2025-04-08 - AGE - City Council Work Session April 8, 2025 — 6:30 PM
Golden Valley City Hall
Council Conference Room
1.Annual Update from City Prosecutor
2.Legislative Agenda Discussion - Zoning and Land Use Preemption
3.Council Review of Future Draft Agendas
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION AGENDA
Council Work Sessions 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 work sessions. The public is invited to attend Council Work Sessions and
listen to the discussion; public participation is only allowed by invitation of the City Council.
Discussion Item(s)
City of Golden Valley City Council Work Session April 8, 2025 — 6:30 PM
1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Legal
763-512-2345 / 763-512-2344 (fax)
Golden Valley City Council Work Session
April 8, 2025
Agenda Item
1. Annual Update from City Prosecutor
Prepared By
Maria Cisneros, City Attorney
Attorney Kurt Glaser, Berglund Baumgartner & Glaser
Summary
Each year, the City Prosecutor provides an update to the City Council regarding prosecution services,
outlining key initiatives, challenges, and accomplishments. In September 2023, the City of Golden
Valley appointed the law firm of Berglund, Baumgartner & Glaser (BBG) as the City Prosecutor, with
Attorney Kurt Glaser serving as lead prosecutor. This report reviews the impact of prosecution services
throughout 2024 and identifies trends that will influence operations in 2025.
Key Developments in 2024
BBG’s first full year as City Prosecutor brought significant improvements to case management,
program implementation, and policy development. Notably:
Prosecution Policy Integration: Since beginning its work, BBG introduced new prosecution
policies and practices aligning with the City’s values, vision, and mission. The defense bar and
public defenders have increasingly accepted these pathways and adjusted their case dispositions
accordingly.
Community Engagement: Residents continue to provide positive feedback regarding
prosecution practices that emphasize communication, respect, and engagement.
Court Collaboration: Among legal practitioners, these policies have led to smoother case
negotiations, improved predictability in case outcomes, and increased collaboration
between prosecution and defense to achieve fair and just resolutions.
Increase in Prosecutions & Court Hearings: Now that the Golden Valley Police Department
(GVPD) is fully staffed, the number of prosecutions has increased. This has led to a higher
volume of court hearings, a trend expected to continue into 2025. To accommodate this growth,
BBG is working with the courts to schedule additional hearing dates and manage caseloads
efficiently.Enhanced Victim Services: New programming has decreased the wait time for victims
of domestic abuse to receive case resolutions. This additional support has reduced victim
anxiety and increased witness retention throughout case disposition.
Court Accessibility: The relocation of hearings for Golden Valley cases to Brooklyn Center has
improved convenience for residents. In particular, the new location, adjacent to Minnesota
Driver and Vehicle Services, has increased the success rate of driver’s license reinstatements.
2
Program Review & Impact
BBG has introduced and refined several key initiatives to enhance community safety, justice
accessibility, and resource efficiency.
1. Ticket Education Program (Fully Implemented): This program uses education to address low-
level traffic and theft offenses rather than solely relying on punitive measures. Participants
attend online courses to improve awareness of laws and the impact of their actions. The
program has continued to receive positive public feedback and has contributed to reduced
repeat offenses.
2. Driver’s License Reinstatement Program (Fully Implemented): By partnering with the Public
Defender’s Office, this program has helped numerous individuals regain valid driver’s licenses,
preventing unnecessary legal entanglements and improving access to employment and essential
services. The program has significantly reduced the number of individuals caught in a cycle of
escalating fines and legal consequences.
3. Restorative Justice Initiative: BBG continues to develop a Restorative Justice Program in
partnership with Community Mediation & Restorative Services (CMRS), with implementation
expected in the second quarter of 2025. This initiative aims to provide alternative resolutions to
prosecution by facilitating dialogue between victims and offenders, fostering accountability, and
reducing recidivism.
Policies and Guidelines: Year in Review
BBG has worked throughout 2024 to ensure transparency and equity in prosecution services. Key
policy considerations include the following:
Prosecution Policies
Status of Non-Citizens: BBG has explored how to handle cases involving non-citizens to mitigate
disproportionate collateral consequences. National political trends and evolving federal
immigration policies have influenced local prosecution practices, creating new challenges for
balancing fair treatment with public safety. As federal and state policies shift, BBG continues to
monitor the intersection of immigration law and criminal justice, ensuring that prosecutorial
discretion aligns with both legal mandates and community values. BBG seeks input and
collaboration from the Council and Administration as these complex legal considerations
continue to evolve.
Prosecution Guidelines: In 2024, BBG published guidelines outlining common case outcomes to
increase transparency and fairness. This initiative has been well received by the legal community
as a demonstration of the City’s commitment to transparency and equitable legal processes.
Looking Ahead to 2025
As GVPD is close to fully staffed, prosecution volume is expected to continue increasing, requiring
additional court hearings and resource allocation. BBG will work closely with the courts and City
leadership to ensure efficiency in case management and equitable prosecution practices.
The Restorative Justice Program remains a top priority in 2025, with BBG working toward its successful
launch in collaboration with Community Mediation & Restorative Services (CMRS). This initiative will
provide meaningful alternatives to prosecution, encourage accountability, and promote community
healing.
Additionally, further development of domestic abuse initiatives and refinement of prosecution
policies, especially to align with the City's expanded response efforts, will remain priorities in the
3
coming year.
BBG remains committed to aligning prosecution services with the City’s values and welcomes ongoing
feedback from the City Council to ensure community safety, justice accessibility, and fairness for all
residents.
4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
City Manager's Office
763-512-2345 / 763-512-2344 (fax)
Golden Valley City Council Work Session
April 8, 2025
Agenda Item
2. Legislative Agenda Discussion - Zoning and Land Use Preemption
Prepared By
Noah Schuchman, City Manager
Summary
Brief discussion to revisit legislative priorities discussion in light of multiple bills at the legislature
proposing zoning and land use preemption.
Recommended Action
The council will discuss zoning and land use preemption as part of the legislative agenda.
Supporting Documents
2025 Legislation - Staff Comments
5
Date: April 3, 2025
To: Noah Schuchman, City Manager
From: Emily Goellner, Community & Economic Development Director and
Chloe McGuire, Deputy Community Development Director
Subject: 2025 Planning and Zoning Legislation
CC: City Council
Summary:
Staff are tracking legislation being discussed at the state level. Many of these bills remove local
controls as they relate to zoning and planning. This document is intended to provide a nuanced and
detailed conversation related to each bill. Most bills include items Staff are supportive of, and
items that we are more concerned about immediately implementing.
General Support For:
- Simpler Process: Many of the bills indicate that developers are frustrated with city
processes across the state, and the underlying message is that multifamily, and affordable,
housing projects are typically held to higher standards and require additional city meetings.
They are frustrated that projects that are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan should
be allowed by-right end up taking on significant risk and time to get zoning approvals from
the City. At the national, state, and local levels, we are in a housing crisis due to the severe
lack of multifamily housing and affordable housing. Staff are supportive of administrative
approvals for projects that meet City requirements. Staff are also supportive of reducing
the time that it takes to get projects through the approval process. Staff feel this is more
equitable and reduces the stigma around affordable housing. We have heard from
affordable housing developers that they are held to hig her standards than non-affordable
developers because of the public stigma and opposition to their projects. The City Council
is committed to affordable housing, so this is an easy step we can take to make affordable
housing easier to build in Golden Valley and reduce uncertainty for developers.
- Duplexes and ADUs: As noted above, we acknowledge a lack of housing opportunities in
Golden Valley. Duplexes and ADUs can create additional housing opportunities, housing
types, create more affordable housing options, and allow our aging population to age -in-
place. Numerous bills require that cities allow duplexes and ADUs in any residential
district. Staff are supportive of this generally because it meets the City’s vision for a
v
6
2
welcoming, inclusive, and affordable City; however, implementation could be challenging
due to the diversity of lot sizes and shapes. Complexities related to public safety access,
utility configurations, and subdivision requirements would need to be addressed.
- Parking Minimums: Staff are generally supportive of lowering parking minimums or setting
parking maximums. There are code amendments we could make locally to right-size our
parking code, such as the inclusion of on-street parking in calculations and codification of
shared parking arrangements made among local businesses. Staff are generally not
supportive of a complete removal of parking minimums due to lack of a cohesive transit,
bicycle, and pedestrian network.
Concerns About:
- Health, Safety and Public Welfare: Many of these bills reference “Health, Safety and
Public Welfare” as simply deferring to the Building Code. While the Building Code is
incredibly important to create safe buildings, a more nuanced approach should be taken.
We currently implement many of our planning and zoning tools because they directly relate
to Health, Safety, and Public Welfare. Allowing only the Building Code and Statute to be
used greatly limits the City’s ability to implement livability and public health items.
- Climate Equity Planning: By deferring to the Building Code for the maximum regulations
cities can require, the city loses the ability to implement climate change adaptation,
walkability, biking, landscaping, and other items implemented by the zoning code. Some of
these items include:
o EV readiness
o Bike racks
o Green roof or solar-ready roofs
o Landscaping requirements (e.g. new trees with new developments)
- Architectural Controls: Staff is not supportive of giving up architectural controls – people
will be much more open to duplexes if they match the general character of the
neighborhood. Behind the scenes, Staff works with developers and homebuilders to
recommend minimal changes on projects that can make a large difference. For example,
many new projects are proposed with no windows on either side wall. Staff will work with
developers to add windows to increase natural light and air for new homeowners and
residents. That said, Staff are committed to a reasonable solution that creates sustainable,
long-lasting, and attractive products that are enforced equally on all projects. Staff have
heard from affordable developers that they are held to higher standards than non -
affordable developers. Staff can work on architectural controls that are enforced for all
projects – and not negotiated project-by-project if this part of the legislation does not pass.
- Limiting Local Housing Policy: Many bills limit the City’s ability to introduce housing policy
at a local level that is more restrictive of statute. This would limit the City’s ability to
introduce rules related to tenant protections, local affordability requirements, a mixed-
income housing policy, and PUD policies.
- Developer Control: It is important to note that many of the regulations defer to developers
to implement items onsite. Additionally, many of the bills are written in support of
7
3
affordable housing, but developers will still choose their rent levels for rental properties.
While increased housing stock could reduce housing costs overall, it is not likely that a less
expensive building with cheaper siding and less onsite amenities will actually cause
developers to reduce their rents. Developers will still charge maximum rent.
- Minimum Lot Sizes: While Staff are generally supportive of
reduced lot sizes, the legislation was not written by a planner and
does not include important lot factors, such as public road
frontage, which is incredibly important for public safety. The
legislation would inherently allow flag lots, which the City has
never allowed. Flag lots are created when road access is provided
via a narrow strip. On the graphic on the right, the flag lot is the
orange lot. Flag lots are named as such because the lot lines look
like a flag and pole. While this may be appropriate to increase
housing stock, we need to work through implementation.
Local Control:
It is important to understand that the bills limit local control as they relate to the third column
(Zoning and City Code). While projects could still have these items, it would be up to each
individual project and developer to decide if they include these items if the bills pass as presented.
Many of these items include livability concerns. Below is a list of example regulations.
Still required with all bills
Cities could no longer require
Developments would choose if they do them.
State Statute Building Code Zoning and City Code
- ADA
Accessibility
- Park
Dedication
Fee
- Variance
Process
- Health, Safety, Public
Welfare
- ADA Accessibility
- Fire Code (e.g. Sprinkling)
- Certain architectural
requirements (e.g. siding is
requiring, foundations
required, insulation) but
not types of siding, amount
of windows, solar ready,
etc.
- Architecture/Building Materials
- Number of Windows
- Pedestrian Connectivity (e.g. requiring
sidewalks or trail connections within a
site or requiring new plazas and quasi-
public areas with new apartments) – but
the City could still put our own sidewalks
into our easements and our property
- Sustainability Features like: EV Chargers,
Green Roofs
- Design Standards
- Streetscape Improvements
- Parking Minimums
- Public Art
- Landscape Requirements
- Tenant Protection Policies
- PUD Policies
Note: Town Center Planning – Could be
greatly burdened if we can’t have these
requirements
8
4
Individual Bill Information and Analysis: Page
I. SF 2229 / HF 1987 (“Minnesota Starter Home Act”) ................................................................... 4
II. SF 2231 / HF 2140 (“More Homes Right Places Act”) ................................................................. 5
III. SF 1268 (“Prohibition on Minimum Parking Requirements”) ..................................................... 6
IV. SF 2286 / HF 2018 (“Transforming Main Street Act”) .................................................................. 7
V. HF 2976 (“Proposal Eliminates Local Affordable Housing Aid (LAHA) for Cities”) ................... 8
VI. HF 2013 (“Preemption of Municipal Design Standards”) ........................................................... 8
VII. SF 2097 (“Source of Income”) ....................................................................................................... 9
I. SF 2229 / HF 1987 (“Minnesota Starter Home Act”)
Summary: “Minnesota Starter Home Act” would put restrictions on some local zoning
ordinances and development agreements to allow smaller homes and increased density.
Municipalities would be prohibited, per the bill, from excluding single family homes,
duplexes and ADUs (tiny homes, mother-in-law apartments, etc.) from residential zones.
Limits on other local zoning ordinances such as setbacks for townhomes, minimum parking
requirements, required construction materials or forced homeowners’ associations, whi ch
can increase the cost of a home by thousands of dollars.
- Requirements:
o ADUs allowed and permitted by right.
o Townhomes allowed on any newly platted lot.
o Townhome lot minimum - 1500 square feet.
o Duplex and single-family (SF) lot minimum - 5445 square feet.
o Cannot have stricter requirements for townhomes/duplexes than SF homes.
o Require an administrative process for duplexes/townhomes, like SF homes.
Staff Support:
- ADUs and duplexes by right (e.g. tear down a single-family home and put up a duplex or
add an attached ADU to an existing home) so long as concerns below are met.
- 2 units per single family lot by right, so long as concerns below are addressed.
- Reduced parking requirements.
- Limiting HOA controls as they relate to aesthetics, solar, landscaping, fencing, and
other zoning controls.
- Townhomes, duplexes, and ADUs in single family areas (with adequate sewer/water
capacity).
- Maximum setbacks (7.5 side and 15 rear).
- Maximum setbacks (15 front) – this may be acceptable for some situations (e.g. new lot
split), but the R-1 district currently requires a 35-foot front yard setback, and we would
9
5
like to limit ADUs to side and rear yards only. Would support a blanket front yard
setback of something closer to 20 – 25 feet.
Staff Concerns:
- Limiting construction materials – aesthetics and architecture of duplexes, ADUs.
- Not allowing cities to require HOAs as they relate to property maintenance and shared
facilities. Shared facilities such as stormwater ponds, lift stations, common space
landscaping, etc. still need an entity for long-term maintenance.
- Public safety access for new dwellings – public frontage requirements for new lots does
not appear to be strongly considered. Smaller minimum lot sizes are fine, but we need
to figure out how to implement at a local level so that homes are still accessible and
there are proper easements or frontage to each lot. I could see issues in 20+ years with
new homes in people’s “backyards” and then with fences, shared driveways, etc. The
newer homes lose access to their properties. Need public road frontage requirements.
- Homes may not actually be affordable; but increased supply could decrease prices.
- We don’t allow overnight street parking – we likely need to revise this ASAP.
- Any district that permits a residential use has to allow single family homes, duplexes,
ADUs, and townhomes - we don’t want single family homes in our R4 or high-density
mixed-use district. This should be revised to say “low density residential” instead of
residential use.
o If infill townhomes are the desired goal (e.g. filling apartment parking lots with
tiny homes), we need to determine where these should go. The Missing Middle
Housing Study will research some of these regulations.
- Can't restrict lot coverage <80%, except if due to stormwater rules. Confirm that this is
true in the shoreland overlay district. May need to work on more citywide stormwater
facilities.
- Requiring development agreements 3 days before final approvals is a tight timeline. We
normally do development agreements after approval.
- Accept applications without any fees (Subd. 5). Sometimes the fee is what determines a
complete application or the seriousness of an applicant. Additionally, this has large
implications for staff time and workload. Development applications provide fees and
cover Staff time related to their applications, so that development pays for itself and
not the general taxpayer.
II. SF 2231 / HF 2140 (“More Homes Right Places Act”)
Summary: This bill is a successor to last year’s “Missing Middle” bill, aimed at increasing
residential density along transit corridors. It would direct cities to designate zones along
main roads and allow higher-density development there. In those zones, cities would have
a limited ability to impose setbacks, square footage minimums, parking mandates and
other requirements.
- Requirements:
o Cities must allow single family homes, townhomes, duplexes, triplexes.
o Cities must allow fourplexes or allow density of at least 1/1500 square feet.
10
6
Staff Support:
- Cities must create a mixed housing and commercial corridor district that allows
housing types listed above in 75% of the area within the City that allows residential.
Need clarification if this bill has two separate requirements (1. Mixed Housing, 2.
Commercial Corridor) or if they are together.
- Cities can only require one meeting prior to approval of a request.
- Same approval standards must be applied to all mixed housing as what is applied to
single-family.
- City identification of the transit corridor zones.
Staff Concerns:
- Definition of minimum parking mandate.
- Concern regarding overnight parking on street , we would have to allow more on-street
parking.
- Reduced parking mandates with limited public transit access in certain areas. The City
would need increased partnerships with (and investments from) Metro Transit,
Hennepin County, and MnDOT.
- Some concern about HOAs as noted above.
- No architectural standards on mixed housing.
- Same concern about development agreement as above.
- Lack of public street frontage and other platting requirements – could be a public safety
concern since the lots have no additional requirements besides size. We could have
‘island’ lots, flag lots, and lots in the back half of existing lots.
III. SF 1268 (“Prohibition on Minimum Parking Requirements”)
Summary: Prohibition on minimum parking requirements for development. It would
prohibit all cities from requiring minimum parking spaces for any new development
including commercial, industrial, and residential. The bill still allows cities to specify
disabled parking requirements.
Staff Support:
- Staff acknowledges that parking requirements are complex, some calculations are
outdated, and minimum requirements can lead to increased cost on projects when the
parking may not lead to significant benefit. Staff acknowledges that for many local
projects, developers would still likely put in parking.
Staff Concern:
- As noted above, Staff are generally supportive of lowering parking minimums and
setting parking maximums. Additionally, on-street parking would need to be allowed in
more areas and counted in calculations for parking requirements.
11
7
- Staff are generally not supportive of a complete and immediate removal of parking
minimums due to lack of a cohesive transit, bicycle, and pedestrian network and
previous direction to limit sidewalks in neighborhoods in exchange for narrower roads.
IV. SF 2286 / HF 2018 (“Transforming Main Street Act”)
Summary: The bill would require local governments to allow apartment construction in
areas currently zoned for commercial use, with some exceptions. It also provides a
“bonus” for affordable housing developments, allowing more units than city zoning
standards allow. Cities could require developers to maintain the first floor of the building as
commercial space if businesses already exist in the area. The bill contains provisions that
would limit cities’ ability to set height limits on apartment buildings. Large cities would have
to allow buildings up to 75 feet tall. All developments must be able to be approved
administratively. Goal: Increase residential density in commercial downtown areas.
Cities must allow bonuses for affordable housing including:
- 35 feet taller or 30% taller OR 30% more FAR OR 30% bigger building by other standards
Staff Support:
- Residential development must have same setback and lot coverage requirements as
commercial uses. Standards for residential development can’t be more restrictive than
commercial development.
- Standards and restrictions on affordable housing must be the same as market-rate
housing
- Local controls and ordinances may be used to increase density.
- Cities may pass ordinance/local controls requiring multifamily development in
commercial districts replacing commercial/industrial be mixed use with commercial on
ground floor and at least 50% residential. Doesn’t apply to affordable housing
developments (maybe it should?).
Staff Concerns:
- GV would have to allow housing in light industrial zoning district (big concern), office
(likely okay, but could be a concern).
- Cities will need to be proactive about preserving light industrial jobs, otherwise the
market would convert these to housing (cheaper, easier to do that) and we lose a lot of
working jobs.
- Can't consider traffic concerns on any residential development under 300 units.
o We’d prefer only allowing traffic studies if there’s a comprehensive plan
amendment because the comprehensive plan already takes into consideration
traffic for all allowed uses!
- Administrative approval for residential development in commercial districts, but
doesn’t require administrative approval for residential development in residential
districts
- Mixed-use is not strongly defined – seems to refer to vertical mixed use, but need clarity
on if horizontal mixed use is allowed.
12
8
V. HF 2976 (“Proposal Eliminates Local Affordable Housing
Aid (LAHA) for Cities”)
Summary: Proposal to eliminate the allocation of the metropolitan sales tax currently
distributed to cities through the Local Affordable Housing Aid (LAHA) and redistributes the
city allocation to metropolitan counties. Under the amendment, which was adopted,
cities would receive no LAHA funding. The amendment was not posted prior to the
hearing, and no testimony was taken. The bill was laid over. Metro Cities will continue to
monitor this issue and provide further updates and information.
Staff Support: None
Staff Concerns:
- Golden Valley already has housing programs that we intend to use these funds for.
Without funds, we will be unable to provide matching funds, a standard requirement of
other grants and for the HOPE program.
- Some communities have already chosen to give funds to the County and others are
keeping funds in-house. It should be up to each community where funds are used,
since we cannot be certain that the County will ensure funds for Golden Valley are used
in Golden Valley.
VI. HF 2013 (“Preemption of Municipal Design Standards”)
Summary: Prohibit cities from imposing construction material or method requirements on
residential developments with four or fewer units. This includes restrictions on
architectural elements, building egress, durability, energy efficiency, and light access
unless required by the State Building Code.
Staff Support:
- We don’t currently have architectural standards for single family homes.
Staff Concerns:
- Could limit townhome/rowhomes, especially as it relates to sustainability requirements
- Would impact City authority related to multifamily housing.
- We still want some control about increased architectural requirements, articulation,
high quality materials, etc. but agree that it should be consistent across projects and
not negotiated based on neighborhood opposition .
- If duplexes, ADUs, and smaller single-family homes are allowed on all lots, Staff feels
the following architectural design standards are reasonable:
o Similar treatment on all four sides of the homes
o Windows on all four sides of the home to increase natural light and air flow
o High-quality and durable materials
13
9
VII. SF 2097 (“Source of Income”)
Summary: A landlord cannot discriminate against a tenant based on the tenant's use of
federal, state, or local government rental assistance; a housing choice voucher program; or
another form of public assistance that helps a tenant pay rent.
- Brought up at the open forum on 4/1/2025.
14
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Legal
763-512-2345 / 763-512-2344 (fax)
Golden Valley City Council Work Session
April 8, 2025
Agenda Item
3. Council Review of Future Draft Agendas
Prepared By
Theresa Schyma, City Clerk
Supporting Documents
Review of Future Draft Agendas
15
Review of Future Draft Agendas
Meeting & Item Info
April 15, 2025 City Council Meeting - 6:30 PM
1A - Pledge of Allegiance and Land Acknowledgement
Presentation
Proclamation Recognizing Firefighter Appreciation Day
New Employee Introductions (if necessary)
Consent - Council Minutes
Approval of Council Minutes
Consent - City Check Registers
Approval of City Check Registers
Consent - Licenses
Consent - Boards, Commissions, and Task Forces
Adopt Resolution Approving an Appointment to the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission
Board and Commission Appointments and Reappointments (additional appointments)
Consent - Bid, Quotes, and Contracts
Approve Contract for Native Vegetation Management with XYZ
Approve 2025-2026 LE AST Services Counseling Agreement
Consent - Grants and Donations
Adopt Resolution No. 25-XXX Accepting Various Donations for Police Department Staff to Attend Out-of-State Conferences and
Trainings
Medley Garden Donation, Resolution
Consent - Miscellaneous
Adopt Resolution Establishing a Fire Escrow Account Pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 65A.50
Final Plat (Fretham 32nd Addition)
Public Hearing
Old Business
New Business
May 6, 2025 HRA Meeting - 6:30 PM (if necessary)
Consent Agenda
Approval of HRA Minutes
First Amendment of Contract for Development for 6300 Olympia (formerly 1605 Douglas)
Public Hearing
Old Business
New Business
May 6, 2025 City Council Meeting - 6:30 PM
1A - Pledge of Allegiance and Land Acknowledgement
Presentation
Proclamation for Asian American and Pacific Islander Heritage Month
Proclamation for Arbor Day and Arbor Month
Proclamation Recognizing National Police Week
Consent - Council Minutes
Approval of Council Minutes
Consent - City Check Registers
Approval of City Check Registers
Consent - Licenses
Consent - Boards, Commissions, and Task Forces
Consent - Bid, Quotes, and Contracts
16
Meeting & Item Info
Adopt Resolution No. 25-### Authorizing Construction Cooperative Agreement with Hennepin County for CSAH 156 (Winnetka
Avenue) Improvements CP No. 2183346
Adopt Resolution No. 25-### Authorizing Construction Cooperative Agreement No. 1058885 with MnDOT (TH 394/Louisiana
Avenue Improvements)
Approve Cooperative Agreement with Three Rivers Park District for the Design, Construction, and Maintenance of the Bassett
Creek Regional Trail Connection
Approve purchase of Thermal Imaging Cameras for Fire Department
Contract for Construction Services
New Permit Software (Accela) and Plan Review Software (DigEplan)
Consent - Grants and Donations
Consent - Miscellaneous
1131 Lilac Declaration of Easements and Covenants
Public Hearing
Old Business
New Business
May 13, 2025 HRA Work Session - 6:30 PM (if necessary)
Housing and Economic Development Update and Work Plan
May 13, 2025 City Council Work Session - 6:30 PM
Council Review of Future Draft Agendas
May 13, 2025 Special City Council Closed Executive Session - 6:30 PM (immediately following work session) (tentative, TBD)
Call Closed Session to Order
Closed Session
Adjourn
17