Loading...
2020-12-15 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 3:40 pm by Chair Gillian Rosenquist. Roll Call Task Force Members Present (indicated by asterisk): Name: Company: Name: Company: Gillian Rosenquist* (GR) Task Force Chair, Golden Valley City County Member Karen Boehne* (KB) Task Force, Resident Andy Johnson* (AJ) Task Force, Planning Commissioner Kathryn Simpson* (KS) Task Force, Resident Becky Sanders* (BSa) Task Force, Resident Lucy Smith-Williams* (LSW) Task Force, Business Brian Smith* (BSm) Task Force, Resident Marc Meirovitz* (MM) Task Force, Business Cameron Selmer* (CS) Task Force, Resident Sara Barrow* (SB) Task Force, Resident Gary Cohen* (GC) Task Force, Resident Tierre Webster* (TW) Task Force, Business Additional Attendees (Steering Committee and Project Team) Name: Company: Name: Company: Marc Nevinski* Physical Development Director, Golden Valley Bruce Schwartzman* Partner in Charge, BKV Group Cheryl Weiler* Communications Director, Golden Valley Susan Morgan* Project Manager, BKV Group Jason Sturgis* Police Chief, Golden Valley Ben Janes* Designer, BKV Group John Crelly* Fire Chief, Golden Valley Bryan Harjes* Engagement Lead, HKGi Sue Virnig* Finance Director, Golden Valley Jeff Miller Urban Planner. HKGi Ted Massicotte* Assistant Fire Chief, Golden Valley Andrew Cooper* Public Works Architect, Oertel Architects Tim Kieffer* Public Works Director, Golden Valley Dustin Phillips Pre-Con & Estimation Kraus/Anderson Sue Schwalbe* Physical Development Assistant, Golden Valley Michael Healy* Police Planner, BKV Group Modified Public Meeting Protocols Followed Throughout the minutes, Task Force members will be referred to by their initials as listed above. December 15, 2020 – 3:30 pm Virtual WebEx Meeting 7800 Golden Valley Road City of Golden Valley Facilities Study Task Force Meeting Minutes Dec 15, 2020 – 3:30 pm 2 Action items referenced within discussion notes are indicated in bold. Approval of Minutes: 11/17/20 Task Force Meeting Minutes, motion by Gary Cohen seconded by Tierre Webster Discussion: 1. Review of Questions Received from Task Force a. Review of questions received by the City from Task Force members in between meetings, as included as a memo attachment to this meeting’s agenda. i. No additional clarifications requested. ii. Re: benchmark projects: GC noted that many civic facilities are accessible from the outside via drives and lots, and that can be a starting point for Task Force members to see facilities in other communities. a. Bruce Schwartzman, BKV, also noted that it would be helpful for the Task Force to consider vision and appearance as they visit and as we share reference projects throughout this process. While design is not a part of this space needs study, the report will include recommendations for implementation, and may want to include insights this group and others have for long-term vision. 2. Update on Community Engagement a. BKV and HKGi provided a summary of active Phase I community engagement, all available through the City’s website and project-specific webpage and community engagement webpages http://www.goldenvalleymn.gov/government/buildings/facilities-study.php and https://www.goldenvalleymn.gov/newsarchive/index.php/2020/12/11/city- looking-for-public-input-on-facilities-study/ i. Introduction to Facilities Study Video ii. Phase I Survey iii. Discussion: there was discussion about these efforts bo th through direct dialogue during the video meeting and through the meeting’s chat function, where Marc Nevinski provided responses real-time. Questions included: a. (SB) What channels and frequency of communication are being used to let residents know about these engagement opportunities? Chery Weiler: the process was announced in the city-wide Sept/Oct and Nov/Dec City of Golden Valley newsletters, in the Sun Post, and on CCX. Marc Nevinski was also interviewed on CCX Community Connect, and referenced this process. Information City of Golden Valley Facilities Study Task Force Meeting Minutes Dec 15, 2020 – 3:30 pm 3 has also be sent out via the City’s social media, where it will be referenced again as the survey remains open. i. Task Force members were encourage to share and repost the announcements via their own social media, and to share via word of mouth with other residents. ii. SB asked whether GV churches would be willing to promote during their announcements and whether it could be mentioned in the Golden Valley Country Club newsletter, and GR noted her involvement with the League of Women Voters, encouraging other TF members to bring this up within their social, cultural, and professional groups. There was general agreement that using every available channel would be useful. b. (GC) Can the video be played on CCX to increase visibility? Cheryl Weiler: Yes; the City will reach out to work on this. c. (GR) How can this process be equitable for those residents who do not have access to technology re: website and online survey? Responses from Cheryl and Marc: the City will work on how best to provide this, potentially by providing physical copies of the survey at the service counter in Public Safety, as this is the city facility currently with the broadest operating hours. Information about the process can also be shared through a postcard mailing to residents, which would be in addition to the mentions made in the bi-monthly newsletter. d. (BS) What number of responses are we seeking/anticipating? Susan: There is no specific number, rather a goal to ensure representation across the city’s demographics. The survey includes optional demographic questions, and responses will be reviewed to identify any demographic groups to be reached through additional outreach. Bruce: It is key for Task Force members to share their excitement in the project to help increase awareness and commitment to participating. For a city of Golden Valley’s size, it would not be unreasonable to achieve 1,000 responses. e. (AJ) Could a change in marketing increase the likelihood of response – i.e. making it sound more exciting, or use language that would entice people to participate and contribute by connecting it to resident’s priorities? Example given in the chat “Help Shape the Future of Golden Valley” City of Golden Valley Facilities Study Task Force Meeting Minutes Dec 15, 2020 – 3:30 pm 4 Cheryl: Yes, the project’s communications team will work on this as marketing continues. Task Force members are encouraged to email Cheryl with their ideas for language. f. (GC) Can you add a “anticipated time to finish” line to the survey introduction? Susan Morgan: yes, this is possible. Note: As of 12/17, this information has been added to the survey. b. Key Stakeholder Engagement: In addition to focused dialogue with key city departments at the core of this project, and in addition to the broad community- wide engagement, the project will also reach out to key community stakeholders that might be impacted by the project’s phased implementation, neighbors immediately adjacent to the project site, and those whose voice and representation could contribute to development of the project’s program. i. Work on this is ongoing, and the Task Force was encouraged to consider and identify other stakeholders to be approached. The project team is already planning touchpoints with: a. Hennepin County Library b. Golden Valley Business Council c. Calvary Center d. McDonald’s ii. Questions/suggestions: a. (SB) How about the Golden Valley Shopping Center? Marc: will be included, yes. Their site is not a part of this study, but is included in the overall planning included in the Downtown Study (currently in Phase III). b. (BS) A key part of the Golden Valley city center is the Post Office. It is a high activity location. The city block currently turns its back to the post office, though the post office naturally turns inward. Will they be included in stakeholder outreach? Bruce: Some form of discussion may be possible, but the likelihood of changes or broader collaboration can be more difficult with federal stakeholders. Marc: The post office used to be located on the municipal block many years ago; there is a history of dialogue between the city and the post office that can continue. c. (KS) Engage public transit, especially given potential future planning for busing and light rail that will impact downtown Golden Valley. d. (CS) Connect through schools to parents, to gain insights into needs and value of places for kids and families, for community space to be included in the planning. Referenced Meadowbrook City of Golden Valley Facilities Study Task Force Meeting Minutes Dec 15, 2020 – 3:30 pm 5 Elementary and Hopkins School District. GR noted she is the city council representative to both of these groups, and can provide connection; also noted value of outreach also to private schools and included a reference to the Perpich School for the Arts. 3. Building Audit Summary a. The project team shared an overview and highlight summary of the team’s visit to and evaluation of the physical facilities included in this study, identifying key issues with each building, and impacts to operations and service. In general, the city maintains their buildings very well, so there were no major issues with building exteriors or interiors; mechanical and electrical systems are in many cases original to buildings, and as such are at end of life and for which replacement parts are no longer available. The primary challenge with most facilities is how their size and layout were designed for different eras of service and operations, which now represent constraints for contemporary practices and workflow, and are undersized for current equipment and vehicles. b. Facility summaries provided for: City Hall, Public Safety (including the Police Department and Fire Station #1), Public Works (including (3) facilities on civic campus, and the offsite cold storage at 10th St), Fire Station #2, Fire Station #3 c. Questions and dialogue: i. (KB) Why does Golden Valley have a DMV in our City Hall? How much does it cost the city? Marc: it is a service the city has found of value to its residents, with compliments received about the convenience and service. It does generate enough revenue to be a net add. Sue Virnig: The DMV has been within the city for a long time, and the city eventually purchased the rights for it to be housed within City Hall. It helps lower taxes to have it co-located. Sue offered to provide a financial summary for the Task Force but noted that its revenue covers its rent and the cost of all employees. Bruce: It is a convenience for citizen’s to have this co- located with other civic functions and services. ii. (SB) Is having enough meeting space for staff an issue in City Hall or Public Safety? Susan: This is a known issue at both facilities, and will be understood in more detail during programming meetings with city departments. iii. (SB) Has there been an analysis of changes to how people will work in the future, post-COVID re: work from home? Susan: As part of our detailed analysis and surveys with staff, we will understand the city’s evolving understanding and incorporate it into our program projections. Marc: There is a lot of speculation about what the work and office environment will look like, and there is no clear conclusion at this time, though the city City of Golden Valley Facilities Study Task Force Meeting Minutes Dec 15, 2020 – 3:30 pm 6 anticipates it will not simply return to ways of pre-COVID working. Andrew Cooper: Public Works, Police, and Fire are all ‘in-the-field’ essential services, and will continue to have to work in the field, and from points of equipment and resource mobilization at municipal facilities. iv. (MM) Does the city currently own the structures and properties at the Public Works cold storage facility at 10th St? Tim Kieffer: Yes, the city owns this property. [Andrew Cooper noted, in presentation of audit summaries for this site that the total property owned is larger in size than the usable area, given adjacent wetland]. v. (BS) There is a structure by Brookview Golf Course. Is this owned by the City? Is it Public Works? Multiple: This is a city-owned structure used by Parks and Recreation related to the golf course. It is one of the structures excluded from the study as there are no known needs at this time. vi. (KS) Is the city planning on keeping the 10th St property? Andrew: That is not known at this time, and will be considered as part of this project as the city looks at a goal of consolidating Public Works facilities. vii. (GC) A reminder that fire stations #2 and #3 are used as polling stations. Also, poll workers at these locations have identified how non-ideal these locations are. Susan: This was discussed during our building audit walkthroughs as an issue re: space, parking, and vehicle access issues between fire trucks and passenger vehicles. Understanding the city’s needs for distributed polling stations will be taken into account during our program development. Dedicated space for public usage would be required so there are no conflicts with regular fire operations. viii. (MM) Regarding the public works buildings, when will an environmental study be performed to identify issues requiring remediation? Andrew: That level of study is not a part of this project, but will need to occur as the city implements recommendations in the future. Public works sites are known to have issues, given their use type, and in this case, the age of the facilities, built when design and engineering requirements were different. Bruce: It would be a good idea, at a high level, to engage an environmental specialist to help identify a range of potential remediation costs, for inclusion in budget development. This would allow the team to acknowledge, in the final report and recommendations, the steps and potential costs associated with this work in advance of redevelopment of public works sites. Next Meeting: 1. Task Force: Tuesday, January 19th 3:30 – 5:30pm. City of Golden Valley Facilities Study Task Force Meeting Minutes Dec 15, 2020 – 3:30 pm 7 ATTEST: _________________________________ Marc Nevinski, Staff Liasion Respectfully submitted, Marc Nevinski, Physical Development Director