02-14-23 City Council Work Session Agenda - revised February 14, 2023 — 6:30 PM
Council Conference Room
Hybrid Meeting
1.Remote Fire Station Site Selection Discussion
2.Council Review of Future Draft Agendas
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION AGENDA
City Council Work Sessions are being conducted in a hybrid format with in-person and remote options
for attending.
Remote Attendance: Members of the public may attend this meeting by streaming via Webex, or by
calling 1-415-655-0001 and entering access code 2460 560 5523 . Additional information about
attending electronic meetings is available on the City website .
Discussion Item(s)
Council Work Session meetings have an informal, discussion-style format and are designed for the
Council to obtain background information, consider policy alternatives, and provide general directions
to staff. No formal actions are taken at these meetings. The public is invited to attend Council Work
Session meetings and listen to the discussion; public participation is allowed by invitation of the City
Council.
City of Golden Valley City Council Work Session February 14, 2023 — 6:30 PM
1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Community Development
763-512-2345 / 763-512-2344 (fax)
Golden Valley City Council Work Session
February 14, 2023
Agenda Item
1. Remote Fire Station Site Selection Discussion
Prepared By
Cherie Shoquist, Housing and Economic Development Manager
Summary
Background
As the Fire Department shifts to a duty crew staffing model, the need for a properly located remote
station with contemporary facilities becomes critical to serve Golden Valley residents, businesses, and
visitors. Building on the work completed in the 2021 Municipal Facilities Study, staff and the City's
architectural consultant, BKV, developed schematic plans that reflect the various operational
components of a fire station, including specific functional areas of the station and external site
requirements such as storm water management, parking, and setbacks. Potential sites for the new
station have been identified using only the established site selection criteria, which included response
time, projected acquisition cost, and buildability, among other factors.
In this process, staff and BKV identified critical commitments and station location selection priorities.
Critical Commitments:
Public Safety: Prioritize timely protection of the safety, wellbeing, and security of all Golden
Valley residents, businesses, visitors, and their property, in all areas of the city.
Firefighter Safety and Health: Respect the service and sacrifice of firefighters with facilities and
resources that meet modern best practices for firefighter safety, health, wellness, and equity.
Station Location Selection Priorities:
Maximizing Safety of Residents and Property: Facilitate prompt and consistent emergency
response to all Golden Valley residents, businesses, visitors, and their property, in all areas of
the city, with a location that complements the service area of Downtown Fire Station #1.
Stewardship of Taxpayer and Public Resources: Integrate consideration of project cost priorities
– acquisition, development, construction, operations, and maintenance – for long-term life-cycle
cost value.
Community Engagement to Date
In addition to the engagement work completed as part of the 2021 Municipal Facilities Study and
summarized in the Community Input Report , the City further engaged stakeholders during the remote
2
station analysis. Messaging about the need for a new station and the duty crew staffing model was
included in several newsletter articles and social media posts. Leadership in the Fire Department also
engaged current and retired fire fighters with a survey and discussions. Additionally, an open house
was held in late October for the public learn about reasons for the staffing model change, the need for
a new station, and to comment on the site selection criteria and potential station location. Scheid Park
was explicitly excluded as a potential station location.
At the request of a resident after the January 10, 2023 City Council Work Session, city staff worked
with BKV to provide additional analysis and identification by address and/or business name of the sites
identified in the scoring matrix. On January 27, city staff sent a letter to approximately 130 property
owners with property included in the City’s preliminary evaluation of potential sites with information
on the process, the scoring matrix, and the Open Houses. In response to resident requests for
additional information on Scheid Park and Schaper Park, city staff created storyboards on the history
of each park that is posted on the Fire Station Location Project webpage. BKV and city staff continue
to provide additional information on the Fire Station Location Project webpage at:
www.goldenvalleymn.gov/745/Fire-Station-Location-Project.
Further community engagement since the January 10, 2023 City Council Work Session includes:
January/February CityNews
January 10 Presentation Recording
Online Community Survey
February Open Houses
February 1, 4–6 pm at Brookview Golden Valley
February 2, 6–8 pm at Fire Station 3
February 9, 6–8 pm, online Via Webex
As the Council proceeds further with a short list of potential sites for the new station location this
spring, staff will engage an appraiser to determine property values and a consultant to acquire
properties and prepare relocation packages on behalf of the city. Early outreach to affected property
owners and tenants, if applicable, is also necessary to convey accurate information and build trust.
Financial or Budget Considerations
The current estimated costs associated the remote fire station are:
Acquisition/Relocation $ 4M
Design/Soft Cost $ 1M
Construction $12M
Total Estimated $17M
Staff has identified several different potential funding sources for the remote fire station:
Government Bond Bill (MMB Process) - Seeking 50% funding for pre-design and acquisition in
2023 session and construction in 2024 session
Bonding Bill (Rep. Frieberg and Sen. Rest) - Seeking $17M in 2023 session
Local Tax Levy - May need to fund 50% per State Law
Federal Funding Programs - Last funding source; Fill gaps up to 20%
Legal Considerations
None at this time. However, if the Council moves forward with a site recommendation, the City will
3
need to enter into several professional service agreements, prepare and approve purchase
agreements, and may need to use eminent domain.
Equity Considerations
A new remote fire station that supports a duty crew staffing model will enhance the delivery of
professional emergency response services to all residents, businesses, and visitors to Golden Valley.
Facilities that provide proper resources, features, and infrastructure will more fully support firefighter
health and safety as well as gender equality. Facilities that are located to timely protect the safety,
wellbeing, and security of all Golden Valley residents, businesses, visitors, and their property, will
serve all areas of the city. Property owners and tenants directly impacted by the construction of the
new station will receive just and fair compensation, as well as relocation benefits and services that
meet the requirements of the Uniform Relocation Act.
Supporting Documents
CC 2-14-23 BKV Presentation Remote Fire Station Analysis - revised
CC 2-14-23 Revised Station Location Matrix
CC 2-14-23 Development Corridor Maps
CC 2-14-23 Response vs Housing Affordability
Station Location Matrix
Scoring Guidelines Narrative
4
CITY OFGOLDEN VALLEY
Remote Fire Station Site Location
Analysis & Pre -Design
February 14 th , 2023
City Council Update
5
02/14/2023 –CITY COUNCIL UPDATE
AGENDA
1.Project Context
2.Community Engagement
Activities:
•Events & Attendance
•Feedback Received
3.Current Top Sites
4.Summary: Commercial Properties
5.Next Steps
•Questions for Consideration
6
02/14/2023 –CITY COUNCIL UPDATE
PROJECT CONTEXT
The 2021 Municipal Facilities Master Plan affirmed
the Fire Department’s transition from a paid-on-
call, three station operational model to a duty
crew, two station model to ensure continuity of
services and staffing, first identified in the 2016 Fire
Services Study.
This change is directly tied to the need for
facilities with the resources and components to
support 24/7 staffing, an investment that also
supports facilities with infrastructure and planning
to contribute to firefighter health and wellness.
7
02/14/2023 –CITY COUNCIL UPDATE
PROJECT TIMELINE
FIRE STATION LOCATION ANALYSIS:
•Pre-design for New Station:
•Development of a space program with conceptual site
and floor plans to facilitate updated cost estimation.
•Site Location Analysis:
•Objective evaluation of potential station location sites,
providing complimentary response time coverage to that
of Downtown Fire Station #1.
-2023
8
02/14/2023 –CITY COUNCIL UPDATE
OVERARCHING COMMITMENTS AND PRIORITIES
CRITICAL COMMITMENTS:
•Public Safety: Prioritize timely protection of the safety, wellbeing, and
security of all Golden Valley residents, businesses, visitors, and their
property, in all areas of the city.
•Firefighter Safety and Health:Respect the service and sacrifice of
firefighters with facilities and resources that meet modern best
practices for firefighter safety, health, wellness, and equity.
STATION LOCATION SELECTION PRIORITIES:
•Maximize Safety of Residents and Property: Facilitate prompt and
consistent emergency response to all Golden Valley residents,
businesses, visitors, and their property, in all areas of the city, with a
location that complements the service are of Downtown Fire Station
#1.
•Stewardship of Taxpayer and Public Resources:Integrate
consideration of project cost priorities –acquisition, development,
construction, operations, and maintenance –for long-term life-cycle
cost value.
9
02/14/2023 –CITY COUNCIL UPDATE
SITE LOCATION ANALYSIS & PRE-DESIGN OBJECTIVES
•Enable Project Momentum Towards Implementation
•Refine Program and Site Space Requirements
•Employ Objective Site Selection Criteria to Identify
Potential Appropriate Sites for New Station
•Inform Updated Project Cost of Development
•Develop Sufficient Content to Support State Bond
Funding Request
10
02/14/2023 –CITY COUNCIL UPDATE
WORK-TO-DATE
PRE-DESIGN: August 2022 -now
•Key Stakeholder Engagement:
•The project has engaged City and Fire
Department leadership as a core
working group throughout the process.
•Listening sessions with active Firefighters.
•Survey of current and former firefighters.
•Updated Space Program:
•Space program from 2021 Master Plan
is the foundation for this project.
•Updates to spaces, sizes, and critical
features based on Fire Department
input.Fire Station Program Summary
Full Space Program includes itemized space needs
for each category listed.
Developed in direct collaboration with the Golden
Valley Fire Department, referencing current codes,
regulations, and best practices
11
02/14/2023 –CITY COUNCIL UPDATE
SITE LOCATION ANALYSIS:
Oct 2022 following Open Houses -now
•Site Location Analysis:
•Development of Site Selection Criteria.
•Mapping of Historic Calls.
•GIS Analysis of existing and potential
sites re: NFPA recommended 4-minute
response time.
•Utilization of Site Scoring Matrix to track
analysis of potential sites through
multiple rounds of review.
•Review of analysis outcomes with City
staff, including preliminary dialogue
about sites constraints and challenges,
including site-specific issues with
planning, zoning, and acquisition.
WORK-TO-DATE
•Community Engagement:
•October 2022: Open Houses
•February 2023: Open Houses
•Jan –Feb 2023: Digital and Print Survey
•Ongoing: Resident attendance at City
Council meetings; letters/emails to
Councilmembers and City staff
12
02/14/2023 –CITY COUNCIL UPDATE
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
Community Engagement related to the Fire
Department’s necessary evolution has been in
process since the 2016 Fire Services Study.
Just prior to this Study, a resident and business
Task Force and multiple rounds and methods of
Community Engagement were included in the
2021 Municipal Master Plan, with specific areas of
focus around the Fire Department transition and
facilities.
Following this study commencement in August of
2022, Public Open Houses were hosted in October
of 2022 prior to the start of specific site analysis.
13
02/14/2023 –CITY COUNCIL UPDATE
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: EVENTS & ATTENDANCE
OPEN HOUSES OPEN HOUSES SURVEY
October 2022 February 2023 Jan-Feb 2023
•(2) In-Person Events: (1)
Weekday Evening and (1)
Weekend Daytime
•Approximate Total Attendees:
95
•Core Purpose: Outline Project
Purpose & Approach
•Core Inquiry: Input on Site
Selection Criteria
•(3) Events: (2) In-Person, (1)
Digital
•Approximate Total Attendees:
144
•Core Purpose: Share Analysis
Approach, Preliminary
Outcomes, & Forum for
Resident Inquiries
•Core Inquiry: Input on
Preliminary Analysis Outcomes
•Online Survey. Also available in
print at Open Houses and upon
request.
•Open through 2/21
•Responses to Date: 336
•Core Inquiry: Resident Feedback
on Guiding Principle and Site
Criteria Prioritization to Support
Council Discernment for Shortlist
14
02/14/2023 –CITY COUNCIL UPDATE
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: BOARDS PRESENTED –INTRO FROM OCTOBER
15
02/14/2023 –CITY COUNCIL UPDATE
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: BOARDS PRESENTED –INTRO FROM OCTOBER
16
02/14/2023 –CITY COUNCIL UPDATE
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: BOARDS PRESENTED –NEW IN FEBRUARY
17
02/14/2023 –CITY COUNCIL UPDATE
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: BOARDS PRESENTED –NEW IN FEBRUARY
18
02/14/2023 –CITY COUNCIL UPDATE
SITE SELECTION CRITERIA
•Objective Site Selection Criteria were affirmed as a critical
component of project process by City Council.
•BKV Group contributed to development of site criteria based on
similar fire department site analysis projects.
•Site Criteria were refined in dialogue with City Council, City Staff
and Fire Department leadership, and shared with the public for
input prior to utilization.
•Analysis utilizing site criteria facilitated preliminary comparative
analysis of each site’s capacity, challenges, and extent of
fulfilling project objectives.
•City Council’s direction on development of a potential shortlist
of sites will include a combination of the site criteria and
additional considerations.
19
02/14/2023 –CITY COUNCIL UPDATE
SITE SELECTION CRITERIA
20
02/14/2023 –CITY COUNCIL UPDATE
•Concern for impact on residential
neighborhoods:
•Seeking clarity on how much land/how many
parcels are required. Reference to handouts at
Open Houses –parcel quantity varies with
geometry and access.
•Loss of family homes (lives, memories, investment)
•Perspective that Neighborhood Impact was not
appropriately weighted in the Site Criteria
•Erosion of neighborhood fabric and quality,
especially re: scale, style, history, and overall
neighborhood character.
•Concern that eminent domain would be the first
approach to acquisition.
•Property value impact from Fire Station in the
neighborhood: quantity and compensate.
•Inquiry into MAC-style improvements for directly
adjacent neighbors if new Fire Station is located
in a residential neighborhood.
•Concerns about ongoing Fire Department
operations re: noise, disruption, pedestrian safety.
•Questions about when siren usage is required.
OPEN HOUSES:
Core Themes:
•General Notes:
•Highly engaged participants.
•A mix of those familiar with the project and
current activities and those previously unaware
and looking to understand project origins and
steps from beginning until today.
•A mix of residents both new to Golden Valley and
some with multi-generational history.
•A mix of demographics and household types.
•A mix of residents from different parts of the city,
from within and outside the study area, including
those near existing Fire Stations #2 and #3 and
those from the western and eastern edges of the
city.
•Some attendees advocated for continued action
re: process began in 2016 and still in planning
stages; others advocated for sufficientanalysis,
consideration by Council, and continued
community engagement.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: OPEN HOUSE FEEDBACK
21
02/14/2023 –CITY COUNCIL UPDATE
•Feasibility of re-purposing and expanding
existing either Fire Stations #2 and #3:
•Insufficient site capacity for expansion; response-
times do not rank as highly as other sites re:
compatibility with service area of Downtown Fire
Station #1.
•Questions from currently adjacent neighbors about
potential loss of coverage, if new Fire Station is
located elsewhere and existing coverage is
reduced.
•Costs
•Fire Department operating costs: cost and duration
to train new firefighters when there is attrition;
annual cost for full-time staffing if operational and
facility transition is not made if current paid-on-call
model can’t maintain required staff levels.
•Tax impacts to residents for project funding.
•Tax impacts if project pursues the higher cost
commercial property acquisition and relocation.
•Tax relief for neighbors if new Fire Station is built in a
residential neighborhood.
•Opportunities to utilize commercial properties:
•Resident perception that no commercial properties
were still in consideration. Reference to matrix and
maps; properties still in consideration. Note that the
City may direct analysis of additional properties.
•Inquiry into alternate, non-private properties such as
churches and parks –options that facilitate non-
residential site selection.
•Interest in ensuring the City evaluates residential and
commercial properties equally: “Their No Seems
More Important Than Ours.”
•Focused inquiry about MnDOT site and whether
sufficient effort had been made to acquire the site.
Also inquiry as to whether it could be subject to
eminent domain by the City.
•Re-acquire sites sold to others (Tesla etc.)
•Traffic and Safety:
•Concern for Fire Department operations impact on
pedestrian, child, biker safety.
•Impact to areas of existing traffic challenges: speed
and accidents along Golden Valley Road east of
Highway 100, morning and afternoon drop-off at
Meadowbrook Elementary School.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: OPEN HOUSE FEEDBACK
22
02/14/2023 –CITY COUNCIL UPDATE
•Miscellaneous Questions and Comments:
•Reference to parcel that contains a group home;
concern for resident relocation and impact.
•Interest in understanding the origins of the Site
Selection Criteria –who developed them (residents
or city staff?) and have they been used before?
•Concern about objectivity and balance of
weighted values for Site Selection Criteria; many
noted Neighborhood Impact was undervalued
and that Relative Costs should be more specific
and transparent.
•Residents who had taken the survey felt it was
biased because it did not allow residents to self
score across all site criteria.
Planning team noted that input on Site Criteria
overall was requested during the October Open
House and that this survey was specifically
designed for residents to provide input to support
Council’s review of a future shortlist when two sites
might have similar overall rankings and prioritization
of key criteria could aid in discernment.
•Response-Time Coverage:
•Specific inquiries from residents in the northeast and
southeast parts of the city, those identified in
response-time mapping as having future coverage
potentially reduced from today.
•Questions about coverage from surrounding Fire
Departments (re: mutual aid). Noted that NFPA
guidelines reference Fire Service coverage within a
city’s boundaries by their own department, versus
accounting for coverage from adjacent
departments.
•Curiosity about how the proposed 2-station model
and response times would be impacted by future
multi-family and senior housing development –those
in-process and those likely to occur in the future as
the city’s density increases.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: OPEN HOUSE FEEDBACK
23
02/14/2023 –CITY COUNCIL UPDATE
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: OPEN HOUSE FEEDBACK -DIGITAL
KEY QUESTIONS:
•Are the operational transition and facility
consolidation and investments necessary –i.e.
Would they address the hiring and retention issues
noted? Can investments in existing sites/stations
address the issues? (Referenced Example:
Bloomington Fire).
•Do NFPA recommendations for 4-Minute Travel
Time apply even though GVFD largely responds to
Medical Calls? Related question re: applicability
of NFPA 1710 instead of 1720.
•Is a 2-Story station still possible and in
consideration?
•What is the relationship between the Downtown
Fire Station and the proposed new station –
Response Time? Operations?
•How much of the project cost will be born by
taxpayers?
•Are there planning options that can ensure zero
displacement of residents?
•What was the project process: timeline,
development of site criteria, prior input from
residents?
•To what degree would operations impact
neighbors? Noise? Lights and sirens? Disruption
from Training?
•Which commercial (and non-residential)
properties have been considered? States Electric?
Ball Field at Shaper Park? MnDOT? Spring Gate
Mall? Resideo?
•Could the new station be located at Douglas and
Duluth? Re: Coverage, Response Time, Access to
Highway 100
•What was the process to select BKV Group? What
are the team’s qualifications? Should the City
engage another consultant for a second opinion?
24
02/14/2023 –CITY COUNCIL UPDATE
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: SURVEY FEEDBACK
RESPONDENTS
•336 Respondents
•93.87% Residents
•5.83% Business Owners
•14.42% Active or Former
Firefighters
Note: A majority of active firefighters
are Golden Valley Residents
RELIABLE: The Fire Department Should Show Up
When I Call
CONSISTENT: The Fire Department Should
Provide The Same Level of Service To All
Residents and Properties
RESPONSIVE: The Fire Department Should Arrive
as Quickly as Possible
PREPARED: The Fire Department Has Specific Equip.
and Personnel for My Call “First on Scene”
PRIORITIES FOR FIRE
DEPARTMENT SERVICE
25
02/14/2023 –CITY COUNCIL UPDATE
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: SURVEY FEEDBACK
PRIORITIZE
GUIDING PRINCIPLES
•Facilitate Safe, Effective, Efficient
Public Safety Operations
•Ranked #1 Overall
•Ranked #1 by 51.2%
•Ranked Highest Overall
•Provide Fiscally Responsible
Investment
•Ranked #1 by 16.6%
•Ranked Third Overall
•Be a Respectful Neighbor
•Ranked #1 by 32.6%
•Ranked Second Overall
When two highly-ranked sites rank differently,
which of the two guiding principles would you
rank as most important?
Safe and Effective
Operations over
Fiscal Responsibility
Safe and Effective
Operations over
Respecting
Neighbors
Respecting
Neighbors over
Fiscal Responsibility
76%
24%
58%
42%
38%
62%
This set of (3) questions was skipped
by 30 people
26
02/14/2023 –CITY COUNCIL UPDATE
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: SURVEY FEEDBACK
“Your input will help the City evaluate
the top-ranked sites before
proceeding further.”
This set of (5) questions was skipped
by 48 people
NOTE: Question 10 is Shown Here on
Both Pages as it Contains both the
Location and the Neighborhood
Impact Core Inquiries
PRIORITIZE
SITE CRITERIA
Q7: Location (Amount
of Total City Covered)
over Relative Cost
(Overall)
Q9: Location (Overall)
over Relative Cost
(Overall)
Q10: Neighborhood
Impact over Location
(Amount of Total City
Covered)
67%
33%
69%
31%
51%
49%
27
02/14/2023 –CITY COUNCIL UPDATE
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: SURVEY FEEDBACK
“Your input will help the City evaluate
the top-ranked sites before
proceeding further.”
This set of (5) questions was skipped
by 48 people
NOTE: Question 10 is Shown Here on
Both Pages as it Contains both the
Location and the Neighborhood
Impact Core Inquiries
PRIORITIZE
SITE CRITERIA
Q8: Neighborhood
Impact over Civic
Presence/Recruitment
Q11: Neighborhood
Impact over Relative
Cost (Overall)
Q10: Neighborhood
Impact over Location
(Amount of Total City
Covered)
32%
68%
38%
62%
51%
49%
28
02/14/2023 –CITY COUNCIL UPDATE
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: SURVEY FEEDBACK
OPEN-ENDED FEEDBACK:
141 Responses from Short Sentences to
Full Paragraphs
•Core Themes:
•Minimize disruptions to all property owners, where
possible.
•Do not displace residents as part of this project.
•Preference for Commercial Property utilization,
even if it is a higher total cost.
•Cost should not be prioritized over families and
communities.
•Prioritize the safety of residents and their property.
•A Park, or Scheid Park is preferred over residential
properties, would meet response time needs, and
would allow the City to build on their own land
without taking property from residents. Invest in
park improvements to offset the changes to the
park.
•A suitable location that provides safe and
effective service and also is respectful of its
neighbors is more important than cost.
•Consider the character and feel of Golden Valley
(a town, not a city) and how best to preserve this.
•Expedite a decision so that residents are not left
wondering whether their specific property is in
consideration.
•Strong opposition to the use of eminent domain.
•Ensuring safe and effective fire department
operations should be a priority.
•Concern for equitable service for residents of all
demographics.
•Subject to final location, commit to traffic
management measures that ensure the safety of
residents.
29
02/14/2023 –CITY COUNCIL UPDATE
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: LETTERS FROM RESIDENTS
LETTERS FROM RESIDENTS: incl. emails
To: City Councilmembers, City Manager, City
Project Lead and/or Fire Chief
•(14) to date shared with BKV Group following
Open Houses
•Core Themes:
•Commitment to supporting the Fire Department
and effective City service. Desire to ensure
minimal negative impacts to neighbors and
neighborhoods.
•Significant concerns for use of residential
property, and the message it conveys to residents
about how their lives, families, and property are
valued by the City.
•Hope that the City can explore alternatives to
residential property usage.
•Concerns about utilization of eminent domain.
•Inquiries into scoring methodology and weighting
of individual criteria, especially Neighborhood
Impact.
•Acknowledgement and appreciation for
proposed approach to provide fair market value
for acquisition and relocation costs for residents
who would like to stay in Golden Valley and are
potentially open to such an arrangement.
•Specific concerns from residential property
owners who purchased their homes in the recent
past with near-term strong ties to their current
homes.
•Commitment to supporting the Fire Department
and effective City service. Desire to ensure
minimal negative impacts to neighbors and
neighborhoods.
30
02/14/2023 –CITY COUNCIL UPDATE
CURRENT TOP SITES:
Two rounds of analysis have included review of 13
general site areas, 37 distinct parcel areas, and
for comparison, evaluation of existing Fire Station
#2 and #3.
Using the site criteria, evaluations have included
residential and commercial properties in each of
the three areas of evaluation within the
recommended zone of development.
31
02/14/2023 –CITY COUNCIL UPDATE
DEVELOPMENT CORRIDOR
Objectives:
•Provide complimentary
response-time coverage to that
of Downtown Fire Station #1
•Locate within one half a mile
east or west of Highway 100
to ensure coverage of the
north, east, and southeast
portions of the city
•Locate along key east-west
feeder roads for direct and
efficient access to Highway 100,
facilitating response to call
across the city.
•SOUTH: Glenwood Ave
•CENTRAL: Highway 55
•NORTH: Duluth St. / Golden
Valley Rd.
Downtown
Fire Station #1
32
02/14/2023 –CITY COUNCIL UPDATE
PARCEL SETS WITH MOST COMPLETE CITYWIDE RESPONSE TIME
SOUTH ZONE
Glenwood Ave & Xenia Ave (Site 1)
•68% of City (Land Area)
•76% of Historic Calls
•Properties:
•5701 Glenwood Ave
•5635 Glenwood Ave
Addtl. review notes parcel set is too
small re: wetland limitations
CENTRAL ZONE
Highway 55 & Shaper Rd (Site 11a)
•72% of City (Land Area)
•79% of Historic Calls
•Properties:
•Heartland Adult Daycare
•Early Childhood Family
Development Center
•Parents in Community Action
NORTH ZONE
Golden Valley Rd & Regent Ave (Site 23c)
•76% of City (Land Area)
•86% of Historic Calls
•Properties:
•1900 Regent Ave N
•4960 Duluth St
•1920 Regent Ave N
•4940 Golden Valley Rd
•4955 Sorell Ave
Green = 4-minute response time; Yellow = 5-minute response time. Total response times shown for
combined service by Downtown Fire Station #1 and a new station at the location identified.
Downtown Fire Station #1 Downtown Fire Station #1 Downtown Fire Station #1
Potential New Station
Potential
New Station
Potential
New Station
33
02/14/2023 –CITY COUNCIL UPDATE
RESPONSE TIME MAPS & RESIDENTIAL EQUITY
SOUTH ZONE
NORTH ZONE
Analysis prepared by the City of Golden Valley. Note: Response Time overlay is for a single,
centrally-located fire station. This model does not provide sufficient citywide coverage.
34
02/14/2023 –CITY COUNCIL UPDATE
RESPONSE TIME MAPS & RESIDENTIAL EQUITY
Analysis prepared by the City of Golden
Valley. Please note that Station 1 is not
represented due to lack of housing in the
immediate vicinity
35
02/14/2023 –CITY COUNCIL UPDATE
SITE SCORING MATRIX: CURRENT TOP 10 SITES
Note: In this matrix, residential sites are ranked according to their analysis during the second round, using full site crite ria.
Commercial sites are listed excluding project costs.
36
02/14/2023 –CITY COUNCIL UPDATE
CURRENT TOP 10 SITES: CRITICAL INTERSECTIONS: SOUTH
1
37
02/14/2023 –CITY COUNCIL UPDATE
CURRENT TOP 10 SITES: CRITICAL INTERSECTIONS: CENTRAL
11
38
02/14/2023 –CITY COUNCIL UPDATE
CURRENT TOP 10 SITES: CRITICAL INTERSECTIONS: NORTH
23
21
25
39
02/14/2023 –CITY COUNCIL UPDATE
SUMMARY: COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES
From the time of early studies through the Master
Plan and this Study’s community engagement,
residents have indicated a strong interest in the
utilization of commercial properties rather than
residential properties.
40
02/14/2023 –CITY COUNCIL UPDATE
SUMMARY: COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES
29 TOTAL
COMMERCIAL PARCEL
SETS EVALUATED
TO-DATE
•Parcel sets include one or more
properties located along feasible
key intersections within the identified
zone of development which would
provide complimentary coverage to
Fire Station #1.
•Parcel sets may include a single or
multiple buildings, and single or
multiple commercial property
owners or tenants.
CONSIDERATIONS:
•Relative cost of commercial property
acquisition and relocation compared to
projected Fire Station construction cost.
•Subdividing an existing commercial
property with multiple buildings or tenants
must take into account impact on code-
required parking for remaining businesses.
•Some sites have unique features that will
add to the project complexity or cost
(existing cell towers, soil remediation,
configuration that requires relocation of
existing roads, a location that requires new
MnDOT infrastructure (subject to approval).
41
02/14/2023 –CITY COUNCIL UPDATE
SUMMARY: COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES –HIGHLY DISCUSSED
RESIDEO: Intersection 27
•Pros:
•Potentially available for purchase.
•Located in an existing Commercial/Industrial Area.
•Located at a major intersection.
•Sufficient land area for Fire Station use.
•Cons:
•Response Time performance is subpar compared to other
sites. Facility is located enough west of Highway 100 that its
service area largely overlaps with that of Downtown Fire
Station #1.
•Comparatively high cost of property acquisition.
•This very large parcel may be more effectively used by the
City for other reasons.
HWY
100
RESIDEO
SITE
42
02/14/2023 –CITY COUNCIL UPDATE
SUMMARY: COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES –HIGHLY DISCUSSED
Downtown Fire
Station #1 4-Minute Travel Time Coverage
Resideo Site4-Minute Travel Time
Coverage
Downtown Site Alone:
•48.1% of City (Land Area)
•58.9% of Historic Calls
Downtown Site + Resideo:
•64.2% of City (Land Area)
•73.4% of Historic Calls
Highest-Ranked Site
Glenwood Ave:
•68% of City (Land Area)
•76% of Historic Calls
Highest-Ranked Site
Highway 55:
•72% of City (Land Area)
•79% of Historic Calls
Highest-Ranked Site
Duluth/Golden Valley Rd:
•76% of City (Land Area)
•86% of Historic Calls
43
02/14/2023 –CITY COUNCIL UPDATE
MnDOT: Intersection 25
•Pros:
•Response times are excellent.
•Public-safety use already on site (State Patrol). Could
potentially co-locate with State Patrol for long-term cost
savings and shared first costs with the State.
•Existing Commercial/Industrial area.
•Located at a major intersection.
•Cons:
•State Agencies have communicated no interest in sale or
partnership. Golden Valley City Engineer has reached out
for reconfirmation; recent response is that acquistion
remains highly unlikely, though agencies will review again.
There are plans to redevelop the entire site: retain State
Patrol and Park and Ride, with significant expansion of the
Maintenance Division.
•Site is 8 ft higher than Duluth St. and would require
exporting a significant volume of soils.
•Potential timeline for dialogue, agreements and approvals
would take, at minimum, a year, incurring an approx.
additional $1M in escalation.
SUMMARY: COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES –HIGHLY DISCUSSED
HWY
100
MnDOTSITE
•If the City were able to acquire this site and
use a portion for the Fire Station, there is a
possibility the State would elect to acquire
residential parcels just to the north of the
existing site to accommodate MnDOT’s
needs.
44
02/14/2023 –CITY COUNCIL UPDATE
SUMMARY: COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES –HIGHLY DISCUSSED
Spring Gate Mall: Intersection 25
•Pros:
•Response times are excellent.
•Existing Commercial/Industrial area.
•Located at a major intersection.
•Cons:
•Very high cost of property acquisition (potential to sell
remaining portions).
•Inclusion of the gas station would trigger required
environmental cleanup.
•Lilac Drive would need to be relocated to provide sufficient
area for the station.
•Subdivision would displace existing retail businesses because
it would eliminate portions of the existing parking lot. A
majority of the existing building would be demolished.
•Walgreens could elect to relocate out of this area (visibility
impacted by new station).
•New Fire Station would require acoustically-rated windows
given adjacency to highway.
•Station would be surrounded on all sides
by car-intensive land uses, which limits the
usability of outdoor spaces for firefighter
decompression, camaraderie and
physical conditioning.
HWY
100
SPRING GATE MALL
45
02/14/2023 –CITY COUNCIL UPDATE
ADDITIONAL COMMERCIAL SITES
SUGGESTING FOR CONSIDERATION:
•Duluth Street west of Highway 100
•Already included in analysis
•King of Grace Lutheran Church
•Will be analyzed
•Commercial Property west of Byerly’s
•Already included in analysis
•Brunswick City-owned property
•Could be analyzed but is west of the recommended half-a-mile from
Highway 100 line
•Highway 55 Commercial Properties
•Already included in analysis
•Basset Creek Office Building
•Already included in analysis
46
02/14/2023 –CITY COUNCIL UPDATE
NEXT STEPS:
•Questions for Consideration
•City Council Direction to Inform Additional Exploration
•Shortlisting of Feasible, Appropriate Sites
•Direct Dialogue with Property Owners
•Conceptual Site Plan Test-Fits
•Development of Construction Cost Estimates
47
02/14/2023 –CITY COUNCIL UPDATE
QUESTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION
•Based on the Evaluation To Date, are there Sites that
Warrant More Detailed Evaluation?
•Are There Additional Sites For the Team to Analyze?
•Are There Sites to be Excluded From Further Consideration?
•If Funding is Received in 2023, is it still the Project’s Goal to
Pursue Construction Start in 2025 (Current Budget)?
If the design process does not start in 2023, this will shift the Construction Start out an
additional year, with an accompanying increase in project costs (estimated at 10% in
the current market).
48
02/14/2023 –CITY COUNCIL UPDATE
REFERENCE SLIDES
•Development Corridor Map
•Overall Matrix of Sites
•Cost Slides
49
01/10/2023 –CITY COUNCIL UPDATE
SITES EVALUATED –ACCESS CORRIDORS
North: Centered on Duluth St/
Golden Valley Road
Central: Centered on Highway 55
South: Centered on Glenwood Ave
50
01/10/2023 –CITY COUNCIL UPDATE
SITES EVALUATED –ACCESS CORRIDORS
51
01/10/2023 –CITY COUNCIL UPDATE
SITES EVALUATED –ACCESS CORRIDORS
52
01/10/2023 –CITY COUNCIL UPDATE
SITES EVALUATED –ACCESS CORRIDORS
53
01/10/2023 –CITY COUNCIL UPDATE
SCORING MATRIX –COMMERCIAL SITES
station 1
only Site 11A Site 11B Site 11C Site 11D Site 11E Site 11F Site 12 Site 13 Site 14 Site 16 Site 25 Site 25b Site 25c Site 26 Site 27
1.1 Location for Response (calls)2.45 13.03 13.04 13.05 13.07 13.08 13.09 4.49 9.33 6.85 13.18 16.49 16.49 12.57 15.66 9.40
64.1%81.9%82.0%82.0%82.0%82.0%82.0%67.6%75.7%71.5%82.2%87.8%87.8%81.2%86.4%75.8%
1.2 Location for Response (area)1.52 10.07 10.07 10.07 10.07 10.07 10.07 4.57 6.72 7.55 9.95 12.88 12.88 12.06 11.49 6.66
52.0%72.3%72.3%72.3%72.3%72.3%72.3%59.2%64.3%66.3%72.0%78.9%78.9%77.0%75.6%64.2%
2 Appropriate Amount of “Buildable Land”6.29 7.00 7.00 7.00 5.83 7.00 7.00 7.00 5.54 7.00 2.00 4.01 3.25 7.00 7.00
3.1 Cost to Acquire 0.00 -22.00 -42.00 -42.00 -72.00 -22.00 -37.00 -9.50 -54.00 -22.00 0.00 0.00 -82.00 -72.00 -152.00 -42.00
3.2 Relative Cost to Build 0.00 -5.00 x x x x x x x x x x -30.00 -22.50 x x
4.1 Civic Presence/ Recruitment 0 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 0 0 4 2 6 6 3 5
4.2 Neighborhood Impact 0 0 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 0 -1 -1 0 0 0 0 0 0
5 Traffic Issues 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -5 -5 0 0 -5 0
6 Sustainability 0 0.5 3.5 3.5
TOTAL FIRST CUT 3.96 10.39 -11.89 -11.88 -41.86 6.98 -6.84 7.56 -31.95 -3.06 unobtaina
ble
unobtaina
ble -42.63 -38.12 -119.84 -13.95
TOTAL SECOND CUT 3.96 5.89 ---------------------69.13 -57.12 ----
TOTAL
FYI: RESPONSE TIME ONLY 3.96 23.10 23.11 23.12 23.14 23.15 23.16 9.06 16.05 14.40 23.13 29.37 29.37 24.63 27.16 16.05
FYI: COST IS NO OBJECT 3.96 32.89 30.11 30.12 30.14 28.98 30.16 17.06 22.05 18.94 29.13 28.37 42.87 37.38 32.16 28.05
Golden Valley Fire Station #2
Site Scoring Matrix
54
01/10/2023 –CITY COUNCIL UPDATE
SCORING MATRIX –RESIDENTIAL SITES
station 1
only Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 21a Site 21b Site 21c Site 22a Site 22b Site 23a Site 23b Site 23c Site 23d Site 23e Site 23f Site 23g Site 23h Site 24
1.1 Location for Response (calls)2.45 9.62 10.35 10.41 10.87 10.87 10.87 12.40 12.40 15.22 15.22 15.22 15.22 15.22 15.22 11.22 15.22 13.00
64.1%76.2%77.4%77.5%78.3%78.3%78.3%80.9%80.9%85.6%85.6%85.6%85.6%85.6%85.6%78.9%85.6%81.9%
1.2 Location for Response (area)1.52 8.16 9.07 9.35 10.40 10.40 10.40 10.84 10.84 11.60 11.60 11.60 11.60 11.60 11.60 10.72 11.60 8.88
52.0%67.7%69.9%70.5%73.0%73.0%73.0%74.1%74.1%75.9%75.9%75.9%75.9%75.9%75.9%73.8%75.9%69.5%
2 Appropriate Amount of “Buildable Land”2.42 2.29 7.00 -0.23 2.76 3.56 2.37 6.83 1.74 3.75 5.83 7.00 3.95 3.74 7.00 6.81 6.02
3.1 Cost to Acquire 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.2 Relative Cost to Build 0.00 -13.50 x x x x -6.10 -6.50 -2.00 -7.50 -6.25 -5.00 -1.50 -6.00 -6.50 -0.50 -2.00 -6.50
4.1 Civic Presence/ Recruitment 0 5 3 2 5 5 5 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 0 2 3
4.2 Neighborhood Impact 0 -1 -4 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -3
5 Traffic Issues 0 0 -5 0 0 0 0 -5 0 -5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -5
6 Sustainability 0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 0.5
TOTAL FIRST CUT 3.96 24.19 15.71 27.76 25.04 28.02 28.83 22.61 32.07 25.56 31.57 33.65 34.82 31.77 31.56 27.94 34.63 22.90
TOTAL SECOND CUT 3.96 11.19 ----too small too small 23.23 16.61 30.57 18.56 28.82 32.15 36.82 too small 28.56 30.94 36.13 16.90
TOTAL too small 23.23 28.82 32.15 36.82 28.56
FYI: RESPONSE TIME ONLY 3.96 17.77 19.42 19.76 21.27 21.27 21.27 23.24 23.24 26.82 26.82 26.82 26.82 26.82 26.82 21.94 26.82 21.88
FYI: COST IS NO OBJECT 3.96 24.69 15.71 27.76 25.04 28.02 29.33 23.11 32.57 26.06 35.07 37.15 38.32 35.27 35.06 31.44 38.13 23.40
Golden Valley Fire Station #2
Site Scoring Matrix
55
01/10/2023 –CITY COUNCIL UPDATE
PREDESIGN –PROJECTED COSTS
2022 PREDESIGN BUDGET (EST. CONSTR. 2025)
COST COMPONENT SITE DEVELOPMENT FACILITY CONSTRUCTION
SIZE 2-3 Acres 20,000 GSF
HARD COSTS (CONSTR.)$13 -$35 / SF $370 -$430 / SF
SOFT COSTS (PROJECT)Included in Building Costs $120 / SF
COST/SF (MEDIAN LEVEL)$24.00 $520
SUBTOTAL COST:
(MEDIAN LEVEL)$480,000 $10,400,000
SUBTOTAL COST:
(HIGH LEVEL)$700,000 $11,000,000
TOTAL PROJECT COST (MEDIAN LEVEL)$10,880,000
TOTAL PROJECT COST (HIGH LEVEL)$11,700,000
20% baseline increase re: 2021-2022 market increases and additional 3.5%
inflation to 2025 re: project schedule adjustment
56
01/10/2023 –CITY COUNCIL UPDATE
PREDESIGN –ESTIMATED COSTS
2022/23 PREDESIGN BUDGET
COST COMPONENT VALUE
ACQUISITION /
RELOCATION
$4,000,000
DESIGN / SOFT COSTS $1,000,000
CONSTRUCTION COST $12,000,000
TOTAL $17,000,000
Potential Funding Sources
•Gov. Bond Bill (MMB Process): Seeking 50% funding for pre-design
and acquisition in 2023 session and seeking construction in 2024
session.
•Bonding Bill (Rep. Frieberg and Sen. Rest): Seeking $17m in 2023
session
•Local Tax Levy: May need to fund 50% per State Law
•Federal Funding Programs: Last funding source; fill funding gaps
up to 20%
57
Parcel Number Site 23b Site 23c Site 23a Site 23f Site 23d Site 1 Site 21c Site 25b Site 25c Site 11A
Key Intersection Golden Valley Rd &
Regent Ave
Golden Valley Rd &
Regent Ave
Golden Valley Rd &
Regent Ave
Golden Valley Rd &
Regent Ave
Golden Valley Rd &
Regent Ave Glenwood & Xenia Ave Golden Valley Rd &
Noble Ave
Duluth St &
Lilac Drive
Duluth St &
Lilac Drive
Highway 55 & Shaper
Drive
Parcel Type(s) Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Commercial Commercial Commercial
Impacted Properties
1900 Regent Ave N
4960 Duluth St
4940 Golden Valley Rd
1920 Regent Ave N
1900 Regent Ave N
4960 Duluth St
1920 Regent Ave N
4940 Golden Valley Rd
4955 Sorell Ave
1900 Regent Ave N
4960 Duluth St
1920 Regent Ave N
1943 Regent Ave N
1951 Regent Ave N
1900 Regent Ave N
4960 Duluth St
1920 Regent Ave N
4940 Golden Valley Rd
4955 Sorell Ave
4975 Sorell Ave
5701 Glenwood Ave
5635 Glenwood Ave
4740 Golden Valley Rd
4730 Valery Rd
4720 Valery Rd
2103 Noble Ave
1875 Lilac Dr N
5621 Duluth St
5621 Duluth St 4949 Olson Memorial Hwy
4901 Olson Memorial Hwy
1.1 Location for Response (calls)15.22 15.22 15.22 15.22 15.22 9.53 10.87 16.49 12.57 10.97
1.2 Location for Response (area)11.6 11.6 11.6 11.6 11.6 8.16 10.4 12.88 12.06 10.07
2 Appropriate Amount of
Buildable Land 3.75 5.83 1.74 3.74 7 2.42 3.56 4.01 3.25 6.29
3.1 Cost to Acquire -8.67 -12.07 -3.5 -12.89 -17.07 -1.86 -8.13 -82 -72 -22
3.2 Relative Cost to Build -0.78 -0.63 -0.94 -0.81 -0.19 -1.69 -0.76 -3.75 -2.88 -0.63
4.1 Civic Presence/ Recruitment 2 2 3 2 2 5 5 6 6 3
4.2 Neighborhood Impact -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 0 0 0
5 Traffic Issues 0 0 -5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
6 Sustainability 3.5 3.5 0.5 3.5 3.5 0.5 0.5 3.5 3.5 0.5
TOTAL FIRST CUT 22.9 21.58 22.06 18.67 17.75 22.24 20.7 -42.63 -38.12 8.34
TOTAL SECOND CUT 25.62 24.46 21.62 21.36 21.06 21.06 20.43 -42.88 -37.49 8.21
FYI: RESPONSE TIME ONLY 26.82 26.82 26.82 26.82 26.82 17.69 21.27 29.37 24.63 21.05
FYI: COST IS NO OBJECT 35.07 37.15 26.06 35.06 38.32 24.6 29.33 42.87 37.38 30.84
Golden Valley Fire Station #2 Site Scoring Matrix
58
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
•
•
•
•
70
71
72
73
74
75
0 0.4 0.80.2 Miles
One StationResponse
Response Time (Minutes)defined as the time between the truckleaving the station and arriving on sceneOne Station Model
0-4 Minutes
Response From
Golden Valley Rd & Douglas Dr
IPrint Date: 2/9/2023Sources:-Hennepin County Surveyors Office for Property Lines (2022).-City of Golden Valley for all other layers.
50.6% land area 58.1% units
Units comprise of singular structuressuch as single family homes and businesses, as well as, apartments and business suites.
AMI Values as calculated for 2021 by Metro Council for owner-occupied housinghttps://metrocouncil.org/Communities/Services/Livable-Communities-Grants/Ownership-and-Rent-Affordability-Limits.aspx
2021 Est Market Value
Purchase Affordability
50% AMI: below $201,500
60% AMI: below $245,300
80% AMI: below $316,000
Not Affordable: above$316,000
2275, 67%
838, 25%
165, 5%106, 3%
0-4 Minute Response Time
Over 80% AMI 80% AMI 60% AMI 50% AMI
2266, 61%959, 26%
308, 8%169, 5%
Over 4 Minute Response Time
Over 80% AMI 80% AMI 60% AMI 50% AMI
Findings: 56% of affordable homes areoutside of the 0-4 Minute Zone.50% of market rate homes are outsidethe 0-4 Minute Zone.
76
Golden Valley Fire Station Site Scoring Matrix February 2023 BKV Group
in
progress
in
progress
Site 25b Site 23f Site 23b Site 23c Site 23d Site 23a Site 23e Site 23h Site 26 Site 25c Site 25 Site 16 Site 22a Site 22b Site 23g Site 24 Site 21a Site 21b Site 21c Site 11A Site 11B Site 11C Site 11D Site 11E Site 11F Site 3 Site 2 Site 1 Site 13 Site 27 Site 14 Site 12 Site 31a Site 31b Site 31c
SITE 12b (slip
ramp)
Site 4
(slip ramp)
Site 15
(slip ramp)STA #2 STA #3
1.1 Location for Response (calls) 16.49 15.22 15.22 15.22 15.22 15.22 15.22 15.22 14.17 12.57 12.33 12.66 11.65 11.65 11.22 13.00 11.02 11.02 10.87 10.97 10.97 10.97 10.97 10.97 10.97 10.67 10.44 9.53 7.99 7.95 6.55 4.34 15.85 14.95 14.95 14.95 13.29 12.02 12.46 8.92 9.72
87.8% 85.6% 85.6% 85.6% 85.6% 85.6% 85.6% 85.6% 83.8% 81.2% 80.8% 81.3% 79.6% 79.6% 78.9% 81.9% 78.5% 78.5% 78.3% 78.5% 78.5% 78.5% 78.5% 78.5% 78.5% 78.0% 77.6% 76.0% 73.4% 73.4% 71.0% 67.3% 86.7% 85.2% 85.2% 85.2% 82.4% 80.2% 81.0% 75.0% 76.4%
1.2 Location for Response (area) 12.88 11.60 11.60 11.60 11.60 11.60 11.60 11.60 11.49 12.06 10.32 9.95 10.84 10.84 10.72 8.88 10.40 10.40 10.40 10.07 10.07 10.07 10.07 10.07 10.07 9.35 9.07 8.16 6.72 6.66 7.55 4.57 13.16 10.63 10.63 10.63 11.20 10.55 10.87 5.84 8.88
78.9% 75.9% 75.9% 75.9% 75.9% 75.9% 75.9% 75.9% 75.6% 77.0% 72.9% 72.0% 74.1% 74.1% 73.8% 69.5% 73.0% 73.0% 73.0% 72.3% 72.3% 72.3% 72.3% 72.3% 72.3% 70.5% 69.9% 67.7% 64.3% 64.2% 66.3% 59.2% 79.6% 73.6% 73.6% 73.6% 74.9% 73.4% 74.2% 62.2% 69.5%
2 Appropriate Amount of “Buildable Land” 4.01 3.74 3.75 5.83 7.00 1.74 3.95 6.81 7.00 3.25 -4.50 7.00 2.37 6.83 7.00 6.02 -0.23 2.76 3.56 6.29 7.00 7.00 7.00 5.83 7.00 7.00 2.29 2.42 7.00 -4.50 5.54 7.00 5.83 3.56 1.31 5.89 7.00 7.00 7.00 1.07 0.81
square feet 74,100 71,800 71,900 90,000 101,097 54,337 73,584 98,520 190,000 67,500 109,000 59,840 98,704 103,515 91,646 37,230 63,206 70,200 94,039 116,501 116,501 205,910 90,000 130,000 119,892 59,159 60,247 118,528 87,457 109,000 90,000 70,200 50,611 90,500 109,000 143,193 114,642 48,567 46,302
3.1 Cost to Acquire -62.00 -12.89 -8.67 -12.07 -17.07 -3.50 -7.51 -20.40 -152.00 -42.00 -12.00 -22.00 -13.27 -21.61 -18.94 -11.27 0.00 -3.44 -8.13 -22.00 -42.00 -42.00 -72.00 -22.00 -37.00 -17.02 -5.97 -1.86 -54.00 -42.00 -22.00 -9.50 -32.00 -25.00 -0.03 -21.37 -9.50 -27.00 -37.00 0.00 0.00
3.2 Relative Cost to Build -30 -6.50 -6.25 -5 -1.5 -7.5 -6 -2 x -23 x x -6.5 -2 -0.5 -6.5 x x -6.10 -5 x x x x x x x -13.5 x x x 0 -7.00 -3.00 0.00 -2.00 -3.00 x x x x
4.1 Civic Presence/ Recruitment 6 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 3 6 2 4 3 3 0 3 5 5 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 5 0 5 0 1 6 6 6 6 1 4 1 0 1
4.2 Neighborhood Impact 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 0 0 0 0 -1 -1 -1 -3 -1 -1 -1 0 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -1 -4 -1 -1 0 -1 0 -2 -1 -1 -1 0 0 0 -1 -1
5 Traffic Issues 0 0 0 0 0 -5 0 0 -5 0 -5 -5 -5 0 0 -5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -5 0 0 0 0 0 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 0 0
6 Sustainability 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 0.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 0.5 0.5 3.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 0.5 0.5
TOTAL FIRST CUT -22.63 18.67 22.90 21.58 17.75 22.06 24.26 14.23 -121.34 -8.12
unobtaina
ble
unobtaina
ble 8.60 9.72 9.00 11.63 25.18 24.73 20.70 8.34 -13.95 -13.95 -43.95 4.88 -8.95 10.99 9.83 22.24 -33.29 -26.89 -3.36 7.42 4.84 7.13 29.85 13.09 20.99 4.57 -7.67 14.83 19.41
TOTAL SECOND CUT -49.13 15.67 20.15 20.08 19.75 15.06 too small 15.73 -- -27.62 -- -- 2.60 8.22 12.00 5.63 too small too small 15.10 3.84 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 9.24 -- -- -- -- 1.34 7.63 too small 14.59 21.49 too small too small
FYI: RESPONSE TIME ONLY 29.37 26.82 26.82 26.82 26.82 26.82 26.82 26.82 25.66 24.63 22.65 22.61 22.50 22.50 21.94 21.88 21.41 21.41 21.27 21.05 21.05 21.05 21.05 21.05 21.05 20.01 19.51 17.69 14.71 14.61 14.10 8.92 29.01 25.57 25.57 25.57 24.49 22.57 23.33 14.75 18.60
FYI: COST IS NO OBJECT 42.87 35.06 35.07 37.15 38.32 26.06 35.27 38.13 30.66 37.38 15.15 28.61 22.37 31.83 31.44 23.40 25.18 28.17 29.33 30.84 28.05 28.05 28.05 26.88 28.05 28.01 15.80 24.60 20.71 15.11 18.64 16.92 40.34 35.63 29.88 37.96 33.99 31.57 29.33 15.33 19.91
Golden Valley Fire Station #2
Site Scoring Matrix
Relocate
Both
Outside the Box Ideas
77
Golden Valley Remote Fire Station Parcel Identification February 2023 BKV Group
Rows in “white” are residential properties; rows in “grey” are commercial/industrial/retail properties.
Site ID in
Scoring
Matrix
Major Intersection Business Name(s) Parcel ID
Numbers
Hennepin County Address
associated with parcel Comments Score at
First Cut
Score at
Second Cut
Site 1 Intersection of Glenwood
and Xenia Avenue
0411721210007
0411721210036
5701 Glenwood Ave
5635 Glenwood Ave
Highest scoring site off Glenwood and HWY 100
No other residential parcels at this intersection with
good access to Glenwood.
Parcels proved too small due to wetlands along west side
Response times from Glenwood are inferior
22.34 9.24
Intersection of Glenwood
and Xenia Avenue
Golden Valley Lutheran Church 0411721210002
0411721210003
1902924330013
1902924330012
5501 Glenwood Ave Not considered – active church property --- ---
Site 2 Intersection of Glenwood
and Lawn Terrace
3002924220057
3002924220036
3002924220037
5317 Glenwood Ave
5301 Glenwood Ave
30 Lawn Terrace
This intersection was quickly discarded due to low scores
caused by proximity to school.
Response times from Glenwood are inferior
9.83 ---
Intersection of Glenwood
and Lawn Terrace
3002924220087
3002924220086
3002924220088
5 Lawn Terrace
15 Lawn Terrace
25 Lawn Terrace
Topography issues
This intersection was quickly discarded due to low scores
caused by proximity to school.
Response times from Glenwood are inferior
Intersection of Glenwood
and Lawn Terrace
Boy Scouts of America Northern Star Council 1902924330007 5300 Glenwood Ave Not considered – land owned by school district --- ---
Site 3 Intersection of Glenwood
and Ottawa Avenue
1902924340001
1902924340004
1902924340005
1902924340006
4846 Glenwood Ave
25 Ottawa Ave
15 Ottawa Ave
5 Ottawa Ave
Topography issues
Breck owns some of this property
Response times from Glenwood are inferior
10.99 ---
Intersection of Glenwood
and Ottawa Avenue
3002924210033 4901 Glenwood Ave
Etc.
Parcel too narrow to fit station
Response times from Glenwood are inferior
--- ---
Intersection of Glenwood
and Ottawa Avenue
3002924210001 4817 Glenwood Ave
Etc.
Topography issues
Response times from Glenwood are inferior
--- ---
Intersection of Glenwood
and Ottawa Avenue
1902924340020 4736 Glenwood Ave
Etc.
Topography issues
Response times from Glenwood are inferior
--- ---
Site 4 “Intersection” of HWY 100
and Lilac Drive
American Legion 1902924330017 200 Lilac Drive N Requires a slip ramp onto northbound HWY 100 to be in
contention, otherwise response times are
unacceptable. Poor precedent for MnDOT approval of
similar proposals.
Breck School has this parcel in their master plan.
Response times from Glenwood are inferior
4.57 ---
Site 11a Intersection of HWY 55 and
Schaper Drive
Heartland Adult Day Care
Early Childhood Family Development Center
Parents in Community Action
1902924310006
1902924310005
4949 Olson Memorial Hwy
4901 Olson Memorial Hwy
Highest scoring site off HWY 55 and HWY 100
Estimated to be ~$2M more expensive than higher
performing options in the study
8.34 3.84
Site 11b Intersection of HWY 55 and
Schaper Drive
Early Childhood Family Development Center
Parents in Community Action
Minneapolis Plastic Surgery
Minneapolis Anti-Aging and Skin Clinic
West Metro Education Program
Minneapolis Health Clinic
1902924310005
1902924310004
4901 Olson Memorial Hwy
4825 Olson Memorial Hwy
Costly to acquire medical office building
Would necessitate City paying to relocate several
businesses
-13.95 ---
Site 11c Intersection of HWY 55 and
Schaper Drive
Minneapolis Plastic Surgery
Minneapolis Anti-Aging and Skin Clinic
West Metro Education Program
Minneapolis Health Clinic
TreHus Architects
1902924310004
1902924310003
4825 Olson Memorial Hwy
4725 Olson Memorial Hwy
Costly to acquire medical office building
Would necessitate City paying to relocate several
businesses
-13.95 ---
Site 11d Intersection of HWY 55 and
Schaper Drive
Heartland Adult Day Care
Early Childhood Family Development Center
Parents in Community Action
Minneapolis Plastic Surgery
Minneapolis Anti-Aging and Skin Clinic
West Metro Education Program
Minneapolis Health Clinic
TreHus Architects
1902924310006
1902924310005
1902924310004
1902924310003
4949 Olson Memorial Hwy
4901 Olson Memorial Hwy
4825 Olson Memorial Hwy
4725 Olson Memorial Hwy
Costly to acquire medical office building
Would necessitate City paying to relocate several
businesses
-43.95 ---
Site 11e Intersection of HWY 55 and
Schaper Drive
Stewart Tax & Accounting
Pondwood Wellness Center
Vanda Counseling
State Farm (David A Maggitt)
DPI Staffing
Faelon Partners Ltd
Heartland Adult Day Care
1902924310022
1902924310006
4979 Olson Memorial Hwy
4949 Olson Memorial Hwy
Would necessitate City paying to relocate several
businesses
4.88 ---
Site 11f Intersection of HWY 55 and
Schaper Drive
Stewart Tax & Accounting
Pondwood Wellness Center
Vanda Counseling
State Farm (David A Maggitt)
DPI Staffing
Faelon Partners Ltd
Heartland Adult Day Care
Early Childhood Family Development Center
Parents in Community Action
1902924310022
1902924310006
1902924310005
4979 Olson Memorial Hwy
4949 Olson Memorial Hwy
4901 Olson Memorial Hwy
Would necessitate City paying to relocate several
businesses
-8.95 ---
Intersection of HWY 55 and
Schaper Drive
Huffman, Usem, Crawford & Greenberg
GVM Foot Marketing
Minnesota Wisconsin Playground
Blue Heron Partners
Michael Appleman PhD
1902924310016 5101 Olson Memorial Hwy Too narrow for consideration --- ---
Intersection of HWY 55 and
Schaper Drive
Sunrise of Golden Valley 1902924240026 4950 Olson Memorial Hwy Not explored, too costly to acquire --- ---
Intersection of HWY 55 and
Schaper Drive
Centennial Lakes Dental Group
Integrity Medicolegal Enterprises
Novo Behavioral Health
The Bailey Group
1902924240027 4800 Olson Memorial Hwy Not explored, too costly to acquire
Would necessitate City paying to relocate several
businesses
--- ---
Site 12 NW corner of Intersection of
HWY 55 and HWY 100
Tennant 3311821240026 701 Lilac Drive N Assumes a portion of this large parcel could be
subdivided, which is not guaranteed
Response times are unacceptable
7.42 ---
Site 12b NW corner of Intersection of
HWY 55 and HWY 100
Tennant
Clark Engineering
3311821240026
3311821240013
701 Lilac Drive N
621 Lilac Drive N
Variation of 12a which would require a slip ramp onto
deceleration lane from southbound HWY 100 onto
HWY 55. This is not something staff expects to be
accepted by MnDOT due to the high likelihood for
accidents. THIS IDEA WAS ELIMINATED.
20.99 21.49
ELIMINATED
Site 13 Intersection of Lilac Drive
and Lindsay St.
Barlow Research Associates
Studio Americana
Studio CoWork
Noor Kids
Three residential parcels
3311821240024
3311821210058
3311821210059
3311821210060
917 Lilac Drive N
5535 Lindsay St
5525 Lindsay St
5505 Lindsay St
Would necessitate City paying to relocate several
businesses
Would have to maintain access from street to radio
tower
Response times are unacceptable
-33.29 ---
Site 14 Intersection of Lilac Drive
and Topel Road
Redeemer Reformed Church 1802924330039 1300 Lilac Drive N
Explored as a test case for what response times would be
like deep in a neighborhood.
Response times are unacceptable
-3.36 ---
Site 15 NE corner of Intersection of
HWY 55 and HWY 100
Poquet Auto 1902924230008 800 Lilac Drive N Costly to acquire
May not be able to relocate the business within Golden
Valley
Requires a slip ramp onto northbound HWY 100 to be in
contention, otherwise response times are
unacceptable. Poor precedent for MnDOT approval of
similar proposals.
-7.67 ---
NE corner of Intersection of
HWY 55 and HWY 100
Moments Hospice 1902924230026 820 Lilac Drive N Parcel too small to fit station
Not in a position for a slip ramp so response times are
unacceptable
--- ---
Site 16 Douglas and HWY 55 Hewlett-Packard 3311821230017 650 Douglas Drive N Location does not complement the Downtown Station
very well – less than 1 mile away
Site already under contract and not available.
--- ---
Douglas and HWY 55 The Lock Up Self Storage 3311821230013 6250 Olson Memorial Hwy Location does not complement the Downtown Station
very well – less than 1 mile away
Parcel too small to fit station
--- ---
Douglas and HWY 55 BNC National Bank 3211821140005 651 Douglas Drive N Location does not complement the Downtown Station
very well – less than 1 mile away
Site already under contract and not available.
--- ---
Douglas and HWY 55 Winkley Orthotics & Prosthetics 3311821230018 740 Douglas Drive N Location does not complement the Downtown Station
very well – less than 1 mile away
Parcel too small to fit station once wetlands and pond
are taken into consideration
--- ---
78
Golden Valley Remote Fire Station Parcel Identification February 2023 BKV Group
Rows in “white” are residential properties; rows in “grey” are commercial/industrial/retail properties.
Site ID in
Scoring
Matrix
Major Intersection Business Name(s) Parcel ID
Numbers
Hennepin County Address
associated with parcel Comments Score at
First Cut
Score at
Second Cut
Note: More site combinations along Golden Valley Road/ Duluth Street need to be explored before any further decisions about potential acquisitions in this North Zone
Site 21a Intersection of Golden Valley
Road and Noble Avenue
1802924240007
1802924240006
4740 Golden Valley Rd
4730 Valery Rd
After investigation, this combination of parcels was
discovered to be too small
25.18 ---
Site 21b Intersection of Golden Valley
Road and Noble Avenue
1802924240007
1802924240006
1802924240005
4740 Golden Valley Rd
4730 Valery Rd
4720 Valery Rd
After investigation, this combination of parcels was
discovered to be too small
24.73 ---
Site 21 c Intersection of Golden Valley
Road and Noble Avenue
1802924240007
1802924240006
1802924240005
1802924240004
4740 Golden Valley Rd
4730 Valery Rd
4720 Valery Rd
2103 Noble Ave
20.70 15.10
Site 22a Intersection of Golden Valley
Road and Spring Valley Road
1802924310058
1802924310059
1802924310057
4839 Golden Valley Rd
1825 Spring Valley Rd
1821 Spring Valley Rd
8.60 2.60
Site 22b Intersection of Golden Valley
Road and Spring Valley Road
1802924310058
1802924310059
1802924310057
1802924310056
4839 Golden Valley Rd
1825 Spring Valley Rd
1821 Spring Valley Rd
1817 Spring Valley Rd
9.72 8.22
Site 23a Intersection of Golden Valley
Road and Regent Avenue
1802924310005
1802924310075
1802924310003
1900 Regent Ave N
4960 Duluth St
1920 Regent Ave N
22.06 15.06
Site 23b Intersection of Golden Valley
Road and Regent Avenue
1802924310005
1802924310075
1802924310003
1802924310070
1900 Regent Ave N
4960 Duluth St
1920 Regent Ave N
4940 Golden Valley Road
22.90 20.15
Site 23c Intersection of Golden Valley
Road and Regent Avenue
1802924310005
1802924310075
1802924310003
1802924310070
1802924240020
1900 Regent Ave N
4960 Duluth St
1920 Regent Ave N
4940 Golden Valley Road
4955 Sorell Ave
21.58 20.08
Site 23d Intersection of Golden Valley
Road and Regent Avenue
1802924310005
1802924310075
1802924310003
1802924310070
1802924240020
1802924240021
1900 Regent Ave N
4960 Duluth St
1920 Regent Ave N
4940 Golden Valley Road
4955 Sorell Ave
4975 Sorell Ave
17.75 19.75
Site 23e Intersection of Golden Valley
Road and Regent Avenue
1802924320044
1802924230067
1802924230010
1931 Regent Ave N
1943 Regent Ave N
1910 Toledo Ave N
After investigation, this combination of parcels was
discovered to be too small
24.26 ---
Site 23f Intersection of Golden Valley
Road and Regent Avenue
1802924230067
1802924230007
1943 Regent Ave N
1951 Regent Ave N
18.67 15.67
Site 23g Intersection of Golden Valley
Road and Regent Avenue
1802924230067
1802924230011
1802924230010
1802924230007
1802924320006
1943 Regent Ave N
2010 Scott Ave N
1910 Toledo Ave N
1951 Regent Ave N
2001 Regent Ave N
9.00 12.00
Site 23h Intersection of Golden Valley
Road and Regent Avenue
1802924320044
1802924230067
1802924230011
1802924230010
1802924230007
1931 Regent Ave N
1943 Regent Ave N
2010 Scott Ave N
1910 Toledo Ave N
1951 Regent Ave N
14.23 15.73
Site 24 Intersection of Duluth Street
and Brunswick Avenue
2811821320031
2811821320027
2811821320030
2811821320026
2811821320028
1928 Brunswick Ave N
1920 Brunswick Ave N
6035 Duluth St
6050 Duluth Ln
6020 Duluth Ln
11.63 5.63
Intersection of Duluth Street
and Brunswick Avenue
King of Grace Lutheran Church 2811821230021 6000 Duluth St Not explored – active church property --- ---
Intersection of Duluth Street
and Adair Avenue
2811821320029 1931 Adair Ave N
Etc.
Too narrow, constrained from adjoining with parcels on
the same block by sanitary sewer
--- ---
Intersection of Duluth Street
and Adair Avenue
2811821320032 5925 Duluth St
Etc.
Too narrow, backs onto Creek --- ---
Intersection of Duluth Street
and Adair Avenue
2811821230058 1950 Adair Ave N
Etc.
Too narrow, backs onto Creek --- ---
Site 25 Intersection of Duluth Street
and Lilac Drive
MnDOT
Minnesota State Patrol
Park & Ride
2811821240001 2055 Lilac Dr N Site owned by the State, who has future plans for the
entire parcel
--- ---
Intersection of Duluth Street
and Lilac Drive
Lunds & Byerlys
L&B Wines & Spirits
2811821310016
2811821310018
5725 Duluth St
5723 Duluth St
Displacing the City’s only grocery store is not feasible --- ---
Site 25b Intersection of Duluth Street
and Lilac Drive
Minnoco Service Station
Walgreens
Famous Nails & Spa
VCA All About Pets Animal Hospital
Hennepin Healthcare Golden Valley Clinic
City Looks Salons
Teresa’s Mexican
2811821310010
2811821310017
1875 Lilac Dr N
5621 Duluth St
Costly to acquire these parcels, would displace the gas
station and take a good chunk of parking away from
the strip mall and partial demolition to replace that
parking.
Would require relocating Lilac Dr to be south of a Station
(also costly).
Would necessitate City paying to relocate several
businesses
Under review
per City
Council
direction from
1/20/23
Council
Workshop
---
Site 25c Intersection of Duluth Street
and Lilac Drive
Walgreens
Famous Nails & Spa
VCA All About Pets Animal Hospital
Hennepin Healthcare Golden Valley Clinic
City Looks Salons
Teresa’s Mexican
2811821310017
5621 Duluth St
Costly to acquire this parcel but would not need the
entire area. The majority of parking would be used,
so at least partial demolition of the strip mall would
be necessary to replace that parking. Likely only
Walgreens would remain.
Would necessitate City paying to relocate several
businesses
Under review
per City
Council
direction from
1/20/23
Council
Workshop
---
Intersection of Duluth Street
and Basset Creek
LOGIS 2811821310404 5750 Duluth St Too narrow, no adjacent parcels that can be combined
because it backs onto MnDOT land and the creek
--- ---
Site 26 Intersection of Duluth Street
and Basset Creek
Basset Creek Dental
State Farm (Mike McHugh)
West Metro Ophthalmology
Gold Standard Healing Center
Rb Legal
CarlsonSV
ASL Intepreting Services
Advanced Medical of Twin Cities
Inspec
Premier Health Chiropractic
Allstate
2811821310021
2811821310022
5851 Duluth St
5801 Duluth St
Office complex of two buildings on two parcels, but both
parcels are too narrow to accommodate the Station
so both would need to be acquired. This would be too
costly.
Would necessitate City paying to relocate several
businesses
-121.34
---
Site 27 Intersection of Duluth Street
and Douglas Drive
Resideo (formerly Honeywell) 2911821140007 1885 Douglas Dr N Assume a portion of this large parcel could be subdivided
Response times only work if the Downtown Station is
also relocated. The only complementary location to
this site, from a response time perspective, would
require acquisition of residential properties.
-26.89 ---
Site 31a Intersection of HWY 55 and
Glenwood Avenue
3211821420084
3211821420085
3211821420077
7041 Olson Memorial Hwy
7021 Olson Memorial Hwy
7001 Olson Memorial Hwy
This site only under consideration if Downtown Station
is to be relocated
7.13 7.63
Site 31b Intersection of HWY 55 and
Glenwood Avenue
3211821310014
3211821310015
7045 Glenwood Ave
7031 Glenwood Ave
This site only under consideration if Downtown Station
is to be relocated.
After investigation, this combination of parcels was
discovered to be too small
29.85 ---
Site 31c Intersection of HWY 55 and
Glenwood Avenue
3211821310014
3211821310015
3211821310016
3211821310017
3211821420020
7045 Glenwood Ave
7031 Glenwood Ave
7156 Harold Ave
7146 Harold Ave
7025 Harold Ave
This site only under consideration if Downtown Station
is to be relocated
13.09 14.59
Evaluation of Existing Fire Stations, For Reference
STATION 2
Intersection of Laurel
Avenue and Turners
Crossroad S
Golden Valley Fire Station #2 0411721210023 400 Turners Crossroad S The existing building is in poor repair and cannot support
overnight crews.
The Station cannot fit on this parcel, and adjacent
parcels are The Laurel Apartments, which are too
costly to acquire.
Response times from this location are unacceptable
14.83 ---
79
Golden Valley Remote Fire Station Parcel Identification February 2023 BKV Group
Rows in “white” are residential properties; rows in “grey” are commercial/industrial/retail properties.
Site ID in
Scoring
Matrix
Major Intersection Business Name(s) Parcel ID
Numbers
Hennepin County Address
associated with parcel Comments Score at
First Cut
Score at
Second Cut
STATION 3 Intersection of Golden Valley
Road and Bonnie Lane
Golden Valley Fire Station #3 1702924230020 3700 Golden Valley Rd The existing building is in poor repair and cannot support
overnight crews.
The Station cannot fit on this parcel, and it is separated
from adjacent parcels by the stream and some
wetlands.
Response times from this location are unacceptable
19.41 ---
80
Memorandum
TO: City of Golden Valley, MN
COPY:
FROM: Craig Carter, AIA – BKV Group
DATE: February 7, 2023
RE: Golden Valley Remote Fire Station Location Study – Scoring Guidelines Narrative
To Whom It May Concern:
A list of six Site Selection Criteria were
developed with City Staff based on core values
surrounding the project. Some of those were
broken down into sub-criteria. For each, the
group then developed Scoring Guidelines that
ensured apples-to-apples scoring from one
explored site option to another. The point values
assigned represent the relative importance of
each Criteria in the eyes of the group.
This process is completed prior to any potential
sites being identified so as not to allow the
establishment of criteria that intentionally
benefits one site over another. However, there is
build-in subjectivity to the Scoring Guidelines in
the sense that City Staff assigns point valves to
each Criteria according to its relative level of
importance as perceived by the group
establishing the Guidelines. A different group
would not necessarily assign the same point
values.
It is important to realize that the highest
performing sites tend to rise to the top
regardless of minor difference in Scoring
Guidelines.
Another important note is that the potential for
eminent domain or condemnation proceedings was specifically discussed with Staff and excluded from
the Criteria. This was because data on that could not be obtained without discussing each potential
property with Council. Staff felt that the willingness of parcel owners to sell was an important point of
consideration, but that it had to be considered later in the process.
Criteria 1.1: Location for Response (Calls):
This metric evaluates the performance of each potential two-station system based on where calls have
occurred, historically. The downtown station, within 4-minutes of drive time, can reach 2,917 (64.1%) of the
4,549 historic calls-for-service. Sites score 6 points for every 10% increase in coverage, with zero set at 60%. A
81
site that covered 90% of historic calls within 4:00 of drive time would score 18 points. With Duty Crews
responding to medical calls, the Fire Department is expected to get ~180 calls per service per month. This
means that every point earned represents three more calls per month meeting the 4-minute threshold.
Over the 50-75 year lifespan of the building, with call volumes steadily increasing, this represents a large
impact to public safety.
Criteria 1.2: Location for Response (Area):
This metric evaluates the performance of each potential two-station system based on how much land area
can be covered, so it is a future-proof metric (assuming City boundaries will not change). The downtown
station, within 4-minutes of drive time, can reach 5.48 sq mi (51.9%) of the 10.55 sq mi within City Limits.
(Early in the study this was expected to be 5.1 sq mi, but the location of the Apparatus Bays at the future
Public Safety Building changed slightly.) Sites score 1 point for each 0.25 sq mi they cover. Zero was set at
5.1 sq mi. A site that reached 90% of the City within 4-minutes of drive time would score 17.58.
Criteria 2.0: Appropriate Amount of Buildable Land
For this metric, we penalize small sites because of long-term functional considerations. Some examples:
· A two-story facility is not as fast or safe to respond from
· A smaller site may restrict the space between the apparatus door and the sidewalk, meaning the
driver will have less time to see and react to traffic or pedestrians when responding
· A smaller site has less space available for training activities
· A smaller site has less flexibility for future changes that might be necessary over the 50-75 year
lifespan of the building.
At the initial stage each combination of parcels under consideration was scored based on overall property
area based on the County Assessor data. Later in the process, each remaining combination of parcels was
evaluated for “buildable area” to include all land within property lines except wetlands, floodplains, and
easements that cannot be relocated. This dropped some site rankings significantly. A site of 2.3 acres was
deemed sufficient for a single-story station with enough parking and space for future growth, so sites
greater than or equal to 2.3 acres score 7 points. Sites lose one point for every 0.2 acres smaller. Sites less
than 1.3 acres were not considered, but at that size some zoning variances would be necessary. A more
realistic minimum size is 1.6 acres.
Cost
For both cost metrics, 1 point is equivalent to $100,000 of expense.
Criteria 3.1: Cost to Acquire Site/ Land
Cost of acquisition for each combination of parcels was based on Zillow for residential properties and
based on comps run by a licensed real estate agent for commercial properties. These numbers represent a
snapshot in time since property prices fluctuate with market conditions. At this moment, the commercial
property market has softened due to work-from-home while the residential market is steady despite the rise
in interest rates. This should be considered as an “order of magnitude” number that provides rough
valuation for initial comparison. Those estimates must be verified by an appraiser as the study comes to a
close, and the overall number should be modified to include the cost of relocating any residents or
businesses. The scoring arbitrarily assumes a minimum cost of $800,000 and penalizes sites by 1 point for
every $100,000 in excess of that.
Criteria 3.2: Relative Cost to Build
This is a labor-intensive metric, so it was not performed on every site. BKV Group analyzed combinations of
parcels using back-of-the-napkin level of detail to determine how a station might be positioned on the site.
82
The baseline, which represents a score of 0, would have single-story construction, surface stormwater
management, insignificant topography (no import, export, or retaining walls), shallow building foundations,
no relocation or extension of utilities, no environmental cleanup costs etc. Sites not meeting these
requirements were penalized 1 point for every $100,000 of excess cost. A two-story station would add
$500,000 (stairs and elevator and some inefficiency), building living spaces over the apparatus bays would
add up to $1,000,000 depending on how much space would need to move there (stairs, elevator, added
structure, some inefficiency). Below-grade stormwater management would add $100,000. Topographic
impacts vary in cost based on severity. Relocation of utilities varies in cost based on severity.
Some sites were stricken from consideration at this stage because, while large enough on paper, the
actual shape of the parcel and constraints from wetlands or floodplains wouldn’t allow a station to work.
Criteria 4.1: Civic Presence/ Recruitment
The Fire Department is still a “volunteer” organization reliant on recruitment within the community for
staffing. This is a massive cost savings compared to running career staff. To run a three-person engine
company with 24/7 career staff costs ~$1.2M annually. To cover that same engine company with duty
crews costs less than half of that. The visibility of the fire station within the community directly affects
recruitment and is an important consideration.
· 5 pts Located at intersection of major roads (Collector or higher as defined by City’s
Comprehensive Plan)
· 3 pts Located on one major road
· 2 pts Visible from major road, but not a primary façade
· +1 pt extra credit if visible from Highways 55 or 100
Criteria 4.2: Neighborhood Impact
It is important to understand the impacts that a station can have on the surrounding community. While we
consistently hear that fire stations make very good immediate neighbors, there will always be concern,
even if it’s just about the 12 months of construction. Impacts can occur at a variety of scales, which this
metric takes into consideration. Sites can theoretically score on all three of these impacts for a total of -9
pts.
· 0 pts Impacts only Commercial/ Industrial property
· -1 pt Impacts immediate Residential properties
· -3 pts Impacts neighborhood, e.g. close a local road, proximate to a school (affects drop off/
pick up and safety/noise concerns)
· -5 pts Impacts felt city-wide, e.g. close a school, close a park, close a church (FYI, none of the
sites considered fell into this category but we didn’t know that when we were establishing the
scoring guidelines)
Criteria 5.0: Traffic Issues
Responding onto a heavily traveled roadway frequently requires adjustments to the roadway to improve
traffic safety, up to and including a traffic signal dedicated to the Station. These measures alleviate, but
don’t eliminate the risk of accidents, and require maintenance like anything else. This metric accounts for
the safety and long-term costs impacts.
· 0 pts No Roadway Improvements Required
· -2 pts Turning Lanes/ Ramps/ Tapers Required
· -5 pts Signalized Traffic Pre-emption Required
83
Criteria 6.0: Sustainability
Sustainability is an important community value, with proven impacts to mental well-being as well helping to
reduce long-term operating costs. Sustainability measures will be incorporated in the project regardless, but
there are a few important measures that can be greatly affected by the building site, which are tracked
with this metric.
· 0 pts Baseline
· +3 pts Accommodates proper solar orientation
· +.5 pts No impediments to onsite photovoltaics
· +.5 pts Adjacent to views of nature
END OF MEMORANDUM
84
Review of Future Draft Agendas
Meeting & Item Info
February 21, 2023 Special HRA Meeting - 6:30 PM
HOPE Round 2 - Approve Developer Qualifications, Lilac Properties
February 21, 2023 City Council Meeting - 6:30 PM
1A - Pledge of Allegiance and Land Acknowledgement
Presentation
Consent - Licenses
Multi-Family Rental Property License Renewals
Consent - Boards, Commissions, and Task Forces
Appointments to Boards/Commissions
Consent - Bid, Quotes, and Contracts
Approve Contract & Specs for City Hall Boiler Replacement
Authorize 2023 Native Vegetation Maintenance Contract (Contractor TBD)
Consent - Grants and Donations
Resolution Accepting Donation of 2023 Photographic Services from Stan Waldhauser
Adopt Resolution Supporting Application to MN GreenCorps Program
Consent - Miscellaneous
Resolution Supporting Affordable Housing Legislation
Public Hearing
Old Business
New Business
Approve Remaining Board and Commission Bylaws Updates to Include Term Limits
February 28, 2023 Joint Meeting of City Council and Boards/Commissions - 6:00 PM
Pledge of Allegiance and Land Acknowledgement
Review 2022/Action Steps for 2023
March 7, 2023 City Council Meeting - 6:30 PM
1A - Pledge of Allegiance and Land Acknowledgement
Presentation
Consent - Council Minutes
Approval of all February Council minutes
Consent - Licenses
General Business License - Fireworks Sales
Consent - Boards, Commissions, and Task Forces
Consent - Bid, Quotes, and Contracts
Approve Contract for Sanitary Sewer Lining
Approve Contract for Scheid Park Storm Water Repairs
Annual Fog Seal Project - Award Contract
Authorize Agreement for SEA School-Wildwood Flood Mitigation Project (Contractor TBD)
Consent - Grants and Donations
Consent - Miscellaneous
Public Hearing
Zoning Map Amendments - Hwy 55/Winnetka/Harold Properties [TENTATIVE]
Old Business
New Business
March 14, 2023 City Council Work Session - 6:30 PM
Planning Commission Annual Report & Work Plan
Board of Zoning Appeals Annual Report & Work Plan
Environmental Commission Annual Report & Work Plan
85
Meeting & Item Info
Council Review of Future Draft Agendas
March 21, 2023 HRA Meeting - 6:30 PM (Annual Meeting)
Call to Order
Election of Officers
Consent Agenda
Approval of HRA minutes
Receive and File Previous Quarter's Financial Reports
2023 Property Inventory and Recommendations
Maxfield Housing Study
Public Hearing
Old Business
New Business
March 21, 2023 City Council Meeting - 6:30 PM
1A - Pledge of Allegiance and Land Acknowledgement
Presentation
Consent - Licenses
General Business License - Refuse and Recycling Vehicles
General Business License - Gas Stations and Gas Dispensers
Consent - Boards, Commissions, and Task Forces
Receive/File - Planning Commission Annual Report and Work Plan
Receive/File - Board of Zoning Appeals Annual Report and Work Plan
Receive/File - Environmental Commission Annual Report & Work Plan
Consent - Bid, Quotes, and Contracts
Annual Crack Sealing Project
Consent - Grants and Donations
Consent - Miscellaneous
Adopt Public Purpose Expenditure Policy/Employee Handbook Update
Public Hearing
Comp Plan Amendment, Zoning Map Amendment, and Preliminary Plat Review - 8200 Golden Valley Road and 8240 Golden
Valley Drive
2023 PMP Assessment Hearing (TENTATIVE)
Old Business
New Business
2023 PMP Awards 1) Construction Contract 2) Professional Services Construction Observation (TENTATIVE)
86