Loading...
2021-01-19 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 3:32 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. January 19, 2021 – 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: 12/15/2020 Task Force Meeting Minutes, motion by Karen Boehne seconded by Marc Meirovitz. Discussion: 1. Review Study Schedule a. (BSa) it looks like the space program should be done about now, is that close to being complete and how will the task force weigh in on that? i. There will be a time to engage with the task force and with the public on the space program, and so after the team circles back with each city department the findings will be shared with the task force. b. (KB) The planning options and cost estimates should go hand-in-hand – for things to be fully transparent, it seems like it would make sense for residents to know the facts and figures behind the planning options. i. There will be some overlap between those two parts of the process, and while more definitive cost analysis will happen later in the project towards April, as the team develops planning concepts they will work with broad cost estimates for the different options, which will be a part of the conversation with the task force and the public as those options are refined. ii. KB: Residents may also want some more specific details related to quantitative information related to the issues – how narrow is the corridor, how wide are the fire engines vs. the door opening sizes, etc. a. This information will also be shared in more detail in the space programming phase – this is part of the process that we are discovering as we go on. b. Gary Cohen: The plainer and more approachable we can make the issues by using real life examples the more people can feel that better sense of transparency. 2. Review Community Engagement Survey Results a. (GR) Something that should be added to this is the idea of secure public spaces, and maintaining safety for everyone in the civic spaces. b. (BSa) Were there any surprises for the planners in the responses? i. The ranking in terms of importance the different considerations a nd driving elements seemed to be confusing to survey takers, so clearing those ideas up going forward is something we’ll work on. c. (KB) Who are the stakeholders? City of Golden Valley Facilities Study Task Force Meeting Minutes Dec 15, 2020 – 3:30 pm 3 i. People who are using the city facilities, who have some kind of interest in something happening downtown, from people who go there to use to DMV or other services but also the person who lives in Golden Valley and pays taxes but doesn’t go to city hall. ii. (KB) Should the community come before the stakeholders? The community would seem to be the ones who would make the key decisions, especially if they live nearby and are the ones who pay taxes. iii. (GC) For some of the data about how often people use City Hall, is it worth considering that the numbers could be swayed by the fact that City Hall has been closed for the last 10 months? a. That definitely could have an effect, especially when someone considers the responses related to the DMV usage. d. One thing of note was the demand for more online options at City Hall, which was surprising to the planning team. e. (SB): Is there a goal to have more people come to City Hall? A revenue goal? Are we trying to draw more people to downtown to spend more money? Or is it just to have something nice as opposed to revenue? i. One of the assumptions too is that city hall has some services you can’t get anywhere else, i.e. DMV, building permits, public meetings, voting, etc. and having that activity in the downtown area attracts more activity, which could help lead to more development and commercial spending. At the same time, better use of the downtown space could consolidate civic functions and create more attractive public spaces, while also freeing up land for private investment. ii. Asking these questions also just helps to understand how the citizens use city hall and the other civic functions, and as the planning process continues will help to inform what the goals should be, i.e. focusing on bringing in more people to city hall vs. creating space for private investment. iii. GR: Additionally, there are some needs for greater accommodations at time in City Hall, such as times when contentious issues are being discussed by council or at candidate forums, etc. when having enough space for the public to observe and participate is a challenge. f. (KS): Have we considered consolidating all functions into one building, and have we allowed room for the program to change based on changes that may come to space usage after COVID ends and space needs change? i. The program is always qualified to be subject to change as necessary, and although the program should be close, when the actual time comes to build it would be important to also revisit the programming recommendations from this project. City of Golden Valley Facilities Study Task Force Meeting Minutes Dec 15, 2020 – 3:30 pm 4 ii. There is also a limit to the efficiency of bringing all functions together, although this is an option we are looking into, due to functional needs of different spaces and their lifecycles. There’s also a limit to the efficiency of construction and cost as things are consolidated. From the standpoint of Golden Valley, it also becomes difficult given the city’s need to implement changes in phases due to cost. a. The emergency movement of police and fire can also complicate this effort, although we are looking for combinations and spatial efficiencies where possible. g. Key Takeaways i. (GR) One thing historically is that library and city hall were once collocated, so that would be a bit like coming full circle. Additionally, the original intent of creating the civic campus was to try to create efficiencies, and so are there more efficiencies to be gained and what could we lose by separating facilities? ii. (KS) Do we get more contribution from the DMV the more people they serve, and has that been a factor in the planning concepts so far? a. While the revenue from the DMV is an overhead income, the more they serve the more money we would be able to get from them for the general fund. iii. (AJ) Based on this group’s survey, will there be another survey? a. Yes, there will be another survey, related more to the different options being developed as they are being refined, although the survey and the response types have yet to be determined and could still incorporate write in responses and other questions that could address any shortcomings in the first survey’s results. 3. Review of Stakeholder Meetings a. Engagement with the Post Office and MNDOT i. It’s a possibility that could be explored more but they’re less easy to work with. Same goes for MNDOT. There are some opportunities, but it’s also a question of priorities, especially when other entities are more receptive to partnerships and collaborations. 4. Next Steps a. Finalize Department Programs b. Develop Preliminary Site Planning Strategies c. Plan and Market Community Engagement Phase II City of Golden Valley Facilities Study Task Force Meeting Minutes Dec 15, 2020 – 3:30 pm 5 Chat Readout: Karen Boehne: I think Cost Estimates and Planning Options should go hand in hand. Karen Boehne: Who are the stakeholders? Sue Virnig: The DMV contributes $82,000 to the General Fund. Andy Johnson: Based on this group’s feedback, will there be another survey? Karen Boehne: People have mentioned the post office being better incorporated to me. Is this a possibility? Brian Smith: I believe this was discussed in one of the previous meetings. Theh post office is its own entity and likely to remain. Tierre Webster: As we’re considering facilities, do we have population/demographic projections over the next 15-20 years? If so, can I see those documents? Brian Smith: The city did have a comprehensive housing study completed a few years ago by Maxfield Research that would have population and household projections. Not sure how far out but could be to 2040. There is a link to the study on the City web page under the city planning page under the 2040 Comprehensive plan housing section. Gillian Rosenquist: The City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan also has some information about Metropolitan Council predictions for growth and needs. Next Meeting: 1. Task Force: Tuesday, January 19th 3:30 – 5:30pm. ATTEST: _________________________________ Marc Nevinski, Staff Liasion Respectfully submitted, Marc Nevinski, Physical Development Director