11-10-08
AGENDA
Council/Manager Meeting
Golden Valley City Hall
7800 Golden Valley Road
Council Conference Room
Monday, November 10,2008
6:30 p.m. or immediately following the Special HRA meeting
1. Parent/Child Play Time
2. 2009-2013 Capital Improvement Program
3. 2009 Other Funds Proposed Budget
4. Comprehensive Plan Review - Land Use, Housing, and Water Supply Chapters
and Height Limitations in the Medium Density (R-3) and High Density (R-4)
Zoning Districts
5. Former Vet Clinic Site - 1201 South Turner's Crossroad
6. Proposed Franchise Fee with Xcel Energy and CenterPoint Energy
7. Property Maintenance Enforcement
8. Council Email and Correspondence Policy
9. 2009 Council Workshop
Council/Manager 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/Manager meetings and listen to the discussion; public
participation is allowed by invitation of the City Council.
This t is available in alternate formats
763-593-8006 (TTY: 763-593-3968) to make a r
ma include large print, electronic, Braille, aud
alley
emorand m
City Administration/Council
763~593-8014/763~593-8109 (fax)
Executive Summary
Golden Valley Council/Manager Meeting
November 10, 2008
Agenda Item
1. Parent/Child Play Time
Prepared By
Thomas Burt, City Manager
Summary
Council Member Scanlon asked that this item be placed on the agenda. A resident will also
be pre~nt to discuss the need for a parent/child play time program.
alley
Memo ndu
Finance
763-593-8013/763-593-8109 (fax)
Executive Summary
Golden Valley Council/Manager Meeting
November 10,2008
Agenda Item
2. 2009-2013 Capital Improvement Program
Prepared By
Sue Virnig, Finance Director
Summary
Staff will be present at the November 10 Council/Manager meeting to answer questions on
the 2009-2013 Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The Planning Commission will review
the document at their November 24 meeting. Those minutes will be shared with Council at
the December 9Council/Manager meeting. The document will be presented at the December
16 Council Meeting for approval. After approval, the document will be bound and distributed.
Please bring this document to the Council/Manager meeting on November 10.
Attachments
Various Sections of the CIP (27 pages)
~lley
Me orandu
Finance
763-593-8013/763-593-8109 (fax)
Executive Summary
Golden Valley Council/Manager Meeting
November 10, 2008
Agenda Item
3. 2009 Other Funds Proposed Budget
Prepared By
Sue Virnig, Finance Director
Summary
At the Council/Manager meeting, the Council will be reviewing the following funds: Water and
Sewer Utility Fund. Appropriate staff will be in attendance to discuss the proposed budgets
for these divisions and answer questions from the Council.
Please bring your 2009 Other Funds Proposed Budget book. This section was distributed in
your agenda packet delivered last Friday and should have been added to your book.
Hey
Memora dum
Planning
763-593-8095 I 763-593-8109 (fax)
Executive Summary
Golden Valley Council/Manager Meeting
November 10, 2008
Agenda Item
4. Comprehensive Plan Review - Land Use, Housing, and Water Supply Chapters and Height
Limitations in the Medium Density (R-3) and High Density (R-4) Zoning Districts
Prepared By
Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development
Summary
The Land Use, Housing, and Water Supply Chapters of the Comprehensive Plan draft,
previously distributed, were not discussed in detail at the October 30 Comprehensive Plan
Workshop. Therefore, these items will be discussed at the November 10 Council/Manager
meeting. In addition, per your request, an electronic copy of the Surface Water Management
Plan will be distributed to you at the meeting.
The Land Use Chapter, which includes the General Land Use Plan Map, currently allows for
three residential housing designations. Currently, residential areas are guided for low density
development, medium density development, and high density development. There has been
discussion in recent months to reconsider areas in the City designated for high density
development. A recent inventory of multi-family dwellings indicates that there is a wide variety
of density in buildings located in areas guided for medium density development.
Staff would like the Council to consider adjusting residential land use classifications to better
reflect existing conditions as well as future density allocations. Currently, residential land use
classifications are as follows:
Low Density:
Medium Density:
High Density:
Less than 5 units per acre
5 to 11.9 units per acre
12 or more units per acre
Staff proposes the creation of an additional category, to allow for greater flexibility in land use
planning. Staff's proposed classifications are as follows:
Low Density:
Medium-Low Density:
Medium-High Density:
High Density:
Less than 5 units per acre
5 to 11.9 units per acre
12 to 19.9 units per acre
20 or more units per acre
Under this proposal, several areas of the City would remain guided for high density housing.
The remainder of the properties guided for high density housing would be re-guided for
medium-high density housing, which would limit the density of development to 19.9 units per
acre.
The Planning Commission has recommended that the City Council regulate residential
housing density by establishing height limitations in the High Density (R-4) Residential Zoning
District, as well as the Medium Density (R-3) Residential Zoning District. Per the Planning
Commission's suggestion, height would be limited in the High Density (R-4) Residential
Zoning District to 60 feet. To exceed this height, the Planning Commission recommends
allowing variances or planned unit development approval to be obtained. The Planning
Commission does not recommend allowing buildings to exceed 60 feet through a Conditional
Use Permit.
In the opinion of the Planning Department, creating an additional land use classification
would not require amending language used in the Zoning Code. In addition to reviewing the
Land Use and Housing Chapters of the Comprehensive Plan, staff seeks Council direction in
the regulation and distribution of density in the residential areas in Golden Valley.
Attachments
Golden Valley Multi Family Residential Property List (1 page)
Gold
Vall
Multi F
-Iv R
-d
tial P
rt
01 ... . 01
Name Address Units Acreage Density (units/acre) Current Zoning
Calvary Center Apartments 7650 Golden Valley Rd 55427 80 1.515915954 52.77 R4
Colonial Apartments 5743 Glenwood Ave. 55416 12 1.266074178 9.48 R3
Colonial Apartments 5747 Glenwood Ave. 55416 12 2.398773632 5 R3
Copacabana Apartments 1725 Lilac Dr. N. 55422 49 2.880591776 17.01 R3
I Covenant Manor 5HUO St. Croix Ave. N. 554ll 128 4.Y7H 25.71 R4
Crossroads Apartments 5601 Glenwood Ave. 55416 34 2.927879221 11.61 R3
Douglas Drive Apartments 1400-1600 Douglas Dr. N. 55422 58 3.38 17.1 R3
Dover Hill Apartments 2400-2564 Rhode Island Ave. N. 55427 234 13.33843112 17.54 R3
Golden Valley Arms Apartments 6150 St. Croix Ave. N. 55422 51 4.8715 10.47 R3
Golden Valley Road Apartments 6200 Golden Valley Rd 55422 21 2.398494331 8.76 R3
Golden Valley Townhomes 2040 Douglas Dr. N. 55422 4 0.956930283 4.18 R3
Golden Valley Townhomes 2120 Douglas Dr. N. 55422 6 1.546847264 3.88 R3
Laurel Estates Apartments 5610 Laurel Ave. 55416 65 4.410407701 14.74 R3
Laurel Terrace Apartments 250 Turner's Crossroad ~ 55416 86 4.355051785 19.75 R3
Mallard Creek Apartments 8300 Golden Valley Rd 55427 61 7.935893756 7.69 R3
Mayfair Apartments 5307 Circle Down 55416 24 2.82591487 8.49 MU
Medley Park Condominiums 9201 Medicine Lake Rd. 55427 52 3.4507 15.07 R4
Medley Park Townhomes 2345-2385 Mendelssohn Ln. 55427 30 3.215740655 9.33 R2
Minnaqua Pond Apartments 2813 Unity Ave. N. 55422 52 6.574 7.91 R4
Minnaqua Pond Townhomes 2402-2567 Unity Ave. N. 55422 114 13.75 8.29 R4
Olson Memorial Highway 7462 Olson Memorial H~ 55427 14 1.935 7.24 R4
South Wirth Apartments 501 Theodore Wirth PkV\ 55422 60 5.774799205 10.39 R4
Trentwood Apartments 9110 Golden Valley Rd 55427 12 4.782070986 2.51 R3
Tri plex 6212 Golden Valley Road 55422 3 0.542265723 5.53 R3
Valley Creek West Apts, LLC 1370 Douglas Dr. N. 55422 37 1.813418335 20.4 R3
Valley Square Commons 751-787 Winnetka Ave. N. 55427 24 1.319018321 18.2 R3
Valley View Apartments 6533 Golden Valley Rd 55427 12 5.700310966 2.11 R3
Valley Village Apartments 600 Lilac Dr. N. 55422 112 6.751537122 16.59 R3
Village Terrace Apartments 241-373 Yosemite Circle 55422 79 6.587787414 12.01 R3
alley
Memorand m
City Administration/Council
763-593-8014/763-593-8109 (fax)
Executive Summary
Golden Valley Council/Manager Meeting
November 10,2008
Agenda Item
5. Former Vet Clinic Site - 1201 South Turner's Crossroad
Prepared By
Jeanne Andre, Assistant City Manager
Summary
The Housing and Redevelopment Authority owns property previously addressed at 1201
South Turner's Crossroad. Before its purchase by the HRA it housed a veterinary clinic. The
initial purpose in acquiring the property was to make it available to assemble with adjoining
property for redevelopment. The property was acquired in 1993 and redevelopment has still
not occurred. In 2007 the HRA directed staff to remove the building due to its long period of
vacancy and subsequent decline. This work was done as an addendum to another demolition
project underway in the city at that time. The contractor was not asked to remove the asphalt
paving or posts delineating this parcel from the adjacent parcel and it appears some of the
footings were not removed. Although there have been redevelopment discussions for this
area, none have come to fruition at this time and the parcel remains unsightly, even with the
building removed.
In the past year HRA staff has discussed the option of leasing this land to the adjacent
business, The Metropolitan. Owner Larry D'Amico has suggested that the land could be
useful for parking or additional green space, either of which would create a more attractive
entrance to his business. HRA staff does not recommend selling the property, as controlling
the property gives the HRA some influence in the ultimate redevelopment of this area.
Turner's Crossroad is currently scheduled for street improvements on this block in 2011.
Attached is a letter from Larry D'Amico noting his interest in leasing the property, but
requesting that the HRA undertake further demolition (footings, asphalt and posts) on the
property to prepare it for improvements he would undertake. He has alternately suggested
that he could undertake this demolition if reimbursed by the HRA. Also attached is a memo
from Ron Nims outlining costs of various improvements previously considered by the HRA for
this site. Staff requests that the Council discuss whether staff should proceed with any
manner of improvements to the site, either cooperatively with Mr. D'Amico or independently.
Attachments
Letter from Larry D'Amico dated September 18, 2008 (1 page)
Memo Regarding 1201 Turners Crossroad Site Rehabilitation dated April 18, 2008 (2 pages)
DAMICO & PARTNERS
MINNEAPOLIS NAPLES
$(p
8 ;l2008
September 18, 2008
Mayor Linda Loomis
Dear Mayor Loomis:
I'm writing to you about the demolition of the Vet Clinic building adjacent to the
Metropolitan Ballioom facility my company operates, and the current condition of the parcel
after it was cleared by the City.
It is our contention that the City's demolition job was never fully completed. The building
was tom down and the debris removed, but the dirt patch that was left behind is an eyesore
with numerous problems, including no curb or foundation blocks, various different kinds of
broken pavement, damaged parking posts, severed parking cables, and unsighdy weeds.
We would like to propose that the City complete the demolition job by excavating and
grading the parcel, and generally preparing it for landscaping. My company would then make
the investment to landscape the area and be responsible for maintaining it going forward.
Please feel free to contact me at (612) 317-4215 or larry@damico.com with any comments
or questions you may have.
Sincerely,
,
MINNEAPOLIS
211 NORTH FIRST STREET, SUITE 175
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55401
TELE 612-374-1776
FACSIMILE 612-374-1869
www.damico.com
NAPLES
1177 THIRD STREET SOUTH
NAPLES, FLORIDA 34102
D'AMICO CUCINA - CAMPIELLO - D'AMICO & SONS - CAFE AND 8AR LURCAT - D'AMICO CATERING - MASA
Memorandum
Public Works
763.593.8030 I 763.593.3988 (fax)
Date: April 15, 2008
To: Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works
From: Ron Nims, Public Works Project Coordinator
Subject: 1201 Turners Crossroad Site Rehabilitation
The property at 1201 Turners Crossroad measures 93' north/south by 88' east/west, or
about 0.20 acres in size. In 1993 the City of Golden Valley Housing Redevelopment
Authority acquired the property for redevelopment purposes. In 2007 the existing
building was demolished due to complaints regarding the condition. After completion of
the demolition, the City installed silt fence around the area most prone to erosion to
prevent sediment from flowing off the site.
Currently the site.is in disrepair as shown on the following photos. The existing post and
cable guard rail is also in poor condition and could be considered a tripping hazard.
Public Works staff offers the following options and related approximate estimated costs
to restore or modify the site:
. Remove the existing asphalt over the entire site, cover with topsoil and plant
native grasses or wildflowers. The plant materials would be maintained by
contracted firms in the same manner as buffer strips around ponds throughout
G:\PROJECTS\1201 Turners Crossroad Demo (07-4)\Restoration Memo 4-9-08.doc
the City. ($18,000 + approximately $1,000 per year contracted maintenance
cost)
. Remove the existing pavement and construct either a rain garden or infiltration
basin. This option would require an engineering study costing approximately
$5,000 - $10,000. The cost of the project would be determined as part of the
study.
. Patch the existing excavations in the pavement with asphalt to prevent continued
erosion and re-set the post and cable guard rail ($17,000).
. Remove the existing pavement, install curb and gutter and re-pave the site to
provide drainage. The City could consider leasing the site to obtain funding.
($43,000).
. Continue to maintain the site in its current in its current condition. (No
rehabilitation cost, continued maintenance cost).
. Turners Crossroad is designated to be rehabilitated in 2011 as part of the City's
Pavement Management Program. The City could consider to continue to
maintain the site in its present condition until 2011 and include the site
rehabilitation in the Pavement Management project. This option could reduce
the construction cost due to project scale and a favorable bidding climate.
Hey
Memo ndum
Public Works
763-593-8030 I 763-593-3988 (fax)
Executive Summary
Golden Valley Council/Manager Meeting
November 10, 2008
Agenda Item
6. Discussion regarding a Proposed Franchise Fee with Xcel Energy and CenterPoint Energy
Prepared By
Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works
Summary
Authority
The City of Golden Valley has authorized franchise agreements with Xcel Energy and
CenterPoint Energy. Ordinance 279, adopted in May 2003, granted CenterPoint Energy a
franchise agreement for a period of 20 years. Ordinance 394, adopted in December 2007,
granted Xcel Energy a franchise agreement for 20 years. Both franchise ordinances have
language relevant to franchise fees that are very similar to the following text:
At the time of adopting this franchise, the City does not desire to impose a franchise
fee on the Company. If the City seeks a franchise fee from the Company, the City
shall notify Company in writing of such intent to modify this franchise agreement and
impose a franchise fee which shall be by separate ordinance. Promptly thereafter City
and Company shall negotiate in good faith mutually acceptable terms, conditions and
amount of such fee. If City and Company are unable to agree on any term or condition
of the fee, all disputes shall be resolved pursuant to Section 2.5 of this ordinance. The
parties do not waive hereby, any rights they have under law.
Use
If the Golden Valley City Council authorized franchise fees with CenterPoint Energy and Xcel,
the funding could be used for infrastructure projects that currently are not funded in the
Capital Improvement Program. The list includes, but is not limited to, Douglas Drive,
completion of the sidewalk plan, completion of the City's trail plan, replacement of sidewalks
and trails, lane Avenue, Lindsey Avenue, Harold Avenue, and replacement of streetlights in
proposed pavement management neighborhoods.
Proposed Fee and Anticipated Revenues
CenterPoint Energy and Xcel Energy both recommend that the franchise fees, if imposed, be
assessed as a flat fee per meter basis. Staff has worked with representatives from both
companies to develop models which would provide the City with approximately $880,000 in
annual revenue. The CenterPoint model is based on fees that were identified by CenterPoint
staff as typical of other franchise fees in other communities. The Xcel model is based on fees
which equal the current surcharge that was necessary for the TH/55/Boone Avenue project.
Schedule
Pending Council direction, staff will work with CenterPoint Energy and Xcel Energy
representatives to develop a schedule for adoption of the franchise fees by ordinance. The
surcharge fee with Xcel Energy for the TH/55/Boone Avenue project is scheduled to
terminate in early 2009. If the Council wishes to replace the surcharge fee with a franchise
fee, it is important for work on the ordinance to begin immediately.
Attachments
Franchise Fee Analysis - CenterPoint Energy, prepared 11/5/08 (1 page)
Franchise Fee Estimate - Electric Flat Fee, prepared 11/5/08 (1 page)
CenterPoint Energy Franchise Fee Report, prepared 11/5/08 (2 pages)
Northern States Power Company Electric City Surcharges, dated 11/1/08 (2 pages)
Franchise Fee Analysis - CenterPoint Energy
City of Golden Valley
Data: 12 months Ended August 2008
* Rate Class
Customers
(meter)
(b)
7,333
258
220
292
195
25
7
8,330
Volume
(In Therms)
(c)
8,709,970
333,830
592,294
4,377,990
2,005,079
1,308,493
4,248,496
21,576,152
Revenue
(d)
9,635,701
373,970
650,872
4,645,674
1,868,675
1,213,670
2,589,712
$20,978,273
$19,611,852 Weather Normal
Revenue Estimate
Option: Assumes each meter is assessed a different flaUee ( bv rate class)
# months
Total
12 $ 131,994.00
12 $ 18,576.00
12 $ 31,680.00
12 $ 70,080.00
12 $ 117,000.00
12 $ 22,500.00
12 $ 8,400.00
$ 400,230.00
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
(a)
Residential
Com - A
Com/lnd-B
Com/lnd-C
SVDF - A
SVDF - B
lVDF
TOTAL
* Comllnd= Commercialllndustrial, SVDF=Small Volume Dual Fuel, LVDF= Large Volumne Dual Fuel
G:\ROW MGMT\Franchise Agreements\Centerpoint\CNP-Golden Valley Franchise Fee Analysis Rev 1l-S-08.xlsx
Heating Degree Days-Actual
Heating Degree Days-Normal
7,922
7,406
Rate Class
Resid.
ComA
Com/lnd B
Com/lnd C
SVDF A
SVDF B
lVDF
# Cust
Flat $/mo
7,333 $
258 $
220 $
292 $
195 $
25 $
7 $
1.50
6.00
12.00
20.00
50.00
75.00
100.00
City of Golden Valley, MN
Franchise Fee Estimate
FOR INTERNAL COMPANY USE ONLY
Electric Flat Fee
Information Based on Year Ending August 2008
Round to $0.00 or
increments of
$0.25
Residential" 8,938 80,112,482 $7,975,319 $391 ,496 89% 81% $ 74.36
Small C&I - Non-Demand" 586 7,899,463 $776.098 $25,667 6% 5% $ 110.37
Small C&I - Demand 365 56,690,005 $4,483,750 $48,021 4% 10% $ 1,022.41
Large C&I (> 1 Mw) 114 231,112,864 $16,124,076 $19,925 1% 4% $ 11,814.87
Public Street Lighting 39 1 ,582,172 $261 ,792 $0 0% 0% $ 556.79
Municipal Pumping - Non-Demand 3 10,623 $1,242 $131 0% 0% $ 34.50
Municipal Pumping - Demand - - $0 $0
Total
NOTE: The above figures do not reflect any calculation for low income residential customers which may affect the total revenues the City may receive from the franchise
11/512008
CenterPoint Energy Franchise Fee Report - 11/05/2008
City Fee Status Calculation Method Franchise Fee Schedule In Lieu of Fee Start Date Sunset/Review Date
Permit Fees
<\fton <\pproved "Iat Rate Residential - $2.00 Yes o I/O I/2005 6/30/2006
Comm A = $4.00
Comm B = $5.00
Comm C = $5.00
~VDF A = $5.00
SVDF B = $5.00
VDF= $5.00
'\Iexandria '\pproved Yo of Revenue <\11 Customers = 5% Yes 04/0 I /2004 \lone
'\noka '\pproved 1 at Rate Residential - $2.75 Yes 51 /05/2004 Sunset 12/31/2011
:omm A = $2.75
omm B = $8.00
:omm C = $35.00
SVDF A = $75.00
SVDF B = $300.00
VDF= $900.00
Blue Earth Approved IFlat Rate Residential - $2.00 Yes 12/0I/2003 None
ommercial = $3.00
Brook]yn Center Approved !Frat Rate Residential = $1.48 Yes 01/29/2004 None
"'omm A = $1.53
Comm B = $5.00
"'omm C = $20.00
SVDF A = $50.00
SVDF B = $96.00
VDF= $96.00
oon Rapids <\pproved Yo of Revenue All customers =4% No 0]/OI/]992 None
~ottage Grove <\pproved [PI at R.ate Residentia] = $1.25 Yes 0]/29/2004 \lone
omm A = $3;75 0] /0] /2007
"omm B & C= $6.25
SVDF A & B = $12.50
VDF= $18.75
&ITp $18.75
Deephaven <\pproved lat Rate II Customers =$2.50 No 02/04/2002 eview 02/04/2005
~xcelsior <\ooroved lat Rate 2.50 / meter Yes 10/15/2005
'1opkins '\pproved lat Rate esidential = $1.00 No 02/06/2004 sunset 12/31/2009
~omm A = $1.00
Comm B = $3.00
Comm C = $9.00
SVDF A = $18.00
sVDF B = $63.00
VDF= $63.00
ake Crystal Approved Yo of Revenue All customers = 5% No 08/01/2003 None
Little Falls Approved lat Rate Residential = $1. 00 No 01/01/2004 None
All others = $5.00
ong Prairie Approved I at Rate :j; I. 00 / meter No o I/O 1/2007 None
Mankato Approved I at Rate Residential $0.95 No 1 % 1 /2008 NA
"om A 2.50
"'omB 5.25
"om C 12.00
SVDF A 15.00
SVDF B . 20.00
VDF 25.00
V1inneapol is <\pproved Yo of Revenue /2001, Res =4.25% Yes 01/01/1992 None
'/2008, Res = 4.50%
Commercial A,B,C= 5%
SVDF = 5%
VDF=3%
V10rris <\pproved lat Rate Residential $2.00 Yes 07/0I/2004 \lone
Com-A $5.00
Comllnd-B $9.00
~omllnd-C $27.00
sVDF-A $35.00
SVDF-B $35.00
VDF $750.00
Mound '\ooroved Flat Rate <\11 customers -$2.00 No 10/20/2003 \lone
New Hope Approved Plat Rate ~esidential "" $1.50 es 1101/2004 ~eview 01/0112006
~omm A "" $3.00
~omm B = $6.00
~omm C = $20.00
~VDF A = $30.00
~VDF B = $40.00
...VOF= $60.00
North Mankato Approved Plat Rate Res $1.00 1./0 6/01/2008 Franchise Exp
Com A 5.00 06/28/2009
Com B 10.00
Com C 15.00
SVDF A 20.00
SVDF B 30.00
LVDF 75.00
Oakdale Approved ~at Rate Residential - $0.50 No 01/20/2004 Review 06/3012006
CommA&B= $3.00
Comm C = $5.00
SVDF A & B = $10.00
l.,VDF= $10.00
Dwatonna Approved Yo of Revenue Residential = 1.75% Yes 01/01/2003 None
~omm A & B = 1.75%
~omm C = . 1.00%
~VDF A & B = 1.00%
~VDF= 1.00%
Prior Lake Approved Plat Rate ~esidential $1.50 [Yes 107/01/2006
~omm-A $1.50
tomm-B $5.00
~omm-C $5.00
SVDF-A $10.00
$VDF- B $10.00
...VDF $50.00
Richfield Approved Plat Rate Residential = $1.60 - 1.65 [Yes P2l03/2004 Review 0613012008
Comm A = $1.60 - 1.65 F Inc. 01-01-06
CommB= $4.95-5.10
Comm C = $11.00 - 1\.33
SVDF A = $11.00 - U .33
SVDF B = $11.00 - 1\.33
...VDF= $11.00 - 1\.33
Robbinsdale Approved Yo of Revenue All. customers = 4% No - but not 06/01/2003 Sunset 07/0112009
equired to
pay (same
Sleepy Eye Aooroved Yo of Revenue All customers = 2% Yes 01/01/1998 None
St. Louis Park Approved I'lat Rate Residential = $1.25 No 01/04/2004 None
Comm A = $1.25
Comm B = $4.00
Comm C = $10.00
SVDF A&B = $10.00
LVDF= $65.00
Waseca Approved Plat Rate ~esidential $1.40 1N0 P1/01/2006 None
~om A $1.80
~omB $5.00
~om C $16.00
SVDF A $100.00
SVDF B $150.00
...VDF $300.00
Northern States Power Company-Minnesota, an Xcel Energy Company
State of Minnesota - Electric City Surcharges
Sheet 1 of 6
Updated 11/01/2008
FRANCHISE FEES
A franchise fee as designated below will be included in the customers' monthly bills under the indicated customer classes effective in the
following Minnesota communities:
Indicates fee is not applied
(U) Indicates unincorporated community
Afton $2.00 $2.00 $5.00 $5.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00
Baker (U) a $3.25 $3.25 - - - - -
Brooklyn Center $1.48 $3.00 $20.00 $96.00 $12.00 $12.00 $12.00
Coon Rapids b 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% - - -
Cottage Grove $1.25 $1.25 $6.25 $25.00 $2.50 $0.63 $6.25
Deephaven $2.50 $2.50 $2.50 $2.50 $2.50 $2.50 $2.50
Dilworth $1.75 $4.00 $14.00 $91.00 - $4.00 $14.00
Excelsior $2.50 $2.50 $2.50 $2.50 $2.50 $2.50 $2.50
Faribault C $1.35 $1.60 $32.00 $280.00 - - -
Goodview $2.75 $3.00 $25.00 $110.00 $25.00 $2.50 $10.00
Grant $2.35 $2.00 $14.00 $75.00 $2.00 .$2.00 $2.00
Hopkins $1.00 $2.00 $9.00 $63.00 - - -
Little Canada d $1.75 $4.00 $24.00 3.75% $15.00 $1.00 $7.00
Mahtomedi $1.30 $1.38 $14.40 $110.28 $12.71 $0.63 $14.84
Mankato $0.50 $1.00 $10.00 $130.00 $1.00 $0.25 $1.00
Maplewood $0.50 $1.00 $6.00 $45.00 $0.50 $0.50 $0.50
3.0%
?,100 kWat
5.0% 5.0% 5.0% primary or
<100 kWat <100 kWat higher voltage
Minneapolis e 5.0% 5.0% 5.0%
effective secondary secondary 5.0%
01/1994 voltage voltage ~100 kWat
secondary
voltage
Minnetonka $2.50 $4.50 $4.50 $4.50 - $4.50 $4.50
Monticello $1.95 $5.50 $31.00 $190.00 $12.00 $12.00 $31.00
Mound $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00
Mounds View 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0%
New Brighton $0.0023 $0.0023 $0.0016 $0.0009 $0.0023 $0.0023 $0.0016
per kWh per kWh per kWh per kWh per kWh per kWh per kWh
New Hope $1.50 $4.50 $9.00 $36.00 $4.50 $4.50 $4.50
Newport $0.50 $1.00 $6.00 $50.00 $4.00 $1.00 $5.00
North Mankato $0.75 $1.10 $9.25 $125.00 $13.25 $1.10 $9.25
Oakdale $1.00 $2.00 $9.00 $7.50 $6.00 $1.50 $7.50
Owatonna $0.0016 per kWh Customer peak demand less than 100 kW in calendar year
$0.0014 per kWh Customer peak demand greater than 100 kW in calendar year
Northern States Power Company-Minnesota, an Xcel Energy Company
State of Minnesota - Electric City Surcharges
Sheet 2 of 6
Updated 11/01/2008
Richfield
Robbinsdale 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0%
Sartell f $2.50 $2.50 $2.50 $2.50 $2.50 $2.50 $2.50
Sa uk Rapids 3.0% Customers who purchase $50,000 or less in calendar year
1.5% That part which exceeds $50,000 in calendar year
South SI. Paul 9 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0%
SI. Cloud h 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0%
2%
purchase
.::$100,000 in
calendar year
SI. Joseph $1.00 $1.75 $10.00 $8.00 $1.00 $10.00
1.5%
that part
>$100,000 in
calendar year
SI. Louis Park $1.25 $4.00 $10.00 $65.00 $4.00 $10.00
SI. Michael $2.50 $2.50 $2.50 $10.00 $10.00 '$2.50 $10.00
SI. Pauli See fee schedule in Franchise Fee Notes.
SI. Paul Park $1.50 $2.00 $25.00 $335.00 $10.00 $1.00 $5.00
Stillwater $2.00 $2.50 $18.00 $125.00 $4.00 $2.00 $18.00
Watertown $2.00 $3.50 $15.00 $50.00 $12.50 $20.00
West SI. Paul j 5.26% 5.26% 5.26% 5.26%
White Bear Lake 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5%
Winona 4.0% Customers who purchase $100,000 or less in calendar year
1.5% That part which exceeds $100,000 in calendar year
FRANCHISE FEE NOTES
a Baker: Represents a city fee collected to cover energy usage and maintenance on community street lighting.
b Coon Rapids: The franchise fee excludes rate schedules for highway lighting, municipal street lighting, municipal water pumping, municipal fire
sirens, and municipal sewage disposal service.
C Faribault: The franchise fee excludes invoices to the city for street lighting and municipal pumping.
d Little Canada: The franchise fee shall not exceed $2,400 in any calendar year for the large commercial and industrial customer class.
· Minneapolis: The franchise fee for the residential customer class will change to 4.5% effective January 1, 2013.
f Sartell: Effective with January of the respective years, the monthly franchise fee will be as follows:
. 2007 and 2008
. 2009 and 2010
. 2011 and 2012
$2.50
$2.75
$3.00
. 2019 and 2020
. 2021 and 2022
. 2023
. 2013 and 2014
. 2015 and 2016
. 2017 and 2018
$3.25
$3.50
$3.75
$4.00
$4.25
$4.50
9 South SI. Paul: The franchise fee excludes rate schedules for highway lighting, municipal street lighting, municipal water pumping, municipal
traffic signals, municipal fire sirens, and municipal sewage disposal service.
Hey
Memorandum
City Administration/Council
763-593-8014/763-593-8109 (fax)
Executive Summary
Golden Valley Council/Manager Meeting
November 7, 2008
Agenda Item
7. Property Maintenance Enforcement
Prepared By
Thomas Burt, City Manager
Summary
Council Member Shaffer asked that this item be placed on the agenda.
Attachments
Memo from Mark Kuhnly dated November 6, 2008 (2 pages)
alley
M morandum
Fire Department
763-593-8079 I 763-593-8098 (fax)
To: Mayor and Council
Through: Thomas Burt, City Manager
From: Mark Kuhnly, Chief of Fire & Inspections
Subject: Property Maintenance Enforcement
Date: November 6,2008
Summary
Josh Kunde, Fire/Property Maintenance Inspector has developed a guide that is used to
establish compliance times for correcting property maintenance violations. Some of the
compliance times are established as part of the City Code. Others are determined by the
inspector based on factors including: extent of work, time of year, weather and extenuating
circumstances.
Attachment
Violations and Compliance Times (1 page)
Violations and Compliance Times
There are a total of 722 violations on record with the City's property maintenance code.
Of these violations, 44 have specific time frames in which the violation must be
corrected.
1) Lawn Maintenance 10 days
2) Fallen trees 40 days
3) Brush/ branches 40 days
4) Fire wood 30 days
For the other violations the inspector generally uses 30/45/60/90 days for compliance
during spring and summer months. When fall and winter approach some violations will
be given a specific compliance date in the spring. Some examples would be painting
trim, siding or windows, replacing sidewalks or concrete stoops, and other issues that
may not be conducive to cold weather.
When a correction notice is issued for property maintenance violations that do not have
a specific compliance time as part of the code, several factors are taken into
consideration.
1) Extent of repair
2) Cost of repairs
3) Number of violations and condition of rest of the property
4) Communication with property owner
5) Time of year Le. winter, spring, summer, fall
6) Has the repair been started and what kind of progress has been made
7) Extenuating circumstances Le. death, medical, financial, capability of the
owner
Staff will review written requests for an extension to complete the corrections when
submitted by the property owner prior to the compliance date.
alley
Memorand m
City Administration/Council
763-593-8014/763-593-8109 (fax)
Executive Summary
Golden Valley Council/Manager Meeting
November 10,2008
Agenda Item
8. Council Email and Correspondence Policy
Prepared By
Thomas Burt, City Manager
Summary
The Council requested this item be placed on the agenda for discussion.
Attachments
League of Minnesota Cities Electronic Communications between Council Members (6 pages)
LEAGUE OF
MINNESOTA
CITIES
CONNECTING & INNOVATING
SINCE 1913
RISK MANAGEMENT INFORMATION
ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS
BETWEEN COUNCIL MEMBERS
E-mail correspondence can be an unintentional conduit for city officials to violate the Minnesota
Open Meeting Law. This memo outlines some points elected officials and members of city
committees and boards should be aware of to avoid inadvertently violating the Open Meeting Law.
The Open Meeting Law
Under the Minnesota Open Meeting Law, Minn. Stat. S 13 D, meetings of at least a quorum of the
city councilor one of its committees to discuss city business must be publicized and open to the
public, subject to a few exceptions. A primary purpose of the law is to make sure information and
deliberations about city business are available to the public.
The law applies to any discussion about city business, not just voting or official actions, and to any
gathering of a quorum ofthe council or committee. In most cities a quorum is three or more
councilor committee members.
It's easy to imagine situations where a quorum might gather - coffee at the local cafe, pre- or post-
meeting discussions, a wedding reception or community celebration are all common spots for
council members to meet. There are also some not-so-obvious ways a quorum might meet, for
instance in a serial meeting - imagine Council Member A talks to Council Member B, B talks to
Council Member C, and C talks to A. Another is through written correspondence, or through
telephone conference calls. Any of these scenarios would create an open meeting concern if the
group discussed city business.
Violating the open meeting law carries with it penalties including personal liability for up to $300
per occurrence and forfeiture of office for officials who intentionally violate the law three times.
Reasonable costs and attorney fees can also be awarded ifthe court finds specific intent to violate
the law.
Electronic communications and the Open Meeting Law
The Minnesota Open Meeting Law has a number of tricky aspects, not the least of which results
from increasing reliance on e-mail communication between council or committee members.
E-mail makes a serial meeting easier by allowing council or committee members to forward
messages from one person to the next. Imagine one Council Member e-mailing another to suggest
the pros and cons of a particular city decision. The recipient forwards the e-mail to another
This material is provided as general information and Is not a substitute for legal advice.
Consult your attorney for advice concerning specific situations.
LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES
INSURANCE TRUST
145 UNIVERSITY AVE. WEST PHONE: (651) 281-1200 FAX: (651) 281-1298
ST. PAUL. MN 55103-2044 TOLL FREE: (800) 925-1122 WEB: WWW.LMC.ORG
Council Member, along with his or her own comments and interpretations.
Even if the last Council Member to receive the e-mail doesn't reply to either the originator or the
Council Member who forwarded the message, the three members have still discussed city business
outside a public forum. A violation could be found where serial e-mailing is used to reach a
decision.
Many cities are moving toward electronic meeting packets for councils and committees, often sent
via e-mail attachments. This sort of one-way distribution of information is fine in terms of the
Minnesota Open Meeting Law, remembering that any materials relating to the agenda items of a
meeting distributed to members must also be made available to the public as well.
City officials should start to get concerned, though, when one or more Council Members use the
"reply to all" feature in e-mail to respond to the content of the meeting materials, or otherwise
begin a discussion bye-mail about the packet. This can begin to look a lot like non-public
discussion of city business.
Suggestions
One suggestion is that Council Members never communicate to one-another using e-mail, but
instead treat e-mail only as a way to receive information from the city clerk or administrator. If a
Council Member has information to share via e-mail with the rest of the group, he or she might
send it to the clerk and ask for it to be distributed from the clerk to everyone else (bye-mail or in
paper form).
Using the clerk as the clearinghouse for information distribution is probably a safer alternative
than having Council Members communicate directly, although it doesn't completely eliminate
concerns about violating the open meeting law. Even this clearinghouse concept could provide
opportunity for three or more Council Members to exchange opinions about city business, so it's
important that the city clerk be aware of and watch for possible issues. Finally, this model would
still present problems in Standard Plan cities, where the clerk is also a member of the council.
If Council Members are engaged in direct e-mail discussions, it's probably best to limit it to only
two members. A "no forwarding and no copying" rule might be a good way to make sure the
Minnesota Open Meeting Law isn't unintentionally violated through e-mail conversation.
Finally, be careful when Council Members participate in a listserv or any chatroom sort of forum.
Because these distribution lists may include a quorum of your council, one Council Member's
comments on the listserv will be viewed by other members. If the topic has to do with city
business and another Council Member replies to the listserv, it could prove problematic under the
Minnesota Open Meeting Law.
Again, the city might consider a "no reply" sort of rule when it comes to these resources, or
perhaps have Council Members send ideas for postings or responses to the city clerk or
administrator to manage. Remember, too, that official city committees are subject to the same
open meeting requirements and should be similarly educated about correct e-mail use.
2
Regardless of precautions, there may be times when Council Members find themselves accused of
violating the Minnesota Open Meeting Law, perhaps having unintentionally engaged in one of
these sorts of conversations. One way to diffuse some concern is to immediately release copies of
all e-mail correspondence to anyone who wants to see it. While this doesn't negate the possible
violation, it shows good faith and lack of specific intent to violate the law.
Draft guidelines for electronic communications between Council Members
Cities might decide to develop policies clarifying appropriate or preferred email use by and
between Council Members. Even if a city doesn't formally adopt a policy, the guidelines here
might be helpful for any elected official or city board member to follow.
The purpose ofthese draft guidelines is to suggest how members of city councils and other city
committees might communicate via email and electronic means. A city should review these draft
guidelines along with its normal operating procedures, consult with the city attorney and determine
the best course of action.
Ann Gergen 11/07
3
Guidelines for
Electronic Communications between Council Members
in the City of
These gt1idelines apply to all members of the city council and all members of council and city
committees, commissions, sub-committees, etc. in the City of
For purposes of these guidelines, reference to Council Members includes members of all other city
committees and groups subject to the Open Meeting Law. Reference to the council shall include
all such groups and meetings.
For purposes of these guidelines, "electronic means" means email, instant messaging, chatrooms,
and related electronic conversation.
For purposes of these guidelines, "city clerk" means the city clerk, manager, administrator or his /
her designee.
These guidelines apply regardless of whether the Council Member is using a city-provided email
address and account, his/her personal email address or account, or one provided by his/her
employer.
Meeting materials
Electronic communication of meeting materials should generally be conducted in a one-way
communication from the city clerk to the council.
. Council Members may receive agenda materials, background information, and other
meeting materials via em ail attachment or other electronic means (such as file sharing)
from the city clerk.
. If a Council Member has questions or comments about materials received, s/he should
inquire via electronic means directly back to the city clerk. A Council Member should not
copy other committee members on his/her inquiry.
. If the clarification is one of value to other Council Members, the city clerk may send
follow-up materials or information to the council.
Materials relating to agenda items of a meeting must also be made available to the public at the
meeting.
4
Communication during council meetings
. Council Members should not communicate with one another via electronic means during a
public meeting.
. Council Members should not communicate with any member of city staff via electronic
means during a public meeting.
. Council Members are encouraged not to communicate with the public via electronic means
during a public meeting.
Communication outside of council meetings
. Council Members should generally act with caution when using electronic means to
communicate with one another, being mindful of the Minnesota Open Meeting Law.
. If a Council Member wishes to share information with other members, slhe should do so
through the city clerk. The Council Member may request the city clerk distribute materials
to others. The communication should not invite response to or discussion between any
Council Members, including replies to the person making the distribution request. This
should be considered a method for providing one-way information to other members of the
council. Again remember that materials relating to agenda items for city business must be
provided to the public at the meeting.
. If a Council Member wishes to address only one other member through electronic means
on any topic related to city business, slhe can do so directly, but should be mindful of the
following:
o One-to-one communication is ideal.
o The recipient of an electronic message or inquiry should reply only to the sender,
should not copy others on the reply and should not forward the original email to
other Council Members.
o The sender of an electronic message should not forward or copy the recipient's
reply to any other Council Member.
. If a Council Member receives an electronic communication from any source related to city
business and distributed to multiple Council Members (i.e. an em ail sent to the entire
council from a member ofthe public; or an email sent to three Council Members from a
local business), s/he should reply only to the sender. The reply should not be copied to all
on the original distribution or forwarded to any other Council Member.
. If a Council Member receives listserv distributions, electronic newsletters, or participates
in electronic discussion forums where other Council Members are also likely to participate
5
(such as chat rooms), the Council Member should not reply to any distribution or comment
so that the reply is copied to the entire distribution group, or any part of the group that
might include other Council Members. The Council Member should instead respond only
to the sender of any message or inquiry.
Classification and Retention of electronic communications
. Regardless of whether electronic communication by a Council Member is taking place on a
city-provided computer, home computer or other computer system, classification of
information as public, private or other is governed by the Minnesota Government Data
Practices Act (Minn. Stat. Chapt. 13) and should be treated accordingly.
. Council Members should retain electronic communications in keeping with city policies
and procedures, whether such communication takes place on a city-provided computer,
home computer or other computer system.
Ann Gergen 12/04
6
alley
Mem randum
City Administration/Council
763-593-8014/763-593-8109 (fax)
Executive Summary
Golden Valley Council/Manager Meeting
November 10, 2008
Agenda Item
9.2009 Council Workshop
Prepared By
Jeanne Andre, Assistant City Manager
Summary
At the beginning of the year the Council has typically had a workshop meeting for thinking
long- term. It has varied in its orientation, ranging from goal setting to strategic planning and
budget prioritization. In 2008 the Council focused on cost-saving opportunities.
Staff would like feedback from the Council on the desired approach for 2009. The discussion
could include the focus, format, participants and possible dates.
Recommended Action
Direct staff on Council preferences for a 2009 workshop including the focus, participants,
format and possible dates.