expectations related to community outreach efforts and related analyses. This effort will help to define the specific elements in the plan that will be critical to addressing community concerns in the case of communities to the northwest of MSP where RNAV SIDS are yet to be implemented, as well as in communities where the procedures are being used. This will be critical for maintaining support throughout the process for the implementation of RNAV SIDS on Runways 30L and 30R. S. Adeauate Resource Allocation The FAA will need to dedicate the resources necessary to complete the elements of'the plan successfully. This will. likely require a mix of FAA staff resources and consultant services with a dedicated project budget. Local FAA Air Traffic Control representatives will be an Important participant in the development and prioritization of these project resources. As we have experienced over the years, early outreach to the communities will tend to define the scope and focus of the plan required for a successful outcome. The appropriate allocation of the resources necessary to address local expectations is critical to the success of the community outreach effort. The communities around MSP are very'engaged and have a long history of intelligent dialogue, and active participation, with regard to the topic of aircraft noise. This has resulted in a complex environment within which to plan for and implement projects that have a well- defined aircraft. noise component, such as PBN. I hope you find the above insights helpful in defining a productive path forward that positions the FAA to meet local expectations successfully. Respecting that the FAA is the lead -agency on PBN initiatives, I want to assure you that the MAC stands ready to provide assistance as needed. qincerely, 1 y Hamiel Executive Director /CEO Metropolitan Airports Commission 1141 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA PARK BOARD HELD AT CITY HALL February 11, 2014 7:00 PM L CALL TO ORDER Chair Steel called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. ll. ROLL CALL Answering roll call were Members Jones, Gieseke, Steel, Segreto, Cella, Deeds, Jacobson. Student Members present: Good, Johnson. Also present: City Manager Scott Neal. Ill. ,APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA Chair Steel made a motion, seconded by Member Deeds, to amend the rules of the public hearing to limit speakers' testimony to two minutes per speaker in order to allow more residents to speak. Ayes: Members Jones, Gieseke, Steel, Segreto, Cella, Deeds, Jacobson. Motion carried. Member Gieseke made a motion, seconded by Member Deeds, to approve the meeting agenda. Ayes: Members Jones, Gieseke, Steel, Segreto, Cella, Deeds, Jacobson. Motion carried. IV. ADOPTION OF CONSENT AGENDA Member Deeds made a motion, seconded by Member Segreto, to approve the consent agenda as follows: W.A. Approval of Minutes — Regular Park Board Meeting of January 14, 2014 Ayes: Members Jones, Gieseke, Steel, Segreto, Cella, Deeds, Jacobson. Motion carried. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS V.A. Golf Course Operations Study Mr. Neal noted this presentation regarding the city's golf enterprise was first given to about 300 members of the public at Braemar Golf Course on January 30, 2014. He presented data showing a significant decrease in rounds of golf sold since 1998, which has increased costs to the taxpayers. He looked at the past subsidies of the golf fund as well as the proposed $485,000 subsidy going forward. He noted the city's three objectives going forward are financial stability and self- sufficiency, increased customer service levels, and improved facilities for better play and experience. He noted a significant issue is how to pay for improvements at the golf courses. Mr. Neal presented a six -step strategy, beginning with narrowing the scope of golf operations, specifically closing Fred Richards as a golf course at the conclusion of the 2014 season. Ms. Kattreh noted the second step is to make improvements at Braemar, including improvements at the driving range, the teaching range, the drive into the golf course, and the Grill and clubhouse. She r a� discussed the importance of creating a master plan for Braemar, in order to accommodate youth, women, seniors, and players of all abilities. Mr. Neal indicated the third step is to modify prices and provide discounts. Ms. Kattreh noted that part of the plan is to outsource ancillary services, specifically the Grill. A better product and more inviting environment are possible. Mr. Neal noted another step is to expand marketing at Braemar. -- Ms. Kattreh stated the sixth step is to improve customer service at Braemar. The plan is to hire a customer service consultant to help train, hire, evaluate, and coach. Mr. Neal then presented pro - formas for golf rounds in the future and discussed the repurposing of the Fred Richards site, which would remain as a public area with low- intensity use going forward. Member Deeds stated it is important to have conservative projections for golf rounds sold, for example, if only 90,000 rounds are sold rather than the 100,000 projected rounds. Ms. Kattreh responded the improved customer service and marketing levels should make 100,000 rounds sold feasible. Member Segreto asked about the opinion of the Braemar Golf Course manager. Todd Anderson, Braemar Golf Course Manager, concurred the golf industry is difficult right now, and he is in agreement with the six -part plan. Member Jones asked about the staging of the repairs and improvements. Mr. Neal explained that the staging of the improvements is also impacted by the possibility of obtaining credit to make the improvements. However, the credit rating agencies always have significant questions about the operations of the two golf courses and the revenue losses. Regarding staging, the new driving range should be commenced at the tail end of the golf season. Member Jones asked about preservation of the wildlife and green space at the Fred Richards course and the possibility of land being sold to a developer. Mr. Neal responded the Council has not given any indication that they are interested in selling park property. Fred Richards was acquired in 1992 for $800,000; staff has no recommendation for anything other than future park use. Ms. Kattreh concurred, noting that process for determining how to use the site would involve a citizen advisory committee as well as the Park Board. Member Jones asked about putting certain holes at Braemar on hold. Ms. Kattreh noted that as part of the master plan, every hole will be considered. Chair Steel opened the public hearing at 7:40 p.m. Gene Nord, 6425 Nordic Circle, Vice President of the Braemar Men's Club, read aloud the letter from Rick Ites, the President of the Braemar Men's Club and the Braemar Golf Association. He noted many improvements are needed at the Golf Course. Leslie Sharp, 6501 Cherokee Trail, expressed support for plan and for the improvements of Braemar Golf Course, particularly for cart paths. 2 I Andrea Keller, 4010 Monterey Ave., a PGA teaching professional, spoke against the proposal for closing Fred Richards. She stated it is an ideal course for juniors, and specifically young girls, to learn the game. Derek Johnson, 7421 West Shore Drive, noted the Fred Richards course was profitable was 2013. He stated the course at Braemar is not as suitable for beginning golfers. This plan closes a revenue- generating facility and converts it to a non - revenue - generating piece of land. Scott Nelson, 6428 Vernon Ave., stated Fred Richards is a great place, but it is time to let go of the course. He noted Braemar was one of the top courses in the state, and it should be returned to that status. Katie Bourget, 6203 South Knoll, asked for more time for research to develop programs at Fred Richards, as it is a great course to develop beginners, specifically young girls. Richard Johnston, 4505 Wooddale Ave, stated Fred Richards offers a unique golf experience, and it should be retained for future generations. He also agreed with the improvements at Braemar. He suggested working on making Fred Richards more profitable. Marie Leggett, 6 Spur Road, stated she has been playing on Fred Richards for the past three years. Anita Leggett, 6 Spur Road, encouraged the Park Board to encourage other options to raise resources rather than closing Fred Richards. She read aloud an email from PGA in support of golf and noted there may be untapped potential with coming of the 2016 Ryder Cup. John Marshall, 6404 Stauder Circle, spoke against the current proposal to close Fred Richards. He is concerned about a lack of plan to keep the game of golf growing. Tim Nasby, 7408 West Shore Drive, commented on the two consultant reports completed on golf operations. He noted the NGF report stated that while Fred Richards Golf Course may not be consistently profitable for the City of Edina, it's a place as a feeder facility to develop new players and will benefit all other golf courses in the system. Dan DeYoung, Scottsdale, Arizona, stated the golf industry will continue to decline. Making Fred Richards into a park does not make the city money. He played a lot of golf at Fred Richards as a young player. Scott Dorgan, 4504 Gilford Drive, stated Fred Richards is cash -flow positive and should remain in operation'for kids and grandparents learning the game. He urged Park Board members to spend an afternoon at Fred Richards this summer. The kids should be placed in highest value in this decision. Lorenzo Tunesi, 4413 Ellsworth Drive, expressed support for the six -step proposal presented. Anna Heirigs, 4529 Gilford Drive, stated she has learned to play golf at Fred Richards over the last two years. Barton Hallin, 4424 Gilford Drive, stated his children have learned to play golf at Fred Richards, and it is a great place to have three generations golfing all at once. He also questioned the timing of creating a citizen advisory team after, rather than before, Fred Richards is closed. 3 Tom Terwilliger, 7421 Kellogg Ave, referred to the 2011 NGF consultant report that cited Fred Richards as an invaluable feeder facility for the Edina golf system. Dan Goodenough, 5604 Valley Lane, cited the city should be investing several million dollars in both golf courses to bring them up to par. RJ Smiley, 6205 St. Johns Ave., observed Edina - cannot support 45 holes of golf. There is a tremendous demand for an executive golf course in Edina. He recommended closing Fred Richards and immediately begin a master redevelopment plan for Braemar that would include 18 holes of quality golf and also create an executive 9 7hole course. - Dan Olson, Minneapolis, indicated the league he participates in a Tuesday league at Fred Richards with all levels of golf ability, which would not be possible at Braemar. Robert Peterson, 5620 Doron Drive, spoke in support of the major reinvestment at Braemar. In 1984, it was the number one golf course in the State of Minnesota, but the golf course has -been allowed to decline. - -- Ms. McGrath, 4619 Moorland Ave., stated she plays in the girls' league on Sundays at Fred Richards, and it is important to keep the course open. Megan Keller, 4010 Monterey Ave., asked that Fred Richards be kept open. Andrea Keller, 4010 Monterey Ave., asked for the Park Board to explore the many other opportunities for funding. She noted Braemar will never be a small, unintimidating course. If the city closes Fred Richards, many golfers will be lost. Wayne VanderVort, 4525 Gilford Drive, stated he plays golf with many of his grandchildren at Fred Richards. He requested that the Park Board create a citizen committee to look at the financials with staff. He has spoken to three golf groups from Fred Richards who indicate they will not transfer to Braemar. He also noted the PGA is on a crusade of creating courses with only 9 holes. Dan DeYoung, Scottsdale, AZ, suggested the Park Board explore other options to see what keeps the course, busy during the week and on the weekend. Elizabeth and Katie Dickey, 5021 Yvonne Terrace, indicated both have played Fred Richards with their father, and they expressed support for keeping it open. Tom Gastler, 4417 Gilford Drive, expressed support for Fred Richards. He does not believe public engagement has sufficiently been sought in this process. Paul Rosenthal, 4721 Hibiscus Ave., expressed support for Fred Richards, calling it.aJewel of the community. He expressed concern about the condensed timeline not allowing for sufficient public .input. John Velgersdyk, 4516 Sedum Lane, stated he is encouraged by the improvements at Braemar. He opposes the closing of Fred Richards and believes the 2011 and 2013 studies show the course is profitable. 4 �s Ella Marshall, 6404 Stauder Circle, and Emily Bourget, 6203 South Knoll Drive, indicated they both love playing with family and friends on the Fred Richards course. Kevin Holm, 4501 Belvidere Lane, expressed support for the improvements to Braemar as well as closing Fred Richards. Barton Hailing, 4424 Gilford_Drive, expressed support for Fred Richards. He mentioned the development on Pentagon Park near Fred. Richards, and the developer has said it could work with either a golf course or something else. He noted more people are using executive courses, so there seems to be a new set of players for Fred - Richards, right next:to the course. He suggested tabling the decision on Fred Richards at the end of 2014, whereupon two or three proposals should be put forward, one of which should be retaining Fred Richards. George Griffiths, 4444 Dunham Drive, stated the Braemar 9 -hole course is the most consistently used course of the four courses in Edina. Additionally, there are nine distinct cost centers in the Braemar Golf operations (Braemar 18, Braemar 9, Braemar Executive, Fred Richards, Golf: Dome, Driving Range, Pro Shop, Club House and other social functions) that could be established in the golf enterprise in order to embark on a study to find out exactly what is making money and what is losing money. Derek Johnson, 7421 West Shore Drive, thanked the Park Board for the chance to speak tonight and asked that the Park Board take additional time to consider options' other than closing Fred Richards. Chair Steel closed the public hearing ended at 8:44 p.m. Member Deeds asked Mr. Neal to discuss the financials to clear up the questions raised by the public. Mr. Neal asked Mr. Roggeman to speak, as he prepared the pro - formas. Eric Roggeman, Assistant Director of Finance, stated there are two business units that account for business activities at Fred Richards, one for maintenance and the other for activities. At first glance, it looks like appositive cash flow of $50,000. What is not accounted for is about $250,000 in debt and historic interest payments. Also not included are several items that run through the Braemar cost center, such as a load of fertilizer or maintenance equipment, which would be another $50,000. He believes the cash flow has historically been negative by at least $250,000. The question is whether Fred Richards can cash flow going forward, especially as improvements are needed in the future. Member Deeds asked about the bond rating agencies' concerns regarding golf operations. Mr. Neal responded the City of Edina has a AAA rating. One of the underpinnings of the credit rating is management. One of the measures of that management is how many municipal operations run in an enterprise setting. When the analysts see that there is deterioration in a major enterprise like the golf course, they become concerned about it and ask about future planning. The city's answers to those questions could potentially impact the city's bond rating._ The city would like to have a solid plan in place for those creditors. Member Deeds noted one option to fund improvements is the use of revenue bonds. He asked about the possibility of using revenue bonds for Braemar improvements. Mr. Neal responded a major borrowing has not occurred in the golf operation. Staff would like to point at the golf operation revenue and use that as leverage for future debt. General obligation bonds will probably have to be issued to do improvements. If the city can pay it with golf revenues, great. Otherwise, it becomes a tax burden. 5 Member Segreto noted there are significant capital improvements coming up if Fred Richards remains open. The city cannot maintain both courses. Chair Steel asked about accommodating youth at Braemar with the improvements. Ms. Kattreh stated staff does not underestimate the value of Fred Richards to youth golfers in Edina. The master plan at Braemar would invest significantly in women, youth, and seniors. Member Cella asked if there is a way to preserve''a. low- stress environment at Braemar, similar to the one residents are in support of at Fred Richards. Ms. Kattreh responded it would be possible: The master planning process would determine the best allocation for those 36 holes of golf. Chair Steel summarized that -a working group would be formed, and it would come before the Park Board to be sure,the.residents are being served. Member Jones questioned the timeline of the decision - making process. She asked about an improved communications process with neighbors. W." Neal communicated the.input is being. gathered, -and if there is.some interest in meeting with representatives of the Fred Richards group, that can happen. Chair Steel indicated she is adamant there has to be a clear public process going forward, and a timeline to allow for the facilitation of ideas. However, she does not think that time would change the financials before the Park Board tonight. Member Gieseke concurred, noting something needs to change, but he would also like more public discussion about the future of Fred Richards. Member Deeds stated he likes Fred Richards, but the city has more holes of golf than the city can support. Fred Richards is the least utilized asset of the park system. This is a hard decision before the city. He applauded the staffs work on the pro formas. Given the future investment needed in Fred Richards, a convincing case is made that there are too many holes of golf. He suggested every effort be made to create the same atmosphere Braemar for the kids, but Braemar must be invested in. Member Cella concurred with Member Deeds' comments. She would like to have specific programming language that Braemar must create the stress -free opportunities for youth and those new to golf. . Member Jacobson wondered whether Fred Richards could be changed into, something that is more like a park and not a business. Student.Member Johnson suggested the Braemar improvements be separated from the issue of closing Fred Richards. Member Segreto made a motion, seconded by,Member Deeds, that the Park Board recommendation to the City Council that the golf operations proposals, including the recommended closing of Fred Richards Golf Course, be supported. Ayes: Members Jones, Gieseke, Steel, Segreto, Cella, Deeds, Jacobson. 6 Motion carried. V.B. Seasonal Off -Leash Dog Area at Strachauer Park Susan Faus, Assistant Parks & Recreation Director, asked to make the off -leash dog area at Strachauer Park a permanent amenity. After the first year, no complaints were received regarding barking or increased traffic at the park. Staff feels using hockey rinks year -round makes sense and it also provides an off -leash area in this area of Edina. Chair Steel opened the public hearing at 9:15 p.m. No one spoke. Chair Steel closed the public hearing at 9:15 p.m. Member Deeds made a motion, seconded by Member Gieseke, to make the off -leash area at Strachauer Park a permanent amenity. Ayes: Members Jones, Gieseke, - Steel, Segreto, Cella, Deeds, Jacobson. Motion carried. Vl. COMMUNITY COMMENT Kim Montgomery, 5300 Evanswood Lane, stated after four years of process, the city has not developed a process for maintaining the former Public Works 3.3 -acre site. She asked the Park Board to recommend to the City Council to preserve the Grandview land for public use and to prioritize a new Community Center. VII. REPORTS /RECOMMENDATIONS VII.A. Pamela.Park Shelter Building Working Group Ms. Kattreh asked for Park Board approval for the creation of the working group and also for Park Board member participation on the working group. Member Segreto volunteered to join the working group. Member Deeds made a motion, seconded by Member Gieseke, to approve the working group. Ayes: Members Jones, Gieseke, Steel, Segreto, Cella, Deeds, Jacobson. Motion carried. Vlll. CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS VIII.A. Council Updates No discussion. VIII.B. Other Correspondence No discussion. VIII.C. Veterans Memorial Committee, December 20, 2013 Minutes No discussion. Ur. CHAIR AND BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS None. rN X. STAFF COMMENTS Ms. Kattreh made the following comments: there will be a Park Board work group with the Council on February 18; so far, 49 of the 55 plots of the community, garden'are rented; staff has bee, n talking with the Minnesota Wild about using Braemar Ice Arena as a permanent practice facility, and hopes to have a proposal before the Park Board at the March meeting. XI. ADJOURNMENT Chair Steel made a motion, seconded_. by Member Deeds, to adjourn the meeting at 9:25 p.m. Ayes: Members Jones, Gieseke, Steel, Segreto, Cella, Deeds, Jacobson. Motion Carried. The meeting adjourned at 9:25 p.m. 8 11 D S �( Edina Arts and Culture'Commission Meeting Meeting Minutes City of Edina, Minnesota Edina City Hall Council Chambers January 23, 2014 4:30 P.M. I. Call to Order Chair Bouassida called the meeting to order at 4:34 p.m. II. Roll Call Commissioners Present: Hafed Bouassida, Kandace Ellis, Dana Lappin, Barbara La Valleur, Ray Meifert, Kitty O'Dea, Colin Nelson, Thomas Raeuchle, and John Swon. Commissioners Absent: Paul Peterson. Staff Present: Michael Frey, General Manager, Edina Art Center; and Kaylin Martin Communications Coordinator. Community Members Present: None. Student Members Present: Sophia Munic and Jack Ready. III. Approval of Meeting Agenda Chair Bouassida noted the meeting agenda had been circulated and asked if there were requests for additions or changes. No additions to the agenda voiced. The agenda as stated is approved and will be followed. IV. Adoption of Consent Agenda A. Approval of Minutes of December 19, 2013 Chair Bouassida asked if there were changes or corrections to the minutes of the Regular Meeting of December 19, 2013. No changes voiced. Motion by Chair Bouassida and seconded by Commissioner Raeuchle that the Arts and Culture Commission approve the regular meeting minutes of December 19, 2013. Ayes: Hafed Bouassida, Kandace Ellis, Dana Lappin, Barbara La Valleur, Ray Meifert, Colin Nelson, Kitty O'Dea, Thomas Raeuchle, and John Swon. Motion carried. V. Community Comment No comments made. VI. Reports /Recommendations A. Art Center Working Group Report Commissioner Lappin discussed the Faculty and Student Show and reported that 120 entries were received. She stated that the show opened on January 91h and was well attended, even with the cold weather. She welcomed•and encouraged people to stop by the Art Center and view the show, noting that through the show you are able to see work from the instructors and the students. She referenced the Grandview CAT and advised that she attended her first meeting on January 13th and provided an update on that meeting. She noted that the group is also going through the process to develop an RFI, which the group discussed with City Council via a Worksession the previous week and a deadline of March was provided for the RFI to be complete. She also provided a brief update on the Film Festival Committee, noting that Commissioner Swon will be leaving the Commission after this meeting and the Film Festival "ommittee will now fall under the Art Center Working Group. commissioner La Valleur commended Commissioner Lappin for her efforts with the recently opened show and encouraged individuals to attend. Commissioner Lappin reviewed some upcoming events at the Art Center including the Teen Show in late March. Motion by Chair Bouassida and seconded by'Commissioner La Valleur that the Arts and Culture Commission approve the Art Center Working Group Report as presented. Ayes: Hafed Bouassida, Kandace Ellis, Dana Lappin, Barbara La Valleur, Ray Meifert, Colin Nelson, Kitty O'Dea, Thomas Raeuchle, and John Swon. Motion carried. B. Music in Edina Report Commissioner Ellis reported that the Music in Edina Working Group held its third meeting on January 8th and is still awaiting word on funding. She advised that Commissioner Peterson met with members of City Council and Simon Properties to discuss the potential of holding an outdoor concert. She noted that the group will meet again in February. Commissioner La Valleur noted that the City Council did approve the $10,000 at their last meeting. Motion by Chair Bouassida and seconded by Commissioner Raeuchle that the Arts and Culture Commission to approve the Music in Edina Working Group Report as presented. Ayes: Hafed Bouassida, Kandace Ellis, Dana Lappin, Barbara La Valleur, Ray Meifert, Colin Nelson, Kitty O'Dea, Thomas Raeuchle, and John Swon: Motion carried. C., Public Art Working Group Report Commissioner La Valleur reported that the 2014 Call for Sculptures went out the previous week and was included on the website as well as direct mail to certain sculptors and art schools. She also discussed upcoming construction that should begin in June and be complete by November 2014 for the Phase IV expansion of the Promenade. She stated that in June 2013 QR Codes were in use on the sculpture plaques in order to provide additional information on the artist and art for the sculpture program within Edina. She reported that a well- attended opening for a rotating art exhibit occurred in June 2013 at Pinstripes and reported that the event would be held at the same location in June of 2014. She also provided information about a partnership with Fairview Hospital, which began the previous year in regard to the emergency room expansion and how art could be incorporated. She referenced the "Save Spalding" campaign, which occurred in 2013 and noted that there has been great press during the past year in multiple sources. Commissioner Raeuchle referenced Phase IV of the Promenade expansion and believed that there were some exciting things happening, including the addition of an artistic advisor into the process. He explained that the artist will work with the design team to develop an overall artistic concept for the project. Commissioner La Valleur stated that she is also very excited about the Promenade expansion and added that a new exhibit will be expanded to a fourth site this year as the owner of Westin Hotel has agreed to allow a sculpture on their property. She also provided an update on the five acts of vandalism, which occurred in 2013, noting that one instance was not minor and the sculpture had to be removed in order to be repaired. She expressed frustration with the vandalism and the efforts that could possibly occur in order to deter such acts in the future. Motion by Commissioner Raeuchle and seconded by Commissioner Ellis that the Arts and Culture Commission approve the Public Art Working Group Report as presented. Ayes: Hafed Bouassida, Kandace Ellis, Dana Lappin, Barbara La Valleur, Ray Meifert, Colin Nelson, Kitty O'Dea, Thomas Raeuchle, and John Swon. Motion carried. D. Strategic Planning Committee Commissioner Meifert reviewed with Commissioners the members of the Committee which met over the course of two meetings in order to complete the proposed Work Plan which focuses on five areas including direction, situation analysis and areas of focus, key issues to be addressed, key issues, and a tactics calendar. He noted that each key issue has identified strategies, tactics, responsibilities and timing. He briefly summarized each of the items included in the Work Plan. He stated that it is the recommendation of the Committee that Commissioners be identified, at a future date, and assigned specific tasks to take responsibility and ensure completion of each item. He explained that the Commissioner identified to each tactic would provide an update at future meetings on their progress. He explained that the Committee attempted to limit this to a focused effort in order to prevent taking on too much and not being able to complete the.identified tactics. Mr. Frey clarified that when Commissioner Meifert mentioned a 5013C that would apply specifically to the fundraising arm and not the Art Center. Commissioner Raeuchle noted that this is a work in progress and encouraged Commissioners to provide feedback or ' additional topics if desired and advised that those comments could be integrated into the Work Plan prior to the next meeting. ommissioner La Valleur referenced the issue of communication and questioned if that item would include work with .he City. Commissioner Meifert confirmed that the Commission could work with the City in regard to communications but noted that those efforts could be expanded to other areas of communication as well. Commissioner Raeuchle asked that the amended Work Plan be sent out with the next Commission packet prior to the February meeting. Chair Bouassida asked that the Commissioners be proactive in their desire to work on specific tactics and to provide their input. Motion by Chair Bouassida and seconded by Commissioner La Valleur that the Arts and Culture Commission approve the Strategic Plan Committee Report as presented. Ayes: Hafed Bouassida, Kandace Ellis, Dana Lappin, Barbara La Valleur, Ray Meifert, Colin Nelson, Kitty O'Dea, Thomas Raeuchle, and John Swon. Motion carried. E. The Author's Studio Report Commissioner Nelson reported that the Author's Studio has begun its third year at the Edina Art Center, explaining that he interviews authors of different genres the second Saturday of each month at 10:00 a.m. in the Art Center's Margaret Foss Gallery. He reported that about 18 months ago, writing classes began at the Art Center and there was also a partnership with The Loft, which offered classes. He explained that the Art Center hopes to generate writing classes of their own which are separate of The Loft. He thanked the staff at the Art Center, including Mr. Frey, as well as the Commissioners that have attended and supported the program. He also discussed the possibility of expanding the Author's Studio to other venues outside of the Art Center. :ommissioner La Valleur stated that she noticed the Author's Studio videos on YouTube and questioned if all of the sessions were posted to YouTube. Commissioner Nelson advised that all of the sessions are recorded and the broadcasting to the cable channel will continue. He stated that the Art Center working with Communications is attempting to upload all of the sessions onto YouTube, but that process is still progressing. Commissioner Raeuchle believed that these efforts would support the development of a culture calendar, which could identify the events and the rebroadcast times. Motion by Commissioner La Valleur and seconded by Commissioner Swon that the Arts and Culture Commission approve the Author's Studio Report as presented. Ayes: Hafed Bouassida, Kandace Ellis, Dana Lappin, Barbara La Valleur, Ray Meifert, Colin Nelson, Kitty O'Dea, Thomas Raeuchle, and John Swon. Motion carried. F. Film Festival Report Chair Bouassida thanked Commissioner Swon for his efforts over the past years and his work on the Film Festival. Commissioner Swon stated that all of the numbers, which had been set in the past for the festival, were doubled in this third year. He thanked Commissioner Meifert and O'Dea for their efforts on the event. He stated that in going forward the group is attempting to make some decisions in order to determine the best path to move forward in regard to financing and location. He stated that it has been a pleasure to be a part of this group over the years and through the transition from the Edina Art Center Board to the Edina Arts and Culture Commission and thanked everyone for his opportunity to serve. VII. Correspondence and Petitions .;hair Bouassida asked if there was any correspondence or petitions. None voiced. VIII. Chair and Board Member Comments f, There were none. IX. Staff Comments A. 2013 Year in Review Mr. Frey stated that when the Commission was in this position one year ago the clear theme was change and noted that there were many changes that took place over the past year. He noted that the transition from the Art Center Board to the Arts and Culture Commission took�place in May 2013 and expressed his appreciation for the work of each Commissioner. He believed this is an exciting time for arts and culture within the City of Edina. He referenced Commissioner Swon and thanked him for his significant contributions over the past six years to the Art Center and the Film Festival. He also commended the Commissioners who have taken the lead on both the Film Festival and the Author's Studio as they are no longer commissioners; they have chosen to continue these events into the future. He reported on the recent staffing changes at the Art Center in order to bring in fresh talent with strong technical skills; and a new energy in the Art Center which he believed was evident at the recent'faculty and student show. He explained that the staff at the Art Center is now leaner with a more efficient set of skills, as there had previously been a large amount of part-time employees. He explained that the new employees have also assisted in bringing the Art Center forward technologically. He.thanked the Comm_ ission for their efforts as well as the Student Members who are dedicated and focused. Chair Bouassida thanked the other members of the Commission for their efforts over the past year and acknowledged that there is still more work to be done. He recognized that not every city has an Arts and Culture Commission and acknowledged that because of that the group will have to work in innovative ways. He also thanked the Edina City Council members for all of their support of the Commission. Commissioner Meifert advised of an upcoming art opening at a Shepherd of the Hills church, in partnership with the Edina Art Center, and encouraged all Commissioners to attend. X. Adjournment Motion by Commissioner O'Dea and seconded by Commissioner La Valleur that the Arts and Culture Commission adjourn the meeting at 5:35 p.m. Ayes: Hafed Bouassida, Kandace Ellis, Dana Lappin, Barbara La Valleur, Ray Meifert, Colin Nelson, Kitty O'Dea, Thomas Raeuchle, and John Swon. Motion carried. MINUTES Regular Meeting of the Edina Heritage Preservation Board Edina City Hall- Community Room Tuesday, February 11, 2014 7:00 p.m. I. CALL TO ORDER 7:05 P.M. 11. ROLL CALL Answering roll call was Chair Moore and Members Mellom, Weber, Sussman, O'Brien, and Birdman. Absent were members Christiaansen, McDermott, Brandt, and Johnson. Staff present was Senior Planner, Joyce Repya. Preservation Consultant, Robert Vogel was also in attendance. 1111. APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA Member O'Brien moved to approve the meeting agenda. Member Mellom seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried. IV. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES January 14, 2013 Member Sussman asked that his comments under Item VI. B. "Wooddale Bridge - Potential National Register Designation" be changed from indicating that Minneapolis newspaper articles from 1,907 refuted the. 1937 Country Club Crier account of the bridge calamities; to the 1907 Minneapolis newspaper articles corrected the 1937 Country Club Crier account of the bridge calamities. Mr. O'Brien moved approval of the January 14th minutes subject to Member Sussm,an's requested change. Member Mellom seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried. V. COMMUNITY COMMENT — None VI. REPORTS & RECOMMENDATIONS A. H -14 -1 4612'Arden Avenue— New Detached Garage and Front Entry Overhang Planner Repya advised the board that the subject property is located on the west side of the 4600 block of Arden Avenue. The existing home, a Colonial Revival style constructed in 1933, currently has a single story 2 -car attached garage accessed _by a driveway on the south side of the property. The Certificate of Appropriateness request entails the construction of a new detached garage in the southwest corner of the rear yard with the conversion of the attached garage to two stories of living space. The plans also include adding a small front entry overhang supported by brackets. Addressing the plans for the proposed detached garage, Ms. Repya pointed out that the 529 square foot, 2 -car detached garage is proposed to be accessed from the existing Ariveway on the south side of the property. A service door and 2 windows are provided on the north elevation; the south elevation also has 2 windows; and windows are also provided in the gable Edina Heritage Preservation Board Minutes February 11, 2014 end of the east and west elevations. The design of the structure is proposed to compliment the Colonial Revival style of the home. The mass and proportions of the proposed garage are well within the averages of the surrounding detached. garages; and the plans demonstrate a structure that is not unlike new garages previously approved in the district through the COA process. Ms. Repya also pointed out that a new, small front entry overhang supported by brackets is proposed to provide. protection from the elements over the 17 square foot front stoop. The overhang is shown to project TY from the front building wall. The roofing material will be asphalt shingles to match the house. Concluding an explanation of the proposal, Planner Repya added that the plans for the conversion of the one -story attached garage to two stories of living space at the rear of the home were provided for the Board's information, since additions to the rear of the home not visible from the front street do- not require a COA. The addition has been designed to provide a compatible use of the home while at the same time compliment the home's overall historic character - utilizing wood lap siding and asphalt shingles on the second story. The first floor of the addition, not visible from the street scape is proposed to be clad with wood - paneling and a standing seam metal roof to add interest to the rear of the home and break -up the long expanse of wood siding on the north and south elevations. Ms. Repya pointed out that as standard practice for all COA applications, Preservation Consultant Robert Vogel reviewed the subject plans and provided a written statement where he observed that the proposed garage appears to be compatible in scale, size, and building materials with other historic homes in the neighborhood and will not detract from the district's historic character. The new front entry overhang is also appropriate to the house and its surroundings. Based on the plans presented he recommended approval of the COA for both the new detached garage and front entry overhang. Regarding the existing attached garage which is shown to be replaced with 2 stories of living space; Mr. Vogel observed that the plans for the new addition are provided to the board as a courtesy and not subject to the COA review. He added that the addition is not an important. historic character defining element of the home, and no important architectural details will be removed or obscured by any of the proposed rehabilitation treatments. Ms: Repya concluded that staff agreed with Consultant Vogel's evaluation of the proposed improvements to the.property, noting that the proposed detached garage is consistent with new garages previously ,reviewed in the district and the proposed front entry will blend in well with the historic facade of the home. Approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness request was recommended. Findings supporting the recommendation included: • The plans provided with subject request clearly illustrate the scale and scope of the proposed projects. • The pro posed; detached garage will complement the architectural style of the home and not 2 /f '1 Edina Heritage Preservation Board Minutes February 11, 2014 be detrimental to the adjacent historic structures. • The proposed work preserves the essential character of the property and contributes to the heritage values of the district as a whole. • The information provided supporting the subject Certificate of Appropriateness meets the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and the Country Club District Plan of Treatment. The approval recommendation was also subject to: 1. The plans presented, and 2. The placement of a year built plaque on the exterior of the new detached garage. Applicant Comments: Scott. Waggoner, 5619 Bernard Place, from w.b.builders, representing the property owners explained that his client was struggling with the need for more efficient living spaces for their family as well as a more functional garage. They agreed upon the proposed plan because it will not only enhance the historic home, but also provide for a more livable home for their family. Board Comments: Board members asked for and received clarification of the plans. After which Consultant Vogel commented that it was nice to see a clean addition - simple and elegant; the essence of the Colonial Revival style. Member Mellom agreed with Mr. Vogel's observations adding that she was glad that changes were not proposed for the facades of the original home, other than the minor front entry overhang. Members Birdman, O'Brien and Weber also commented that they were pleased with the plans which were very clear - depicting a good design for the home. Motion: Member Birdman moved approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness for a new detached garage and front entry overhang subject to the plans presented and a year built plaque installed on the exterior of the new detached garage. Member O'Brien seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried., B. H -14 -2 4505 Arden Avenue - Whole House Rehabilitation, Change To Street Facing Fa4gade, and New Detached Garage Planner Repya reported that the subject property is located on the east side of the 4500 block of Arden Avenue. The existing home, a Tudor style constructed in 1926, currently has a two story 2 -car attached garage accessed by a driveway on the south side of the property. The Certificate of Appropriateness request entails the construction of a new detached garage in the southeast corner of the, rear yard. Several flat roofed additions to the rear of the original home which include a 2 -stall attached garage are proposed to be removed and replaced with a new 2 story addition to increase the living space of the home. The rehabilitation work proposes removal of all material from the original home which the applicant indicates will then be rebuilt to the exact dimensions with respect to the height, form 3 Edina Heritage Preservation Board Minutes February 11, 2014 and mass of the 1926 home. Changes to the front facade include moving the front entry and chimney to the center of the home to provide for entry to the home from the street elevation. Also, the. plan proposes more Tudor detailing with the addition of half - timbering, stonework, and natural stucco. Providing the board with background information on this property, Planner Repya explained that on January 12, 2010, the HPB heard a request to remove the historic resource classification of this 1926 home to provide for the introduction of'a COKapplication.to build a new home on the site. At that time, information attesting to the degradation-6f the home's structure justifying removing its historic status was presented to the board; to include several inappropriate additions to the. rear; as well potentially dangerous environmental issues. The decision of the board:was that the additions to the rear of the home did detract from the original structure' and could be. removed, however the board concluded that information presented did not support rationale to declassify the heritage resource status of the home. Ms. Repya added that a year later, at the January 11, 2011 HPB meeting, the applicant returned for a sketch plan review of proposed changes to the front facade of the home. The front facade plan reviewed by the HPB was identical to the subject front facade plan under consideration. At that time, the applicants explained that their goal for the renovation would be to maintain the essential form and integrity of the original home - staying true to the historic character of Arden Avenue and the district, while providing spaces that would be more compatible for their family's needs. The response of the board.was favorable. Ms. Repya then provided a breakdown of the work proposed relative to the subject COA application to include: Front Facade Changes & Rehabilitation of Original Home Changes proposed to the front facade include: • Moving the front entry to the center of the front facade to provide .entry on the first floor level of the home, thus eliminating an awkward step -down transition from the entryway to the living room. ;. • The new entry will project 5 feet from the front building wall, be constructed of stone, and will be open on the sides. • The- undersized, ;? chi "mney will be moved slightly to the south to accommodate the relocated entry. The. rebuilt chimney will be enhanced with stone and brick, and topped off with a clay or copper chimney cap - consistent with Tudor design. The rehabilitation of the original home entails: • Addition of stone to the front facade and half - timbering is also proposed to replace the bare stucco areas of the original home. • Removal of all materials from the original home. Attached Garage Conversion to Living Space Plans for the conversion of the flat roofed additions and attached garage to two stories 'of living space at the rear of the home have been provided for the Board's information. The addition has been designed to provide a compatible use of the home while at the same time compliment 4 It Edina Heritage Preservation Board Minutes February 11, 2014 the home's overall Tudor design and historic character - utilizing natural stucco siding with Miratec half- timbering, brackets, and asphalt shingles. Detached Garage The proposed 520 square foot, 2 -car detached garage is proposed to be accessed from the existing driveway on the south side of the property. An overhead door is proposed on the west elevation from the existing driveway. A service door is also provided on the west side, and windows are shown on all elevations. Ms. Repya observed that the design of the proposed garage is intended to compliment the Tudor style ofthe home with exterior finishes shown to match the house with natural stucco, Miratec half- timbering and asphalt shingles. The height and mass of the proposed structure is well within the dimensions of new detached garages previously approved in the district, and the 18' height to peak is actually 2 feet shorter than the detached garage to the north at 4503 Arden Avenue. The exterior finishes proposed for the garage are shown to match the house with natural stucco, Miratec half - timbering and asphalt shingles. Ms. Repya provided a summary of Preservation Consultant Robert Vogel's written evaluation of the project by pointing out the following: • The home, built in 1926 embodies some of the distinctive characteristics of the Tudor style and has been evaluated as a contributing heritage resource within the Country Club District; however, the house lacks historical distinction and is not individually eligible for designation as an Edina Heritage Landmark. • The new garage proposed for 4505 Arden Avenue appears to be compatible with the house.- in scale, size, and building materials -and should not detract from the neighborhood's historic character. Based on the plans presented with the COA application, he recommended approval of the COA for construction of the detached garage 'subject to the plans presented and a year built plaque being displayed on the exterior of the structure. • The proposed changes to the exterior of the house (what the applicant describes as a "whole house. rehabilitation") amounts to a teardown and total reconstruction of the historic structure. The argument that the house as it exists today is not worthy of preservation is not substantiated -by historical, physical, or pictorial evidence. o The house retains sufficient historic integrity to convey its historic significance in its existing condition; and is a good candidate for respectful rehabilitation, including repairs, alterations, and the removal of inappropriate structural elements, however, he struggled to see how a teardown would meet the city's heritage preservation policy objectives. • The district plan of treatment clearly states that the primary preservation goal of the Country Club District is "preservation of the existing house facades and §treetscapes" and specifies rehabilitation as "the preferred treatment for heritage preservation resources." Both the plan of treatment and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (which are, by ordinance, the required basis for COA decisions)'define rehabilitation as the process of making possible a compatible use for a property through repair, alterations and 'additions, while preserving those 5 Edina Heritage Preservation Board Minutes February 11, 2014 portions or features which convey its historical, cultural or architectural values. Rehabilitation does not encompass demolition of a historic resource and reconstruction of the entire structure -the goal of rehabilitation is the conservation of significant historic features, not their replacement. • To meet the standards for rehabilitation and the COA guidelines in the district plan of treatment, the applicant should be required to make a reasonable effort to preserve as much original historic fabric as possible. Therefore, unless the applicant can make a strong case for demolition of the existing house, Mr. Vogel concluded in his comments that he would recommend denial of the COA for demolition of the existing house. Planner Repya concluded that the subject COA request includes some of the direction provided by the 2010 Heritage Preservation Board with the removal: of the later additions /attached garage; and the construction of anew detached garage, and 2 stories of living space to the rear of the original home. However, the 2010 HPB also provided very clear direction to the applicant in their determination that the original structure. was to remain a heritage resource in the district, and thus would not be eligible for d' erniolition. While the plans provided attest to maintaining the original home's height, mass and setback; "removing all materials from'the original home" as proposed, in essence is a demolition of the original home. Ms. Repya then recommended a continuance of -this request to the March 11. t I ' meeting affording the applicant the opportunity to provide plans that do not include demolition of the original 1926 home. Since the deadline for action on this request is prior to the March I I `h meeting, the applicant should request in writing a continuance of the COA request. Ms. Repya added that if the applicant is not agreeable to a continuance to the March 1.1 'n meeting, staff would recommend denial of the COA request. Applicant Presentation: Scott Busyn, 4615 Wooddale Avenue of Great Neighborhood Homes, representing property owners Tim and Michele Pronley provided the board with a PowerPoint presentation in support of the COA request. The following information, was provided: • Background on the 2010 HPB review of the home. • Cited problems including bat infestation in the front wall; strong urine smell from numerous pets; major roof leaks - Thus, don't want to remodel, but prefer rehabilitation through reconstruction. • Explained that although original building materials are proposed to be removed, the" HOB will retain the ability to control the new construction to ensure that it replicates the height,, scale and mass of the original home. Equated the process to the reconstruction of the district's streets, sewer and storm water systems in 2008. • Recited the history of the 2008, plan of treatment -- update approved by the City Council, and opined that the proposal complied with the plan for the following reasons: •:� Continue Tudor design of the home ❖ Street scape will be maintained •:�, Deteriorated /damaged materials will be removed N. Edina Heritage Preservation Board Minutes February 11, 2014 ❖ Original floor & eave heights will be maintained using GPS technology ❖ Structural changes will include a deeper basement allowing for taller ceilings, and better articulation on the north and south (side) facades of the home. Mr. Busyn asked the board what they were attempting to preserve in, the district - pointing out that the significance is derived from the themes of community development and planning. He pointed out that the subject application will provide the HPB maximum control of "new" construction in the district, and provide a voluntary pathway for owners who feel their homes are beyond the tipping point. He concluded that history is changing, and rather than freeze drying the neighborhood; approving this proposal will be a step toward writing anew history for the district. Public Comments: Jane Lonnquist, 4510 Drexel Avenue, explained that she is an interested preservationist who lives in the neighborhood, and was an active participant in the 2008 revision of the district's plan of treatment. She thanked the Pronley's for their desire to invest in the neighborhood; and asked the HPB to carefully consider the process the applicant is proposing - pointing out that they are using many new terms that are not clearly defined. Ms. Lonnquist added that she is also concerned about the final product, questioning at what point changes to a historic facade go the extreme of affecting the structure's historic integrity. Cheryl Dulas, 4609 Bruce Avenue, explained that she too was involved in the 2008 revision to the district's plan of treatment which included a great deal of input from. the residents of the neighborhood. - She added that she believes it is important to maintain the front fagade of the' historic homes; and cautioned the board that if the plans are approved as proposed, such approval could have precedence setting ramifications for other homes in the district. Matt Abroe, 4507 Arden Avenue, explained that he lives next door to the subject home on the south side, and expressed his support of the plans. He expressed his opinion that the existing home is completely dilapidated, and the proposed changes for the home look good. He added that just because a home is old doesn't mean it is worthy of being preserved. Board Comments: Member Mellom explained that she lives across (4506 Arden Avenue) from the subject property, and while not a member of the HPB in 2010, was pleased with the board's decision at that time to not remove the heritage resource status of the home, thus making way for demolition and construction of a new home. She added that the 2010 reports from the environmental and engineering teams commissioned by the applicant did not present a structure that was uninhabitable and in need of demolition when reviewed by the City's chief building official as well as the city engineer. Consequently, unless the home has deteriorated significantly since 2010, (which is questionable since there 7 C Edina Heritage Preservation Board Minutes February 11, 2014 have been renters living in the home since that time), she could not support a plan that included removal of all building materials. Member Birdman agreed with Ms. Mellom's comment that the current'status of the original home should be provided. Apparently, in 2010 the home was deemed habitable by the city's building official. If the condition of the home has changed since then, evidence to the changes in the home's habitability should be provided. Member-Moore stated that the plan as proposed. should require a re- 'evaluation of the home's. historic status since it was constructed during the district's period of significance (1924 - 1.944) and is not eligible to be torn down unless the applicant can prove it no longer adds to the historic significance of the district -which is the process entertained. and' denied by the HPB in 2010. He added that he too -would like to see up to date. information regarding the current condition.of the original home - questioning whether the entire'structure'was unsalvageable: Member Weber observed that the district's plan of treatment is supported by the Secretary of,.the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, and the language in the plan of treatment is very clear, "No COA will be approved for the demolition, in whole or in part: of any heritage preservation resource unless the applicant can show that the property is not .a. heritage resource. "... that is a rule, not a suggestion. He added that it appears that the plans proposed for the original home are attempting to create a false sense of historic development. Member Weber wondered if the new window placement proposed on the north and south elevations of the existing home, as well as the changes to the front fagade weren't creating the need to remove a majority of the original building materials. Mr. Weber also asked if it is technically feasible to do the rehab work with the existing structure; and whether the house is structurally sound - questions that need to be answered. That being said, Mr. Weber indicated that he could support -the proposed detached garage and addition to the rear of the home. Member Sussman questioned whether this home is in such an extreme state of disrepair that it cannot be rehabilitated, adding that old historic homes in much worse condition than the subject property are rehabilitated without tearing them down. Mr. Sussman pointed out that he is'also concerned about the broader application of the applicant's expressed need to construct the historic home to new building standards. He also opined that the additional half- timbering and stone work proposed on the front fagade appeared more in keeping with'the historic - homes on, the west side of the Country Club District, and less applicable to the homes on the Arden Avenue., Mr. Sussman concluded that he agreed with the 2010 HPB determination that the additions to the rear of the home were not significant to the historic integrity of the original home and could be removed /replaced without having a detrimental effect on the historic home. Edina Heritage Preservation Board Minutes February 11, 2014 Member O'Brien observed that the applicant's description of the proposal as a "whole house rehabilitation" is a play on words - clearly the proposal calls for a demolition of the original historic home. Mr. O'Brien pointed out that he would be in favor of delayinga decision on this request until more information on the current.'condition of the home is provided, and also potentially visiting the home as well. He. added that he lives in the Country Club District and knows that these historic homes need continual maintenance. Preservation Consultant Vogel agreed with the board member's request for more information .relative to the current status of the original home - stressing that it is important to evaluate all the data from the applicant relative to the amount of material that is deemed deteriorated and'in need of replacement. He added that in 2010 the board visited the home, and it might be beneficial to again have -the board view the property to .gain a better perspective of the issues cited by the applicant. Motion: Member Moore moved to continue this item until the March I I th meeting to afford the board the opportunity to receive.an update of past information provided for the 2010 COA request; as well as a possible site visit by the board. Member O'Brien asked Member Moore if he would accept an amendment to the motion to include that "the HPB must receive a letter from the applicant requesting'a 60 day' continuance of the COA request - If a continuance letter is not received, the COA request shall'be denied ". Member Moore agreed to Member O'Brien's suggested amendment to the motion. Member O'Brien then seconded the motion. Members Mellom, Birdman, O'Brien, Sussman and Moore voted aye. Member Weber voted nay, commenting that he would prefer to separate the proposed detached garage and addition from the whole house rehabilitation that is in question. The motion carried. C. Disaster Management Plan Planner Repya reminded the board that their 2014 work plan included the creation of a disaster management plan for the city's historic resource properties. She pointed out that since this plan needs to dovetail with the city's existing emergency management plan it will be important to have the city's fire chief who oversees the city's plan involved with this project. Ms. Repya added that the new fire chief, Tom Schultz will begin work on February 17`h; and once he has settled in, she will. introduce him to this project. In the meantime, Consultant Vogel who will be instrumental in drafting the plan presented an outline of the important components to consider with the disaster management plan. He added that the creation of the plan will beneficial to'city officials and property owners alike by focusing on procedures for emergency I response and damage assessment. Interestingly, once the disaster management plan has been adopted, Edina will be the second city in Minnesota to have 9 Edina.Heritage Preservation Board Minutes February 11, 2014 such a plan for its historic properties. The board agreed that this plan will go a long way to support Edina's heritage preservation program. No formal action was taken. VII. OTHER BUSINESS A. Explore the History of Your Home- Committee Report Committee member Birdman reported that since the January HPB meeting, the committee considered the board's suggestions about garnering community interest'for the "-Explore the History of:your Home" project. To that end, the committee'provided copies of a questionnaire they drafted which .requested information regarding I. Property's Address; 2. Property Owner (name, # of occupants, year purchased); 3. Property . History (year built,. building ;details, architectural style, modifications, and # of ✓owners); and lastly 4. Owner Characteristics, (how they- chose their home, what they like best, etc.) Member Birdman asked the board to consider additional_ information to include on the questionnaire and send those suggestions to Planner Repya'who.will in turn ensure that they are passed on to the committee. He added that it is their hope to finalize the questionnaire by the end of February; and then have board members and their friends, as well as our student merrib rs and their families and.friends complete the questionnaire during the month of March. The hope is to engage, at least 50 property owners with the goal of determining if this project is worth pursuing further. The board thanked committee members Birdman, Weber and Moore for their work on the questionnaire, and agreed that they would follow -thru with providing input, and also participating in the questionnaire. B. Heritage Award Nominations Planner Repya announced that nominations for the 2014 Heritage Award are now being accepted through the city's web site. She shared copies of the nomination forms and encouraged board members to submit a nomination and also invite property owners, who they feel might be likely candidates for nomination: Ms. Repya added that there will be -a shout -out for nominations in the spring issue of About Town; and nominations will close on April 4`h to afford the board sufficient time.to choose a nominee and prepare the award. C. Preservation Month (May) Planning Due to the late hour, this item was continued to a future meeting. VIII. CORRESPONDENCE & PETITIONS - None IX. CHAIR AND BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Chair Moore reported that on February 3' the Oliver. Kelly Grange (OKG) held their first meeting in Edina's Minnehaha Grange Hall, and it was very well attended.. Mr. Moore shared that the meeting was very interesting, and was he pleased to receive a plaque on behalf of the HPB, awarded by the OKG that acknowledged the board's good stewardship of the historic 10 N Edina Heritage Preservation Board Minutes February 11, 2014 building. The board agreed that providing space for the OKG association was a very good use of the building, and they appreciated that the group acknowledged the city's preservation efforts with the plaque which they hoped would be displayed in the Grange Hall. Member Sussman explained to the board that at the January meeting when he was sharing the facts of the 1907 Minneapolis newspaper article which corrected the 1937 Country Club Crier article on the "Runaway Bridges" (i.e. Browndale & Wooddale); he meant no disrespect to the 1937 Village Recorder, Ben Moore who recounted the 1937 story for the paper - particularly considering that Mr. Moore's grandson is the current chair of the HPB. He added that it is obvious a commitment to public service is a family trait which continues to add great benefit to the community. Chair Moore thanked Member Sussman for the kind words. X. STAFF COMMENTS Planner Repya reported that since the January meeting she has explored ways that the HPB can educate. the public about their activities and mission. The city's web site provides a section where individuals (such as the city manager or police chief), and departments (such as the park department and liquor stores) commit to writing a weekly blog on a topic of interest to the public. In addition to the individual and department blogs, there is a "shared blog category, again with the requirement for a weekly posting. Ms. Repya pointed out that while utilizing the blog would be a great way to communicate the heritage preservation message to the public, a weekly commitment appeared to be a. bit much: She went on to explain that she asked fellow board liaisons if their groups would be interested in participating in a shared blog, and depending upon the interest level, a schedule could be created reducing each group's posting commitment to perhaps monthly. The response from the other liaisons was favorable - they agreed to run the idea past their boards and report back at the end of the month. Ms. Repya concluded that she will report back to the board once the other boards and commissions have shared their interest, level. The board thanked Ms. Repya for checking into the shared blog and expressed their hopes that the other boards and commissions would find it a useful communication tool. XI. NEXT MEETING DATE March I I, 2014 XII. ADJOURNMENT 10:1 S P.M. Member Birdman moved for adjournment at 10:15 p.m.. Member Mellom seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried. Respectfully submitted, Joyce Repya 11 r' MINUTES OF THE EDINA HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY HELD AT CITY HALL MARCH 3, 2014 11:04 p.m. CALL TO ORDER Chair Hovland called the HRA meeting to order at 11:04 p.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 FEBRUARY 18, 2014 APPROVED Motion made by Commissioner Swenson, seconded by Commissioner Bennett approving the Minutes of the Meeting of the Edina Housing and Redevelopment Authority for February 18, 2014 Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Sprague, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. ENGINEERING SERVICES AUTHORIZED — CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS TESTING SERVICES FOR FRANCE AVENUE IMPROVEMENTS The France Avenue Improvements are partially funded with a federal grant and therefore performing Quality Control and Quality Assurance testing with MnDOrs Schedule of Materials Control is required. Staff has requested authorization to allow the City Manager to enter into an agreement with Braun Intertec to perform this QC /QA services for the France Avenue Improvement Project. Following a brief discussion, Commissioner Swenson made a motion authorizing the City Manager to enter into the necessary agreement with Braun Intertec. Commissioner Brindle seconded the motion. Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Sprague, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. Chair Hovland declared the meeting adjourned at 11:06 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Scott Neal, Executive Director OJ 1441 llr_ �,v v .,aaa To: Members of the Edina Housing .& Redevelopment Authority Agenda Item #: HRA V The Recommended Bid is From: Bill Neuendorf, Economic Development Manager ® Within Budget Chad A. Millner, P.E., Director of Engineering ❑ NotWithin Budget Date: March 18, 2014 Subject: Change Order - Building Demolition at 3930 West 49 %2 Street Date Bid Opened or Quote Received: Bid or Expiration. Date: Company: Veit & Company, Inc. Amount of Quote or Bid: $65,178.49 Recommended Quote or Bid: Authorize the Chair and Executive Director to approve Change Order. General Information: This project performed the demolition, disposal, and restoration of the former Edina Realty building at 3930 W. 491/2 Street. This property was acquired by the City in June 2013. During the project the contractor discovered an underground storage tank partially filled with liquid and materials with asbestos buried in the SE corner of the property. All materials have been property removed and disposed of and the site restored with topsoil and bio- degradable seeding blankets. This change order contains the extra costs associated with the removal and disposal of these materials to regulatory standards by Veit & Company. This change order increased the contract amount by over 10% thus requiring HRA approval. The original contract amount was $110,300.00. The total contract amount after this change order is $175,478.49. This change order will be funded by the previous owner through monies held in escrow at the real estate closing. Staff recommends approval of this change order. \ \ED- NTBXEngPubWks%PMCENTRAL SVCS %ENG DMPROJECMCONTRACTSUOMENG 13 -20 Former Edina Realty Bldg Demo%ADMIMMISCUtem HRA V. Change Order.doa City of Edina. • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 To: Members of the Edina Housing & Redevelopment Authority Agenda Item #:. HRA A The Recommended Bid is From: Bill Neuendorf, Economic Development Manager' - ® Within Budget: Chad A. Millner, P.E., Director of Engineering ❑ NotWithin Budget Date: March 18, 2014 Subject: Change Order — Environmental Services at 3930 West 49 -1/2 Street Date Bid Opened or Quote Received: Bid or Expiration Date: Company: Barr Engineering Amount of Quote or Bid: $ 8,000.00 Recommended Quote or Bid: Authorize the Chair and Executive Director to approve Change Order. General Information: This project performed the demolition, disposal, and restoration of the former Edina Realty building at 3930 W. 49.1 /2 Street. This property was acquired by the City in June 2013. During the project the contractor discovered an underground storage tank partially filled with liquid and materials with asbestos buried in the SE corner. of the property. All. materials have been property removed and disposed of and the site restored with topsoil and bio- degradable seeding blankets. This change order contains the extra costs of additional oversight and documentation by Barr Engineering associated with the removal and disposal of these materials to regulatory standards by Veit & Company. It increases the contract amount for environmental services from $86,700 to $94,700 and will be funded by the previous owner through monies held in escrow at the real estate closing. Staff recommends approval of this change order. 11ED- NTMEngPubWksIPMCENTRAL SVCSIENG DMPROJEMCONTRACTSU0131ENG 13 -20 Former Edina Realty Bldg Demo1ADMINNISNtrm HRA VI. Change Order.dooc City of Edina • 4801 W.. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 0 'J Le IHHII To: Members of the Edina Housing & Redevelopment Authority Agenda item #: HRA VII. From: Bill Neuendorf Action Economic Development Manager Discussion ❑ Date: March 18, 2014 Information ❑ Subject: Pentagon Park Redevelopment — Authorizing- Preparation of Redevelopment Agreement Action Requested: 0 Authorize staff to engage legal and financial consultants to negotiate a Master Redevelopment Agreement based on the preliminary Term Sheet with the developer. Information /Background: The owner of the Pentagon Park office park approached the City to request financial assistance in achieving the long -term redevelopment goals that are currently being considered for the 42 -acre site. The full -scale redevelopment that is envisioned includes a high level of extraordinary costs that are, associated with redevelopment of existing buildings in an area with poor soil conditions. Many of these costs would not likely apply to a similar project in a different location. Staff has engaged legal and public finance experts to begin preliminary discussions about the level and type of assistance that is necessary to transform this 42 -acre property. These preliminary conversations have resulted in the attached Term Sheet. The basic structure of the proposed assistance requires the greatest risk to be borne by the developer and his investors. The City is exposed to very little risk. The proposed terms anticipate that a financial TIF Note will be pledged to the developer upon initiation of each phase of the project. Upon successful completion of each phase, the City would make payments on the TIF Note using incremental property taxes that are generated by the new buildings. Reimbursement would be provided for costs of the new roadways and related public improvements completed by the developer. Reimbursement would also apply to the costs of demolition, soils stabilization and storm water retention which are necessary activities to prepare the site for new investment. Reimbursement is also requested for the high costs of the parking structures proposed to maximize the buildable area and to eliminate vast fields of surface parking lots. It is anticipated that the parking structures would be privately owned but may be available for shared parking in the future. City of Edina - 4801 W. 501h St • Edina, MN 55424 HRA Item VII. Pentagon Park Redevelopment — Authorizing Preparation of Redevelopment Agreement Page 2 Authorization is sought to fully negotiate a Redevelopment Agreement (RDA) with the property owner based on the general terms described in the Term Sheet. At this time, the city staff and property owner are aligned on the preliminary terms. The preparation of the RDA will require, significant additional research so that various development scenarios can 'be addressed. Upon completion, the Redevelopment Agreement will be brought to the City Council and Edina Housing and Redevelopment Authority for full consideration. The proposed Term Sheet (dated 3 -13 -2014) and Summary are attached to . "the related City Council agenda item. Please refer to Item VIII. D.