2021-04-23REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 1:00 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 Council 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
Kelly Naylor City Hall Planner, BKV Group
Craig Carter* Fire Planner, BKV Group
Margaret Lafferty City Hall Planner, BKV Group
April 23, 2021 – 1:00 pm
Virtual WebEx Meeting
7800 Golden Valley Road
City of Golden Valley Facilities Study Task Force Meeting Minutes
April 23, 2021 – 1:00 pm
2
Modified Public Meeting Protocols Followed
Throughout the minutes, Task Force members will be referred to by their initials as listed
above.
Action items referenced within discussion notes are indicated in bold.
Approval of Minutes: Not included in this session, as a reschedule of the April 20th Task Force
Meeting.
Discussion:
NOTE 1: Tuesday, April 20th was the date for the returned verdict in the Derek Chauvin trial re:
George Floyd. The Tuesday meeting was abbreviated to a thirty-minute duration to
acknowledge the energy and attention regarding the news. A follow up was rescheduled as
closely as possible to provide the detailed content review originally intended for the 20th, in
advance of the go-live of the community engagement website.
NOTE 2: The meeting largely centered on a review and comments for the in-process community
engagement website. The team incorporated these comments into website revisions before
going live; where detailed responses were provided they are noted below, otherwise comments
were noted and carried into revisions.
1. Review of Community Engagement digital website.
a. KS: Provide larger dots on the Site Use Strategy drawings to ensure the content
and legends are clear.
b. GC: Label the water tower, as people may not recognize as an element. Label
new streets. Add compass directions.
i. GR: Consider labeling car/bike/pedestrian use.
c. KS: Focus in the larger plans: label McDonald’s to remain.
d. Scenarios on website:
i. KS: Tag Schemes A/B/C/D.
ii. KB: Website functionality isn’t working re: drag and drop comment tags.
Is it possible to highlight which scheme is currently being displayed?
1. BH: Provided onscreen walkthrough of use; noted the team would
review issues re: Apple v. Windows devices. Task Force members
questioned whether there may be an issue with iPads. Team to
review.
iii. BSm: Re: Option B: Don’t be too specific with the language about
development – leave all as Multi-Family rather than specifying where
Affordable Housing might be at this stage.
1. GR: City policy requires a mix of development. Agree that this
should be left open for now.
City of Golden Valley Facilities Study Task Force Meeting Minutes
April 23, 2021 – 1:00 pm
3
iv. BSa: Numbers for buildings do not stay the same from scheme to scheme
on legend. This is confusing.
1. BS: There are no numbers on the overview drawings because
there is no legend.
v. KB: What is a woonerf? Define or remove.
1. MN: Exists at the West End.
2. SM: Will revise and simplify language.
vi. KB: Could the new Public Works and Fire Station #2 be co-located?
1. CC: These are not incompatible uses; co-location would hinge on
having a parcel large enough to accommodate the space needs
and vehicle movement and access requirements. Public Works is
more flexible in where it can be located within the City, but Fire
Station #2 must be located to geography that is compatible with
the Downtown Fire Station to meet response time requirements
for the City.
vii. GC: Emphasize the priorities more, graphically.
viii. BSa: Too confusing to refer to it as Fire Station #2.
1. GR: ‘Remote’ would be useful.
2. GC: ‘Consolidated?’
3. BSa: ‘Downtown’ and ‘__?__’
4. KS: ‘Future’ and ‘New’?
5. SM: Will revise to refer to this as Remote Fire Station.
ix. KB: Re: Scenario timeline: Did not know that Fire Station #2 was a
priority.
1. JC: Paid on call model is too difficult to find staff re: time and
availability given increased demands of business, family and fire
life. The department is facing challenges of recruiting and
retaining fire fighters so the transition to the duty crew model is
imperative. If the department waits until the point of failure to
make the transition there may not be people available to hire, and
could require adding full time staff, which would be expensive.
The goal is to make this transition before the point of failure, and
to provide a department which is right-sized and right-staffed.
2. MN: This facility is a priority because it enables the operational
transition.
3. Also noted: list the Fire Department operational transition as a
distinct priority in the project priority list.
x. KB: For the four options on the overall site there is no legend.
1. GR: BS and BSa noted this previously.
xi. KS, BS, GR, and BSa: Questions on how to navigate Social Pinpoint re:
comments, pop-ups, and highlighting the active option.
1. BH: Will review the capacity of the platform and reach out to the
developer.
City of Golden Valley Facilities Study Task Force Meeting Minutes
April 23, 2021 – 1:00 pm
4
xii. GR: Will there be a way to view and respond to content physically, for
Calvary residents and others?
1. BH: There will also be a physical version available at Public Safety.
xiii. CW: Outlined the marketing and social media strategy.
xiv. BSa: Is there a way to build excitement and energy about the rollout?
1. Other Task Force members: a video clip guide to using the site? A
tutorial?
2. CW: We could do this if it is valuable. MN: Will review and discuss.
xv. GR: Include links to the previous videos
1. CW: City’s welcome page for this will include links to the previous
videos.
Next Meeting:
1. Task Force: Tuesday, June 2nd 3:30pm.
ATTEST:
Marc Nevinski, Staff Liasion
Respectfully submitted,
Marc Nevinski, Physical Development Director