12-16-08
AGENDA
Regular Meeting
of the
City Council
Golden Valley City Hall
7800 Golden Valley Road
Council Chamber
December 16, 2008
6:30 p.m.
The Council may consider item numbers 1, 2, 3,4,6 and 7
prior to the public hearings scheduled at 7:00 p.m.
1. CALL TO ORDER
A. Roll Call
B. Oath of Office - Police Officers Brandy Gile and Daniel Pacholke
C. 1-394 MnPASS Phase II Study Presentation
2. ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS TO AGENDA
3. CONSENT AGENDA
Approval of Consent Agenda - All items listed under this heading are considered to be
routine by the City Council and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no
discussion of these items unless a Council Member or citizen so requests in which
event the item will be removed from the general order of business and considered in its
normal sequence on the agenda.
A. Approval of Minutes -City Council Meeting - December 2,2008 and Council/Manager
Meeting - December 9,2008
B. Approval of Check Registers:
1. City
2. Housing and Redevelopment Authority
C. Licenses:
1. General Business Licenses
2. City Gambling Licenses
3. Fireworks Permit - Sweeney Lake Association
D. Minutes of Boards and Commissions:
1. Planning Commission - November 24, 2008
2. Human Rights Commission - October 16, 2008
3. Board of Zoning Appeals - October 28, 2008
4. Bassett Creek Water Management Commission - October 16, 2008
E. Letters and/or Petitions
1. Letter from Ben and Anita Kramer Regarding Overhead Street Lighting
Req uest
F. Bids and Quotes:
1. Trimming/Removal of Trees on Public/Private Property - Bids
G. Approval of the 2009-2013 Capital Improvement Program and Adopt Budgets for
2009 Capital Improvement Program for Vehicles and Equipment, Buildings and Parks
08-57
H. Adoption of 2009 Budgets - Water and Sewer Utility, Brookview Golf, Motor Vehicle
Licensing, Conservation/Recycling, Storm Sewer Utility, Human Services Foundation
and Vehicle Maintenance Funds 08-58 to 08-64
I. Acceptance of Donations for Ongoing Programs and Other Miscellaneous Donations
08-65
3. CONSENT AGENDA - CONTINUED
J. Approval of Plat - Quail Woods Addition 08-54
K. Approval of the Amendment and Restatement of the Cafeteria Plan 08-66
L. Amending the Health Reimbursement Arrangement and Establishing a Voluntary
Employee Beneficiary Association (HRA VEBA) Benefit for Employees 08-67
M. Amendment to Fire Relief Association Funeral Benefits 08-68
N. Approval of One Year Extension for Filing of Plat for Lots 11 & 12, Block 3, Glen
Urban 2nd Addition (Janalyn Circle and Glencrest Road)
4. PUBLIC HEARINGS 7:00 PM
A. Public Hearing - Adoption of 2009 Property Tax Levy, General Fund Budget 08-69
and 08-70
B. Continued Public Hearing - Ordinance #410 - Rezoning from Single Family Zoning
District (R-2) to Moderate Density Residential Zoning District (R-2) - 3335 Scott
Avenue North
5. OLD BUSINESS
A. Second Consideration - Ordinance #411 - Establishing a 2009 Master Fee Schedule
B. Continued Item - Call for Public Hearing - Establishing a Franchise Fee with Northern
States Power d/b/a Xcel Energy - 1/6/09 08-56
6. NEW BUSINESS
A. Approval of 2009 General Wages, Salaries, and Monthly Benefit Contribution for
Non-union Personnel 08-71
B. Announcements of Meetings
C. Mayor and Council Communications
7. ADJOURNMENT
M randum
Police Department
763-593-8079 /763-593-8098 (fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
December 16, 2008
Agenda Item
1. B. Oath of Office - Police Officers Brandy Gile and Daniel Pacholke
Prepared By
Stacy Altonen, Chief of Police
Summary
Officers Brandy Gile and Daniel Pacholke will be present to take their oath of office as
Golden Valley police officers.
Recommended Action
Mayor Loomis administers the oath of office to Officers Brandy Gile and Daniel Pacholke.
alley
Memorandum
Planning
763-593-8095/763-593-8109 (fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
December 16, 2008
Agenda Item
1. C. 1-394 MnPASS Phase II Study Presentation
Prepared By
Mark Grimes, Qirector of Planning and Development
Summary
Lee Munich, Jr. from the Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs at the University of Minnesota
will be making a brief presentation to the City Council regarding the 1-394 MnPASS Phase II
study. The overall purpose of the study is to develop a long-term vision for the 1-394 MnPASS
project to help achieve optimal performance of the corridor for the next 30 years. The study
has been undertaken by MnDOT staff and consultants with funds provided by the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA). Mr. Munnich will be making a power point presentation.
This presentation is being made to each of communities that are part of the 1-394 corridor.
alley
Me oran urn
Finance
763-593-8013/763-593-8109 (fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
December 16,2008
Agenda Item
3. B. 1. Approval of City Check Register
Prepared By
Sue Virnig, Finance Director
Summary
Approval of check register for various vendor claims against the City of Golden Valley.
Attachments
Loose in agenda packet.
Recommended Action
Motion to authorize the payment of the bills as submitted.
lley
Memo ndum
Finance
763-593-8013/763-593-8109 (fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
December 16, 2008
Agenda Item
3. B. 2. Approval of Housing and Redevelopment Authority Check Register
Prepared By
Sue Virnig, Finance Director
Summary
Approval of check register for various vendor claims against the Housing and Redevelopment
Authority.
Attachments
Loose in agenda packet.
Recommended Action
Motion to authorize the payment of the bills as submitted.
alley
Memo ndu
Inspections
763-593-8090 I 763-593-3997 (fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
December 16, 2008
Agenda Item
3. C. 1. General Business Licenses
Prepared By
Kathryn Pepin, Administrative Assistant
Summary
As per City Code, some businesses are required to be licensed by the City. Listed below are
the License Number, Applicant, License Type and Fee of those who have submitted an
application for approval.
#3497
#3500
#3501
#3502
#3506
#3508
#3509
#3511
#3512
Schuller's Tavern Tobacco Sales
7345 Country Club Drive
$200.00
Superamerica #4443 Tobacco Sales
1930 Douglas Drive North
$200.00
Superamerica #4497 Tobacco Sales
6955 Market Street
$200.00
Holiday Station Store #130 Tobacco Sales
7925 Wayzata Boulevard
$200.00
MGM Liquor Warehouse Tobacco Sales
7704 Olson Memorial Highway
$200.00
KKS Potpourri Gifts Tobacco Sales
5500 Wayzata Boulevard
$200.00
Sunny Hollow Market Tobacco Sales
2580 Hillsboro Avenue North
$200.00
United Liquors #2 Tobacco Sales
7751 Medicine Lake Road
$200.00
Medicine Lake Citgo Tobacco Sales
9405 Medicine Lake Road
$200.00
#3517
Randy's Sanitation
4351 Highway 12 S.E.
4 Recycling Vehicles
$200.00
#3516
Waste Management
1901 Ames Drive
8 Recycling Vehicles
$400.00
#3499
Golden Valley Country Club
7001 Golden Valley Road
Tobacco Sales
$200.00
#3520
Aspen Waste Systems
2951 Weeks Avenue S.E.
1 Recycling Vehicle
$50.00
Recommended Action
Motion to authorize the issuance of licenses as recommended by staff.
alley
M moran urn
Finance
763-593-8013 r 763-593-81 09 (fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
December 16,2008
Agenda Item
3. C. 2. City Gambling Licenses
Prepared By
Sue Virnig, Finance Director
Summary
Listed below are the organizations that are renewing their gambling license.
Chester Bird American Legion Post #523
200 Lilac Drive North
Golden Valley, MN 55427
Golden Valley VFW Post #7051
7775 Medicine Lake Road
Golden Valley, MN 55422
Chester Bird American Legion Post #523
200 Lilac Drive North
Golden Valley VFW Post #7051
7775 Medicine Lake Road
Minnesota Youth Athletic Services
4111 Central Avenue NE
Columbia Heights, MN 55421
The Church of St. Maron
219 - 6th Avenue NE
Minneapolis, MN 55413
JJ's Clubhouse
6400 Wayzata Boulevard
Schuller's Tavern
7348 Country Club Drive
Recommended Action
Motion to approve the City gambling licenses as follows: Chester Bird American Legion Post
#523; Golden Valley VFW Post #7051, Minnesota Youth Athletic Services and The Church of
St. Maron.
Public ~H~y
Memorandum
Fire Department
763-593-8055 I 763-512-2497 (fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
December 16, 2008
Agenda Item
3. C. 3. Fireworks Permit - Sweeney Lake Association
Prepared By
Mark Kuhnly, Chief of Fire & Inspections
Summary
A fireworks display permit application has been received for a New Year celebration. The
display is privately funded by the Sweeney Lake Association and is scheduled to occur at
12:00 midnight December 31, 2008 lasting 10-15 minutes. If the event cannot be held on
December 31 it will take place after dusk on January 1, 2009.
The location of the fireworks display will be on the George Wessin property at 1801 Noble
Drive. I have a letter on file signed by the property owner authorizing the display to occur on
his property.
The display will be conducted by Americana Fireworks Company in accordance with local,
state and national requirements.
Recommended Action
Motion to approve the fireworks display permit for the Sweeney Lake Association.
December 12, 2008
Mr. Tom Burt, City Manager
City of Golden Valley
7800 Golden Valley Road
Golden Valley, MN 55427
DEe 1 2 2008
Members of the City Council
City of Golden Valley
7800 Golden Valley Road
Golden Valley, MN 55427
Dear Members of the City Council and Mr. Burt:
I am the owner of the home at 1485 Island Drive. I understand that the Sweeney lake
Association has applied for a permit to hold a fireworks display in connection with its
annual New Year's Eve celebration. I am not opposed to the fireworks display, but I
would like the City to issue any fireworks permit subject to conditions intended to avoid
damage to my property that has occurred in prior years.
The Association has historically launched the fireworks from a site approximately 400
feet or so from my home and with my home directly in the line of fire. I spoke to Ed
Anderson, the Fire Marshall, after last year's fireworks display, and again this week. I
understand that the same launching site will be used.
In my discussions last year, and again this past week, I have advised Mr. Anderson of
my concerns and urged Mr. Anderson to advise the City of possible steps that could be
taken to make damage to my home and other properties less likely to occur. I have
attached a copy of a letter that I have sent to Mr. Anderson which summarize my
concerns and possible action that could be taken by the City Council to reduce the risk
of damage to property or injuries to persons. I request that the City Council take notice
of the concerns described in that letter, and require the Sweeney lake Associati.on to
demonstrate to the City that the reasonable safety and liability concerns I have raised
will be addressed.
I also request that the City make appropriate findings of fact r~arding: (i) the location
of the proposed launching site; (ii) the proximity of that launching site to occupied
homes; (iii) the size of the fireworks the Association intends to use; (iv) the minimum
safe distances that should be maintained between the launching site and occupied
homes; and (v) the damage that has occurred in prior years. I encourage the City to
impose reasonable conditions on the issuance of the fireworks permit intended to
assure me and other similarly situated residents of the community that appropriate
safeguards will be put into effect to guaranty that no property will be damaged by the
fireworks, or adversely affected by fireworks debris.
I would appreciate the opportunity to speak to the City Council so that I can provide
information regarding this matter and answer questions that Council Members may
have regarding the information I provide.
Thank you for your consideration.
Regards,
~s.
Christopher Gise
763-588-7329
Enclosures
PO Box 3703
Minneapolis, MN 55403-0703
December 11, 2008
Ed Anderson, Deputy Fire Marshall
City of Golden Valley - Fire Department
7800 Golden Valley Road
Golden Valley, MN 55427
RE: Application by Sweeney Lake Association for Fireworks Permit
Dear Mr. Anderson:
Thank you for speaking with me this past Tuesday morning regarding the fireworks
permit being applied for by the Sweeney Lake Association in connection with its New
Year's, 2009, celebration. As we discussed Tuesday and earlier this past year, my
home and property have been damaged by the Association's fireworks display. I am
requesting your help in advising the City Council on appropriate conditions that could be
made a part of any fireworks permit in an effort to avoid further damage to my property.
In our recent discussion you indicated that the launch site, the size of the fireworks,and
the direction in which they would be fired (directly toward my house from a site located
approximately 400 feet or so away) would be unchanged from previous years, but that
an effort would be made to aim the fireworks on a higher trajectory. I do not believe that
minor adjustments in the trajectory of the fireworks will prevent the problem of flaming
debris raining down on my house and property as has occurred in prior years. You also
indicated your belief that the damage to my property was attributable to exceptionally
windy conditions during last year's display. I want to go on record as having told you
that the Association's fireworks displays in years prior to last year have also resulted in
similar damage to my property, and that those fireworks displays were conducted in the
absence of windy conditions. I have noted damage and debris from these displays for
at least the last 3 years. It was not until last year's fireworks display, when I was
present in my home during the display that I realized that the damage and debris were
the result of the Association's fireworks display rather than vandalism.
In light of the damage to my property that has occurred in prior years, I was
disappointed not to have been included in the meeting you described tome in which the
Association and you developed an "action plan" for this year's fireworks display. Had I
been included, I would have requested that the your office, the City, and the Association
consider the following:
1. The proposed launching site is approximately 400 or so feet from my home and
is aimed directly at my home. Has the Association considered alternatives to directing
the fireworks at occupied homes as has been done in the past?
2. If directing the fireworks at occupied homes is necessary, has the Association
considered alternative launching sites that would be farther away from occupied
homes?
3. Should there be a limitation on the size of the fireworks used in the display so as
to comply with applicable with applicable minimum radius requirements for those
fireworks (i.e., launching the fireworks from a site that maintains the minimum
recommended distance not only from the launch site, but also from homes and other
improvements in the line of fire)?
4. Will bonds be maintained by the City or the Association to cover the expense of
repairing damage to property caused by the fireworks or the cost of removing fireworks
debris? What liability is faced by members of the Association should property be
damaged or someone injured? Is there appropriate insurance being maintained? Has
the City examined the Association's liability insurance policy to confirm that damage
caused by fireworks displays will be covered by that policy?
5. What steps will be taken by the City to assure conformance with any conditions
the City imposes in connection with the issuance of the fireworks permit?
6. Will fire officials be stationed at the sites that have historically suffered damage in
connection with the Association's fireworks display?
Please understand that before speaking to you about my concerns, I spoke to a
representative of the Association's board of directors and provided her with the same
information that I have provided to you. I was given no reason to hope that my
concerns would even be considered by the Association, and to say that the
Association's representative was unconcerned would be an understatement.
It is important to me that the City consider these questions and adopt measures that
would make damage to my home or other properties less likely to occur. I ask that you
advise the City of my concerns and of possible measures that the Association could
take to reduce the potential risk of damage to property and injury to persons. Since the
launchers appear unable to control the fallout from the display, and the risk of damage
to property and injury to persons, I would strongly urge the City to require the
Association to use a different, more distant, and safer site for launching the fireworks
that affords the launchers a wider margin of error. Please consider that the lake is over
1000 feet wide at the southern end. I would like to better understand why launching the
fireworks from a site at the southern end wouldn't be safer than launching the fireworks
from the narrow, northern end. I suggest the launching site be relocated to that area.
Your office has always been protective of the safety of the community. There seems to
be a clear safety issue here, and as Fire Marshall I hope you will be inclined to err on
the side of caution and not support the issuance of the fireworks permit under the
current plan. especially since there appear to be viable safer alternatives.
I request that if the fireworks display goes forward as planned. a representative from the
Golden Valley Fire Department be present on my property during the display so that he
or she may witness firsthand how dangerous this situation is. I also request that a
member of the Golden Valley Fire Department insped the debris and damage (if any) to
my property on January 1st.
Thank you for considering my concerns.
Regards,
~~.
Christopher Gise
763-588-7329
Fredrikson
;.:.;....
.......
......
-::::::
+, & BYRON, P A
December 11, 2008
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
George Wessin
4611 Golden Valley Road
Golden Valley, MN 55422-4161
Sweeney Lake Association
Attn: Mick Lee
1900 Major Drive
Golden Valley, MN 55422
Re: Sweeney Lake Association New y ear~s Fireworks Display
Gentlemen:
This firm represents Christopher Gise, who resides at 1485 Island Drive, Golden Valley,
Minnesota. Mr. Gise's residence adjoins Sweeney Lake. The purpose of this letter is to make
you aware of certain safety risks caused by the Sweeney Lake Association's (hereafter the "Lake
Association") annual New Year's fireworks display (the ''Display'').
Mr. Gise received an announcement from Mr. Lee on December 4, 2008 indicating that the
annual Display is planned to be launched from Mr.' Wessin's property this year. It is our
understanding that the Display has been launched from Mr. Wessin's property in prior years as
well. For several years, Mr. Gise has noticed fallen debris and damage to improvements located
at his residence caused by the Display. While Mr. Gise is not opposed to a fireworlcs show
generally, he is concerned about continuing property damage and clean-up expenses caused by
the annual Display. Due to these concerns, Mr. Gise is opposed the continued launching of the
Display from Mr. Wessin's property.
Mr. Gise requests that all necessary measures be taken so that debris and flames do not land on
his residence during the Display. The most reasonable solution is for the Lake Association to
s~lect an alternative launching spot because the current launching spot continuously deposits
debris upon Mr. Gise's residence. The Display should not occur if fireworks are launched in
such a manner that puts any residence, including Mr. Gise's residence, at risk of damage.
.
Attorneys & Advisors
main 612.492.7000
fax 612.492.7077
www.fredlaw.com
Fredrikson & Byron, P.A.
200 South Sixth Street. Suite 4000
Minneapolis. Minnesota
55402-1425
MEMBER OF THE WORLD SERVICES GROUP
George Wessin
Mick Lee
December 11, 2008
Page 2
We also wish to confirm whether the Lake Association has liability insurance coverage with
regard to the Display. If so, please provide copies of any applicable insurance policies to my
attention.
If flames and debris again faU upon Mr. Gise's residence, he win seek recovery from the Lake
Association and Mr. Wessin for any damages and expenses incurred, including, but not limited
to, any costs Mr. Gise incurs in cleaning up fallen debris.
Mr. Gise's goal is not to prevent the Display altogether. His goal is to ensure that his residence
is safe from falling debris and flames produced by the Display. Accordingly, changes should be
made to this Display to make it safe and enjoyable for everyone.
Sincerely,
~-
. ~
Jeffrey J. Serum
Attorney at Law
Dired Dial: 612.492.7304
Email: jserum@fredJaw.com
--....
JJS:jfin:S1296.1 :447S00I_I.DOC
00: Christopher Gise (via elmail)
00: Bill Wilson
Regular Meeting of the
Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 24, 2008
A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held at the Golden Valley City
Hall, Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota, on
Monday, November 24,2008. Chair Keysser called the meeting to order at 7 pm.
Those present were Planning Commissioners Cera, Eck, Keysser, McCarty,
Schmidgall and Waldhauser. Also present was Finance Director Sue Virnig, Director
of Public Works Jeannine Clancy, Director of Planning and Development Mark
Grimes, City Planner Joe Hogeboom and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman.
Commissioner Kluchka was absent.
1. Approval of Minutes
a. November 10, 2008 Regular Planning Commission Meeting
Eck referred to the last sentence in paragraph 11 and noted that the word "is"
should be changed to the word "in".
MOVED by Waldhauser, seconded by Eck and motion carried unanimously to
approve the November 10 minutes with the above noted correction.
2. Presentation of Capital Improvement Program 2009-2013 - Sue Virnig,
City Finance Director
Virnig reviewed the 2009-2013 Capital Improvement Program. She discussed a
proposed new fire pumper truck, the Pavement Management Program which
continues until 2014 and the park improvement fund to pay for park equipment.
Keysser referred to the performance area improvements and asked if city bonds
will be issued. Virnig said she was not aware of city bonds being issued for the
performance area.
Keysser asked about the City's bond rating. Virnig said the City's rating is AA 1.
Eck asked about the recycling fund. Virnig discussed a one-time repair scheduled
for the Brookview parking lot that will be funded by the recycling fund.
Waldhauser questioned the proposed reconstruction of the sidewalks along
Winnetka Avenue near City hall. Clancy explained that the sidewalks being re-
done are in excess of 10 years old and were made with pavers that are susceptible
to salt ~nd are deteriorating.
Waldhauser referred to proposed work on the frontage road south of 1-394 and
asked if there is any way to share those costs with St. Louis Park. Clancy stated
that the portions of the frontage road located in Golden Valley are Golden Valley's
responsibility but that part of the funding will come from state aid money.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 24, 2008
Page 2
Waldhauser asked if there is a list available of state aid streets. Clancy said she
could provide the Planning Commission with a map showing state aid streets.
Waldhauser asked if the City keeps track of the total cost of the III program, City
versus residential. Virnig said yes and added that City receives matching funds
from the Metropolitan Council. Clancy explained that the City is not taking any
portion of the matching funds for the private work being done.
Keysser asked if the market value for properties is going down. Virnig said
residential values are down 1.2% and commercial values are up 7%.
Grimes explained that the Capital Improvement Programs is a part of the
Comprehensive plan and that it is the Planning Commissioners responsibility to
decide if it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
MOVED by Cera, seconded by McCarty and motion carried unanimously to
recommend approval of the 2009-2013 Capital Improvement Program as it is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
-Short Recess-
4. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority,
City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings
No reports were given.
5. Other Business
McCarty asked for an update on the Applewood Pointe proposal. Grimes stated
that United Properties has submitted their Final Plan PUD application but they
asked that City reviews be put on hold at this point.
Hogeboom gave an update on the status of the Comprehensive Plan. He stated
that a draft copy of the plan has been sent to surrounding cities and jurisdictions
for their review. He added that the first public hearing should take place
sometime in February 2009.
Waldhauser asked about connecting the trails near Bassett Creek and
Briarwood. Grimes talked about the County's trail plan.
6. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 7:40
Lester Eck, Secretary
GOLDEN VALLEY HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION MEETING
Minutes from the Meeting of October 16,2008
Members Present: Marion Helland, Anne Dykstra, Christopher Jordan, Roger McConico &
Debra Yahle.
Members Absent: Ron Brandon and Jay Sandvik.
Staff Present: Chief Stacy Altonen and Council Member DeDe Scanlon
The meeting was called to order by Commissioner Dykstra at 7:05 pm.
OPEN FORUM
There was no one present requesting to address the Commission.
CHAIRPERSON'S REPORT
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Commissioner Yahle moved to approve the minutes of the September 11,2008 meeting;
seconded by Commissioner McConico. The minutes were unanimously approved.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
SCHOOL EDUCATION
There was nothing to report.
HOUSING
Commissioner Jordan advised he would like to reach out to residents in multi-housing or
rental housing units and advise them the City has a Human Rights Commission should they
have any concerns they need assistance with. Commissioner Jordan also expressed
interest in providing training or supplying information to property managers. Commissioner
Dykstra advised topics could include: temporary shelter, transportation for medical care and
services for children. Chief Altonen advised the City has the Star Program, where the
Police Department and Inspections Department meet quarterly with approximately 12-20
property managers to discuss a variety of topics. She advised the HRC could prepare fliers
to distribute at those meetings if desired. Council Member Scanlon advised of a
foreclosure meeting at the Golden Valley Library. Scanlon will forward information on the
meeting to commissioners.
LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSIONS
Commissioner Helland advised 9 new members were elected to the board and the next
meeting will be on October 26th in Red Wing. A meeting schedule for 2009 will be
established at this meeting. More than 100 people attended the annual conference in
Rochester.
SHARE THE DREAM
There was nothing to report.
Human Rights Commission
October 16, 2008
Page 2
DISCRIMINATION
Chief Altonen is still working on gathering the information on Affirmative Action. Information
will be forwarded to commissioners via e-mail before the next meeting.
OLD BUSINESS
BREMER GRANT
Commissioner Helland advised the grant form has been submitted for the cities of Golden
Valley, Crystal, Plymouth, New Hope & Robbinsdale. A meeting has been scheduled for
January 26th at 7PM in the Crystal Community Center to decide what kind of training the
commissions would like to have and who should provide the training. The training will be
offered to commissioners, council members and mayors of the five cities.
NEW BUSINESS
ELECTION OF OFFICERS
Commissioner McConico motioned to elect a temporary chair to preside over the meetings
through the end of January; seconded by Commissioner Helland. A temporary chair will
be elected at the November meeting.
MENTORING PROGRAM
Chief Altonen advised the police department would like to start a mentoring program for
youth where police and fire personnel participate in monthly activities and social/civic
events with approximately 12 kids who otherwise would not have exposure to those kinds
of events. She asked commissioners to forward contact information to her for any children
they know that would benefit from this sort of program.
NEXT MEETING
The next meeting is scheduled for Thursday, November 13th, beginning at 7PM.
ADJOURNMENT
Moved by Commissioner Yahle, seconded by Commissioner McConico to adjourn the
meeting at 7:51 pm.
Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the
Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
October 28, 2008
A regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning'Appeals was held on Tuesday,
October 28, 2008 at City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota. Chair
Sell called the meeting to order at 7 pm.
Those present were Members Kisch, Nelson, Segelbaum, Sell, and Planning Commission
Representative McCarty. Also present were City Planner Joe Hogeboom and
Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman.
I. Approval of Minutes - September 25,2008 .
MOVED by Segelbaum, seconded by Kisch and motioned carried unanimously to approve
the September 25 minutes as submitted.
II. The Petitions are:
Continued Item...
1800 Mendelssohn Avenue North (08-09-16)
Marlin Henrikson, Applicant
Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 19 Driveway Setback
Requirements
. 3 ft. off the required 3 ft. to a distance of 0 ft. at its closest point to
the side yard (south) property line.
Purpose: To allow for the construction of a new driveway.
Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 11(A)(3)(c) Side Yard Setback
Requirements
. 3 ft. off the required 12 ft. to a distance of 9 ft. at its closest point
to the side yard (south) property line.
Purpose: To allow for the construction of a new deck.
Hogeboom reminded the Board that this proposal was tabled at last month's meeting in
order to allow the applicant time to provide proof of the location of the previously existing
driveway. Hogeboom stated that staff has reviewed the photos submitted by the applicant
and has determined that the edge of the driveway shown in the photos is landscape rock
Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
October 28,2008
Page 2
and not the edge of the previously existing driveway. Therefore, if the applicant wants to
expand the driveway all the way to the property line he still requires a variance.
Hogeboom added that the variance request listed above regarding the proposed deck was
removed from last month's agenda but is back on this agenda per the applicant's request.
McCarty asked Hogeboom to discuss the recent Planning Commission discussion
regarding setbacks for patios and other paved surfaces. Hogeboom explained that Golden
Valley currently has no setback requirements for patios. He stated that he researched
surrounding city's requirements and most of the cities he spoke with require a 5-foot
setback for patios. He said at this point staff and the Planning Commission are
considering requiring a 3-foot setback for patios because it would be consistent with the
driveway setback requirements.
Segelbaum asked if a new driveway could be reconstructed in the same location as the
previously existing driveway. Hogeboom stated that any part of the previously existing
driveway that was paved can be replaced in the exact same location.
Segelbaum asked if the City has received an updated survey of the property. Hogeboom
explained that the City would not require a survey in order to allow the applicant to replace
the previously existing driveway in the same location. However, he has suggested to the
applicant that it would be in his best interest to get a new survey because there has been
some discrepancy regarding the exact location of the previous driveway.
Marlin Henrikson, Applicant, said he misunderstood the Board's request regarding
obtaining a new survey. He showed the Board several pictures in order to demonstrate
where the previous driveway was located. He stated that the area in question used to be
blacktop but it had disintegrated so much that he put rock there to help with drainage
issues. He stated that he also wants to place a curb along the edge of the driveway to help
with the run-off from his driveway.
Kisch said it is difficult to understand the distance of the driveway shown in the pictures in
relation to the survey. Sell agreed that the pictures show landscape rock but it is hard to
tell where the edge of the driveway is located.
Hogeboom stated that the survey shows that the existing driveway is located two feet
away from the property line and reiterated that if he wants to replace the previously
existing driveway he can, but without a variance the 3 ft. x 11 ft. new driveway area in
question must be located 3 feet away from the property line.
Henrikson stated that the top portion of the previously existing driveway was located
approximately 6 inches away from the property line and then it tapered away from the
property line approximately 2 feet. Hogeboom reiterated that the survey is the only proof
the City has right now regarding the location of the previously existing driveway and it
shows that it was 2 feet away from the property line.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
October 28, 2008
Page 3
Kisch referred to the proposed new deck addition and asked the applicant if the
dimensions of the deck are 12 ft. x 5 ft. Henrikson said yes. He referred to a picture of the
previous deck location and stated that he would like to have a one level deck as opposed
to the previous two smaller levels. He stated that the previous deck was 4 feet in width and
he would like to build the new deck 5 feet in width in order to make it easier to move things
in and out of the house.
Kisch stated that an 8 ft. x 5 ft. deck might also work. Henrikson stated that there would be
approximately 6 feet of deck space on one side of the door and 3 feet of deck space on
the other side of the door. McCarty stated that he wasn't sure if the applicant really needs
3 feet of deck space behind the screen door especially since at last month's meeting he
was willing to consider building a 25 square foot landing area instead of deck. Hogeboom
said it was his misunderstanding that the applicant would be willing to build a 25 square
foot landing area. Henrikson said a 5 ft. x 5 ft. landing area would only give him 1 foot of
space on either side of the door.
Kisch asked if 25 square feet would be considered a landing area and could be built within
the setback area but if anything larger would be considered a deck and would have to
meet the setback requirements. Hogeboom said that is correct. He added that when he
originally looked at the applicant's proposal he thought a 25 square foot landing would
work.
Kisch asked the applicant if he would be willing to compromise on the size of the deck.
Henrikson said he would rather remove some of the deck to the right side (east) of the
door.
Sell asked the applicant if he is proposing stairs leading from the deck to the back yard.
Henrikson said yes.
Sell asked the applicant if he is proposing to move his shed. He stated that the shed
shown in the pictures is his neighbor's shed, but that he is proposing to move his shed to a
conforming location next summer.
Segelbaum referred to the driveway issue and said he would like to see an outline with
dimensions of the paved area written on the survey. Kisch agreed and stated that if the
variance is denied the applicant will still be able to build a new driveway in the same
location as the previously existing driveway.
Henrikson asked if he could pave the areas of the driveway/patio area that are not in
question. Sell said yes and reiterated that he can pave a new driveway in the same
footprint as the previously existing driveway.
Sell opened the public hearing.
Ginger Dunlap, 1720 Mendelssohn Avenue North, said she doesn't care if the applicant
replaces the previously existing driveway in the exact same place. She just wants the
Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
October 28, 2008
Page 4
driveway of the 8 ft. x 11 ft. area in question to be located 3 feet away from the property
line because it is right outside her dining room. She stated that there is no hardship in this
case and the applicant has not proven where the previously existing driveway was located.
Dunlap asked if the applicant installs gravel in the 3 feet setback area if he will be able to
park on it. Hogeboom explained that the applicant is allowed to drive over any gravel area,
but he will not be allowed to park on it.
Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Sell closed the public hearing.
McCarty asked if the pavement has changed since they heard last month's proposal.
Hogeboom said nothing has changed with this property since last month's meeting.
Kisch said he would support the variance request regarding the deck because if it were
considered to be a landing rather than a deck it could still be 5 feet in width. Nelson
agreed and said she was concerned about the width of the proposed deck more than the
length.
MOVED by Kisch, seconded by Segelbaum and motion carried unanimously to approve a
variance for 3 ft. off the required 12 ft. to a distance of 9 ft. at its closest point to the side
yard (south) property line to allow for the construction of a new deck. McCarty suggested
the Board make it clear that they are approving a 12 ft. long x 5 ft. wide deck. The Board
agreed.
Segelbaum referred to the variance regarding the driveway and stated that he doesn't see
the necessary hardship in this case. He said he hoped to see a new survey that clearly
showed where the previous driveway was located.
McCarty noted that at last month's meeting there was discussion about calling a portion of
this proposal a patio. He asked if that patio portion is still being proposed. Hogeboom said
yes, part of the proposal is a patio but the applicant will not be allowed to park on it.
MOVED by McCarty, seconded by Kisch and motion carried unanimously to deny the
variance request for 3 ft. off the required 3 ft. to a distance of 0 ft. at its closest point to the
side yard (south) property line to allow for the construction of a new driveway.
1520 Toledo Avenue North (08-10-15)
Donna Nelson. Applicant
Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 11 (A)(1) Front Yard Setback
Requirements
. 1.6 ft. off the required 35 ft. to a distance of 33.4 ft. at its closest
point to the front yard (west) property line.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
October 28, 2008
Page 5
Purpose: To allow for the construction of a garage.
Hogeboom stated that the applicant currently has a 1-stall garage. He explained that it is
the applicant's intent to tear down the existing garage and build a new 2-stall garage in its
place. He referred to a survey of the property and noted that the existing garage was built
1.6 feet into the front yard setback area. He stated that moving the garage to a conforming
location further back on the lot would cover up an existing window and there is also a
significant slope in the rear yard which would make it difficult to build the garage any
further back on the lot. He stated that staff believes this is a reasonable request and is in
support of this proposal.
Donna Nelson, Applicant, showed the Board pictures of her existing garage and explained
how moving the garage further back on the lot would block an existing window.
Board Member Nelson asked if the proposed new garage will follow the same plane along
the front as the existing garage. Donna Nelson said yes.
Segelbaum asked if the stoop area on the back of the existing garage is being removed.
Donna Nelson said yes. She explained that there will be an 8 ft. x 12 ft. porch area in its
place and in the future she would like to build a mud/room laundry area above the porch.
Sell opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Sell
closed the public hearing.
Segelbaum said he thinks this is a reasonable request and he appreciated the fact that the
applicant is conforming to the side yard setback requirements. He added that other homes
in area also seem to encroach into the front yard setback area.
Kisch said that given the fact that the existing garage encroaches 1.6 feet into the front
yard setback area and that the proposed new garage will too, he is inclined to support this
request because it maintains the integrity of the building.
MOVED by Kisch, seconded by Nelson and motion carried unanimously to approve the
variance request for 1.6 ft. off the required 35 ft. to a distance of 33.4 ft. at its closest point
to the front yard (west) property line to allow for the construction of a garage.
6736 Glenwood Avenue (08-10-16)
Jake & Kellv Schetnan. Applicants
Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 11(A)(3)(a) Side Yard Setback
Requirements
. 10ft. off the required 15 ft. to a distance of 5 ft. at its closest point
to the side yard (west) property line.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
October 28, 2008
Page 6
Purpose: To allow for the construction of a garage addition.
Hogeboom explained that the applicant is proposing to remove an existing carport and
replace it with a second garage stall. He stated that staff supports this request.
Kelly Schetnan, Applicant, stated that the recent hail storm has speeded up the process of
her needing to upgrade the existing carport/garage. She added that the carport does not
have a door so it is not feasible to store anything in it so she would like to add a second
garage stall.
Segelbaum asked how much bigger the proposed new garage stall will be compared to
the carport. Schetnan said the new garage stall will be approximately 3 to 4 feet wider than
the carport. She added that the neighbor most impacted by this proposal is in favor of the
project.
Sell asked if the existing carport is located 5 feet away from the property line. Schetnan
said no, but they would like to build the new garage 5 feet from the property line.
Kisch asked the applicant if she intends to keep the existing garage. Schetnan said yes.
Sell questioned the size of the proposed new garage stall. He suggested the new garage
be 10 feet in width instead of the proposed 11 feet. Kisch stated that the width of the
proposed new garage has to do with the header and the size of the garage door.
Sell asked the applicant why she isn't proposing to remove the interior wall between the
two garage stalls. Schetnan said it was too expensive to remove the wall.
McCarty explained that the Board is not supposed to consider economic hardships but in
this case, he is in support of this proposal in order to get a second garage stall. Nelson
agreed and added that the new garage will aesthetically improve this house and it won't
impact the neighboring properties. Segelbaum agreed.
Sell opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Sell
closed the public hearing.
MOVED by Segelbaum, seconded by McCarty and motion carried unanimously to approve
the request for 10ft. off the required 15 ft. to a distance of 5 ft. at its closest point to the
side yard (west) property line to allow for the construction of a garage addition.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
October 28,2008
Page 7
III. Other Business
Discussion on variance standards - City Attorney Allen Barnard
Barnard discussed legislation changes regarding the reasonable use of property. He
stated that since the new legislation the Board of Zoning Appeals has a lot of discretion
and can consider the reasonable use, unique circumstances and impact on surroundings
when hearing variance proposals. He added that if Golden Valley's laws are more
restrictive than state statutes then Golden Valley's laws have to be ignored.
McCarty asked at what point the Board can say no and at what point a house is
considered excessive. Barnard discussed the tests to determine reasonableness including
unique conditions and the impact to surrounding properties. Segelbaum added that all
three things: reasonable use, unique circumstances and impact on surroundings must be
considered together.
McCarty asked Barnard if he thinks the Board is being too strict. Barnard stated that it is
not the Board's job to deny variance requests it's their job to figure out what is reasonable
and best.
Kisch stated that he also looks at the intent of the Code and questioned setting precedent.
Barnard suggested that the minutes show findings and reasons for variances being
granted.
Segelbaum questioned if the Board is approving a specific plan when they approve a
variance or if the approval is just a blanket approval. Barnard suggested that the minutes
indicate what is being approved.
IV. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 9:25 pm.
1:Ca
The Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission (BCWMC) was called to order at 11:35 a.m.,
Thursday, October 16, 2008, at Golden Valley City Hall by Chair Welch. Ms. Herbert conducted roll call.
Roll Call
Crystal
Golden Valley
Medicine Lake
Minneapolis
Minnetonka
New Hope
Plymouth
Robbinsdale
St. Louis Park
Alternate Commissioner Stu Stockhaus
Commissioner Linda Loomis, Treasurer
Commissioner Cheri Templeman
Commissioner Michael Welch, Chair
Not represented
Commissioner Daniel Stauner
Commissioner Ginny Black, Vice Chair
Commissioner Karla Peterson
Not represented
Counsel
Engineer
Recorder
Charlie LeFevere
Karen Chandler
Amy Herbert
Note: Commissioner Kris Sundberg arrived after roll call
Also present: Laura Adler, BCWMC Technical Advisory Committee, City of St. Louis Park
Derek Asche, BCWMC Technical Advisory Committee, City of Plymouth
Terrie Christian, Association of Medicine Lake Area Citizens
Jack Frost, Metropolitan Council Environmental Services
Dave Hanson, Alternate Commissioner, City of Golden Valley
Randy Lehr, Three Rivers Park District
Tom Mathisen, BCWMC Technical Advisory Committee, City of Crystal
Richard McCoy, BCWMC Technical Advisory Committee, City of Robbinsdale
Jeff Oliver, BCWMC Technical Advisory Committee, City of Golden Valley
Wayne Sicora, Alternate Commissioner, City of Robbinsdale
Liz Stout, BCWMC Technical Advisory Committee, City of Minnetonka
Elizabeth Thornton, Alternate Commissioner, City of Plymouth
Chair Welch announced that item 5A - West Medicine Lake Park Pavilion has been removed from the
agenda at the request of the City of Plymouth. Ms. Black moved to approve the agenda as amended.
Ms. Loomis seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. Ms. Black moved to approve the
Consent Agenda. Ms. Loomis seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. [Cities of
Minnetonka and St. Louis Park absent from the vote].
3. .Citizeli;J.n
No citizen input.
#249038 v1
Page 1
BCWMC October 16, 2008, Meeting Minutes
A. Presentation of the September 18, 2008, BCWMC meeting minutes. Minutes were approved as part of
the Consent Agenda.
B. Presentation of the Financial Statement.
The general and construction account balances reported in the October 2008 Financial Report are as
follows:
Checking Account Balance
TOTAL GENERAL FUND BALANCE
467,585.33
467,585.33
Construction Account Balance (cash)
Investment Balance
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION ACCOUNT BALANCE
-Less: Reserved for CIP projects
Construction cash! investments available for projects
2,490,335.55
0.00
2,490,335.55
3,719,340.08
(1,229,004.53)
C. Presentation of Invoices for Payment Approval.
Invoices:
i. Kennedy & Graven - Legal Services through August 31, 2008..; invoice for the
amount of $1,468.40.
ii. Barr Engineering Company - Engineering Services through September 26,
2008 - invoice for the amount of $20,495.97.
iii. Barr Engineering Company - Sweeney Lake TMDL Services August 30 -
September 26, 2008 - invoice for the amount of $1,466.80.
iv. Amy Herbert - September Recording Administrator Services - invoice for the
amount of $3,216.68.
v. Springsted Incorporated - Watershed Organizational Study - invoice for the
amount of $8,018.72.
Ms. Loomis moved to approve payment of all invoices. Ms. Black seconded the motion. By call of roll,
the motion carried unanimously [Cities of Minnetonka and St. Louis Park absent from the vote).
D. Resolution No. 08-08 Approving the Local Plan Prepared by the City of New Hope. Ms. Loomis
moved to approve resolution 08-08. Ms. Black seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously
[Cities of Minnetonka and St. Louis Park absent from the vote].
5~New Busi
u.........._...'...."__,,...,... . ,..c,'_..,.,"._....
A. West Medicine Lake Park Pavilion: Plymouth. Removed from agenda.
#249038 vI
BCWMC October]6, 2008. Meeting Minutes
Page 2
B. Select Consultant for City of St. Louis Park Local Water Management Plan Review. Chair
Welch announced that the Commission queried SEH, Inc. and Wenck for cost estimates to conduct the
review of St. Louis Park's local water management plan. He said the TAC (Technical Advisory
Committee) had previously recommeuded the BCWMC request cost estimates from those firms along
with WSB for local plan reviews. Chair Welch said the Commission did not query WSB this time since
WSB played a role in preparing part of the St. Louis Park's local plan.
Chair Welch said the meeting packet contains the cost estimates from SEH and Wenck. He
summarized that SEH's cost estimate was $1,200 with a time frame of three weeks and Wenck's cost
estimate was $1,300 with a time frame of two weeks.
Ms. Black moved to approve selecting SEH, Inc. as the contractor for the plan review. Ms. Loomis
seconded the motion. Chair Welch commented that he leaned toward selecting Wenck, even with the
slightly higher cost, for consistency with the previous Commission reviews of the Golden Valley and
Minnetonka localplans and due to the shorter time frame to conduct the review. The motion carried
with six votes in favor [Cities of Crystal, Golden Valley, Medicine Lake, New Hope, Plymouth, and
Robbinsdale] and one vote against [City of Minneapolis] [City of St. Louis Park absent from vote].
Chair Welch directed Ms. Herbert to communicate the decision to SEH, Inc. and Wenck.
[Commissioner Sundberg arrives.]
A. Authorize State Register Publication of Request for Letters of Interest for Proposals for
Legal, Engineering and Technical, and Administrative Consulting Services. Chair Welch
said the Commission has a statutory requirement to publish a notice in the State Register every two
years to request bids for consulting services. Chair Welch said the draft notice is in the meeting
packet. Ms. Black recommended adding to the notice information about the Commission's capital
budget. Chair Welch directed Ms. Herbert to amend the notice to include the capital budget
information.
Chair Welch asked the commissioners to be prepared to field inquiries from service providers
about the consulting services positions. He added that in terms of the Commission's discussion of
where it wants to go with structuring the provision of services to the Commission, the
Administrator Services Committee will be meeting on October 23rd and will discuss that issue.
Mr. Stockhaus asked if the Commission has criteria by which it measures the services provided to
the Commission. Chair Welch said the Commission hasn't set formal criteria and uses feedback
from the Commission and the member cities. He said that in previous years the Commission has
asked the TAC for feedback and recommendations for the engineering and technical service
providers. Ms. Peterson asked if it would be helpful for applicants to see the T AC's previous
feedback to the Commission. Chair Welch commented that it would be part of the public record
and is documented in the BCWMC's meeting minutes available to the public on the Commission's
Web site [www.bassettcreekwmo.org].
Ms. Sundberg moved approval and publication of the notice as amended. Ms. Peterson seconded
the motion. The motion carried unanimously [City of St. Louis Park absent from vote].
B. Medicine Lake TMDL Study Update. Chair Welch said that this isn't a technical update but
that since the last BCWMC meeting there has been the kickoff stakeholder "Steering Committee"
#249038 vI
BCWMC October 16, 2008. Meeting Minutes
Page 3
meeting for the TMDL study. He said there were about 40 attendees. He said the Commission
needs to make a decision today about its representation on the Steering Committee. Chair Welch
said the Commission needs to select a representative and alternative representative as well as a
technical representative and alternate representative. He said that consistency of representation on
the Committee is very important and that the representative needs to be there for all seven
proposed meetings.
Chair Welch reported that the Commission as a joint powers organization can't pay its members
for their time participating on the Committee. He said in regards to a previous suggestion of
paying a T AC member for his or her time that the Commission Counsel said the Commission
would find it easier to go through a city for such an arrangement. Chair Welch also commented
that he thinks there should be some separation between the MS4 representatives and the
Commission representatives on the Committee. Ms. Loomis commented that she feels that any
commissioner from a member city that is an MS4 in this TMDL study should not represent the
Commission on the Medicine Lake Steering Committee.
Mr. Mathisen asked the Commission if it is setting a precedent with this TMDL study in terms of
the extensive time it is taking to even set up the study. He commented that the Shingle Creek
Watershed Management Commission's method of conducting TMDL studies did not take as many
hours as seem to be planned for in the Medicine Lake TMDL. Chair Welch commented that he
wishes the Medicine Lake TMDL would be a simpler process and that anyone who can offer
recommendations on how to simplify the process is welcome to do so but that this TMDL study
has taken on a life of its own. Mr. Stauner said he understands Mr. Mathisen's point but
commented that he has had some issues with Shingle Creek's TMDL process because it has been
difficult as a stakeholder to get information about it and there have been transparency problems
with the process.
Chair Welch said he would like to represent the Commission on the Steering Committee.
Commissioner Templeman and Commissioner Peterson indicated they would like to represent the
Commission on the Steering Committee. Chair Welch clarified that even though the Commission
is selecting one Commission representative and one Commission technical representative there
won't be a cap on the Steering Committee and anyone who wants to participate on it can. By
Commission vote, Chair Welch was elected to represent the Commission on the Medicine Lake
Steering Committee and Commissioner Peterson was elected to represent the Commission as the
alternate representative on the Committee [City of St. Louis Park absent from vote].
Ms. Loomis nominated Barr Engineering to be the technical representative and the alternate
representative for the Commission on the Steering Committee. Mr. Oliver announced that the
T AC's recommendation is for Barr to be the technical representative. Ms. Black brought up the
issue of the Commission's cost for Barr to be the technical representative and pointed out that it
would cost the Commission at least $7,000. Chair Welch asked Ms. Chandler for a ballpark cost
estimate. Ms. Chandler said she would agree that the cost would likely be $7,000 to $10,000 for
Barr to prepare for and participate in the seven Steering Committee meetings, depending on what
Barr is asked to do and how much time it takes Barr to prepare for and carry out those tasks.
Chair Welch stated that Barr Engineering can allocate the costs to the TMDL budget and that the
Commission can choose to define the scope of the costs for Barr's participation on the Committee.
Chair Welch directed Ms. Herbert to communicate to Brooke Asleson of the MPCA (Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency) the contact information for the Commission's representatives on the
Steering Committee. .
C. Feasibility Report Requirements. Ms. Chandler said this item is to clarify the Commission's
#249038 vI
BCWMC October 16, 2008, Meeting Minutes
Page 4
intent with its feasibility reports. She reminded the Commission that the purpose of a feasibility
report is to demonstrate that a project is technically and economically feasible. Ms. Chandler
reported that at the May 1,2008, TAC meeting the TAC recommended to the Commission that
feasibility reports should encompass all public costs including land acquisition, site preparation,
and site remediation including wetland mitigation, contaminated soil clean up, and those types of
related costs. She said the TAC concluded that including this additional information in feasibility
reports would allow the Commission and the cities to better evaluate CIP projects based on the
total cost of the project alternatives. Ms. Chandler said the Commission has previously discussed
adding the additional information into its requirements for feasibility reports but never formally
took action. Ms. Chandler recommended that the Commission also require permitting
requirement information to be included in its feasibility reports. Ms. Loomis moved to approve
adding the information Ms. Chandler just detailed, including all public costs and permitting
requirements, to the Commission's feasibility report requirements. Ms. Black seconded the
motion. The motion carried unanimously [City of St. Louis Park absent from vote].
D. Resource Management Plan. Ms. Chandler said she checked with the City of Plymouth
regarding its proposed schedule for the Plymouth Creek project. She reported that the City said if
the Commission moves forward with the Resource Management Plan (RMP) and the plan is
started by January 1, 2009, then the Plymouth Creek project could be included. Ms. Chandler
summarized that the Commission doesn't need to make a decision today about whether or not to
go forward with the RMP but that the Commission needs to make a decision in the next month or
two to allow for the inclusion ofthe Plymouth Creek project.
Chair Welch stated that the Commission has not asked the TAC to review and give a
recommendation to the Commission regarding the RMP. Ms. Black mentioned she had called
Doug Thomas, the Administrator of the Rice Creek Watershed District, to ask about Rice Creek's
experiences with the RMP process since it has gone through it several times. She said he was
generally positive about it but that Rice Creek hasn't been far enough down the process to know
yet if it really has sped up the permitting process. She also said he told her Rice Creek's cost for
one of its RMPs was $100,000 and the cost of another one of its RMPs was $150,000.
Chair Welch responded that the Rice Creek Watershed District is one his !'Irm's clients and said
that Rice Creek is currently on its third RMP. He said its !'Irst one was done in 2004. Chair Welch
said a key difference is that Rice Creek's RMPs have encompassed Wetland Conservation Act
(WCA) wetlands and have been designed to identify contiguous areas of wetland to be conserved
and upland suitable for development. He said the BCWMC's RMP is not the same model as Rice
Creek's model. Chair Welch recommended referring the issue to the TAC.
Mr. LeFevere recommended the Commission also ask for TAC's feedback on the Commission's
question about whether it should conduct the Environmental Worksheets (EA Ws) at the same
time. Mr. Mathisen brought up the cost of the EA Ws and the EA W public notif'Ication process and
recommended the TAC take up this issue at its next meeting.
Chair Welch moved to direct the TAC to review the packet of RMP information included in this
month's Commission pa~ket and to recommend to the Commission whether it should move
forward with the RMP and whether EA Ws should be conducted at the same time. Ms. Black
seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously (City of St. Louis Park absent from vote.]
#249038 vI
BCWMC October 16, 2008, Meeting Minutes
Page 5
.;;':'~..~~~,'~~Qmimlgicijtiqi'l~.ij...'.
A. Chair:
i. Chair Welch announced the Minnesota Water Resources conference will be held October 27-
28 in St. Paul and the Minnesota Invasive Species Conference will be held October 26 -29 in
Duluth.
ii. Chair Welch announced the Freshwater Society is having a reception and presentation on
October 22.
iii. Chair Welch reported that Joel Settles of Hennepin County contacted him for some
background information on the Commission's levy request.
iv. Chair Welch said that the Commission has received an e-mail update from Ron Leaf on the
Sweeney Lake TMDL study and that he will be at the November meeting to present the
information to the Commission.
v. Chair Welch reminded the Commission that the November Commission meeting is on
Wednesday, November 19.
vi. Chair Welch encouraged the commissioners to e-mail to Ms. Herbert any requests or ideas
they have for topics of future training presentations.
vii. Chair Welch reminded the commissioners that they are welcome to attend the TAC meetings.
viii. Chair Welch stated that the cities of Robbinsdale and New Hope have sent the Commission
their draft comprehensive plans and that the Commission will respond as it has to other cities
with letters stating that the Commission assumes that the cities' comprehensive plan
amendments are consistent with the cities' local water management plans (LWMP) and if not
then the comprehensive plans should be amended to conform or the L WMPs should be
amended.
B. Commissioners:
i. Ms. Black encouraged commissioners to send any comments regarding the BCWMC's
watershed organizational analysis to Ms. Herbert to distribute to the Administrator
Committee for its consideration at its Thursday, October 23rd meeting at 4:30 p.m. at Golden
Valley City Hall. Chair Welch asked Ms. Herbert to add to the November agenda a discussion
of the organizational analysis.
C. Committees:
i. Education and Public Outreach Committee: Ms. Thornton reported that the Joint Education
and Public Outreach Committee met yesterday and discussed other educational activities it will ~e
doing this year.
D. Counsel*
E. Engineer:
i. Ms. Chandler reported on the grant possibility for the water quality project on Twin Lake.
She said grant funding may be available through the Clean Water Partnership program but
#249038 vI
BCWMC October 16, 2008, Meeting Minutes
Page 6
funding availability won't be known until February or March 2009. She said the grant is a
50% match with a maximum grant of $300,000. She said applications will be due around June,
grants will be awarded around August or September, and the money will be immediately
available after the grants are awarded. She said the Commission should keep tabs on this
grant possibility and said the Commission Engineer will continue to follow up.
ii. Ms. Chandler reported that the Commission's fecal coliform monitoring will not qualify for
the grant opportunity Mr. Kremer mentioned last month.
Ms. Black moved to adjourn the meeting. Ms. Loomis seconded the motion. The meeting adjourned at
1:10 p.m.
Michael Welch, Chair
Date
Amy Herbert, Recorder
Date
Pauline Langsdorf, Secretary Date
#249038 yl
BCWMC October 16, 2008, Meeting Minutes
Page 7
alley
Me orandum
Public Works
763-593-8030 I 763-593-3988 (fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
December 16, 2008
Agenda Item
3. E. 1. Receive and File Letter from Anita and Ben Kramer
Prepared By
Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works
Jeff Oliver, PE, City Engineer
Summary
Public Works staff has received a letter from Anita and Ben Kramer, 5901 Laurel Avenue,
requesting street lighting near the intersection of Laurel Avenue and Colorado Avenue South.
The letter includes a request for street lighting on Laurel Avenue between Hampshire Avenue
and Colorado Avenue South; and installation of lighting along the Laurel Avenue Greenway
trail, located north of Laurel Avenue and extending northward to Courtlawn Circle.
The City's street lighting policy includes special assessments and ongoing street lighting
utility fees for properties benefiting from the installation of street lights. In this instance, street
lighting installed on the north side of Laurel Avenue would provide benefit to the trail and the
street, but benefit to the commercial and industrial properties south of Laurel Avenue and the
railroad tracks, would not likely be defensible. Therefore, it is the opinion of staff that there is
not a possibility for a street lighting district to be established.
The City currently has off street trail lighting in its larger community parks such as Brookview,
Hampshire, Lions and others. However, these trail lights were installed as part of park
upgrade projects that were capital improvements for the City. The proposed lights on the trail
connection between Laurel Avenue and Courtlawn Circle are not included in the current
Capital Improvement Program and are therefore not budgeted. Furthermore, the existing
~treet lighting utility does not include funding for future capital installations or replacement.
Attachments
Letter from Anita and Ben Kramer dated October 31,2008 (1 page)
Recommended Action
Motion to receive and file the letter dated October 31,2008, from Anita and Ben Kramer
regarding street lighting on Laurel Avenue and the Laurel Avenue Greenway and direct staff
to place on the January 13, 2009 Council/Manager meeting.
Friday, October 31, 2008
Ms. Jeannine Clancy
Director of Public Works
Golden Valley City Hall
7800 Golden Valley Road
Golden Valley, MN 55427
Dear Ms. Clancy,
What we are asking for does not meet the Overhead Street Lighting Criteria. We
are asking City Council to make an exception on Laurel Avenue between Colorado and
Hampshire Avenues, where it is extremely dark. In addition, off Laurel Avenue there is a
walle-way to a path to a nature area, called Laurel Avenue Greenbelt, where a person
could easily be dragged off and hanned or worse.
Please let us know how to proceed for the safety of the many walkers and drivers
on Laurel Avenue.
Thank you',
~MU-
/&w~
Anita and Ben Kramer
5901 Laurel Avenue
Golden Valley, MN 55416
Hey
emorandum
Public Works
763-593-8030 I 763-593-3988 (fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
December 16, 2008
Agenda Item
3. F. 1. Award a Contract for the Trimming and Removal of Trees on Public and Private
Property, Project No. 09-04
Prepared By
Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works
AI Lundstrom, Environmental Coordinator
Summary
Bids for the 2009-10 Tree Trimming and Removal Contract were opened on December 9,
2008.
The following bids were received:
Tim's Tree Service
Davey Tree Service
Total
$61,575.89
$94,266.40
The 2009 Tree Maintenance Budget (1646/6440) includes $65,000 identified for contractual
services related to tree trimming and removal.
Recommended Action
Motion to authorize a contract with Tim's Tree Service in the amount of $61 ,575.89 for
Trimming and Removal of Trees on Public and Private Property, Project No. 09-04.
Hey
Memo ndu
Finance
763-593-8013/763-593-8109 (fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
December 16, 2008
Agenda Item
3. G. Approval of the 2009-2013 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and Adopt Budgets for
2009 Capital Improvement Program for Vehicles and Equipment, Buildings and Parks
Prepared By
Sue Virnig, Finance Director
Summary
The 2009-2013 CIP was presented to the City Council at the Council/Manager meeting on
November 9,2008 and December 9,2008 and was approved by the Planning Commission at
their meeting of November 24, 2008. The 2009 projects for Vehicles and Equipment,
Buildings and Parks will be adopted by separate resolution. The 2009 projects for Golf
Course, Storm Sewers and Water and Sanitary Sewer Systems will be adopted as part of the
2009 Budgets of the Brookview Golf Course, Storm Sewer Utility and Water and Sewer Utility
Funds respectively.
Attachments
Planning Commission Meeting minutes dated November 24, 2008 (1 page)
Resolution Adopting the 2009 Budgets of the Equipment Replacement, Building and Park
Improvement Capital Project Funds (2 pages)
2009-2013 Capital Improvement Program (distributed previously)
Recommended Action
Motion to approve the 2009-2013 Capital Improvement Program.
Motion to adopt Resolution Adopting the 2009 Budgets of the Equipment Replacement,
Building and Park Improvement Capital Project Funds.
Planning Commission Meeting
November 24,2008
2. Presentation of Capital Improvement Program 2009-2013 - Sue Virnig,
City Finance Director
Virnig reviewed the 2009-2013 Capital Improvement Program. She discussed a
proposed new fire pumper truck, the Pavement Management Program which
continues until 2014 and the park improvement fund to pay for park equipment.
Keysser referred to the performance area improvements and asked if city bonds
will be issued. Virnig said she was not aware of city bonds being issued for the
performance area.
Keysser asked about the City's bond rating. Virnig said the City's rating is AA1.
Eck asked about the recycling fund. Virnig discussed a one-time repair scheduled
for the Brookview parking lot.
Waldhauser questioned the proposed reconstruction of the sidewalks along
Winnetka Avenue near City hall. Clancy explained that the sidewalks being re-
done are in excess of 10 years old and were made with pavers that are susceptible
to salt and are deteriorating.
Waldhauser referred to proposed work on the frontage road south of 1-394 and
asked if there is any way to share those costs with St. Louis Park. Clancy stated
that the portions of the frontage road located in Golden Valley are Golden Valley's
responsibility but that part of the funding will come from state aid money.
Waldhauser asked if there is a list available of state aid streets. Clancy said she
could provide the Planning Commission with a map showing state aid streets.
Waldhauser asked if the City keeps track of the total cost of the III program, City
versus residential. Virnig said yes and added that City receives matching funds
from the Metropolitan Council. Clancy explained that the City is not taking any
portion of the matching funds for the private work being done.
Keysser asked if the market value for properties is going down. Virnig said
residential values are down 1.2% and commercial values are up 7%.
Grimes explained that the Capital Improvement Programs is a part of the
Comprehensive plan and that it is the Planning Commissioners responsibility to
decide if it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
MOVED by Cera, seconded by McCarty and motion carried unanimously to
recommend approval of the 2009-2013 Capital Improvement Program as it is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Resolution 08-57
December 16, 2008
Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 2009 BUDGETS OF THE EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT,
BUILDING AND PARK IMPROVEMENT CAPITAL PROJECT FUNDS
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Golden Valley that the
appropriations for the following Capital Project Funds for the calendar year 2009 shall be:
EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FUND
Proiect
Marked Squad Cars (V&E #1)
Computers and Printers (V&E #2)
City Imaging System (V&E #3)
Pickup Truck (V&E #8)
Vibratory AsphaltRoller (V&E #21)
Dump Truck (V&E #26)
Asphalt Melter (V&E #33)
Refurbish Aerial Ladder Truck (V&E #37)
Unmarked Police Vehicle (V&E #41)
Bobcat (V&E #50)
Asphalt Cold Planner (V&E #52)
Tandem Axle Dump Truck (V&E #65)
Asphalt Hot Box (V&E #99)
Pickup Truck (V&E #100)
TOTAL 2009 Budget
BUILDING FUND
Amount
$90,000
90,000
15,000
20,000
45,000
118,000
40,000
150,000
30,000
45,000
20,000
210,000
60,000
13,500
$946.500
Proiect
Carpet Replacement - City Buildings (B #11)
Generators (B #12)
Workspace Addition - Fire Station #1 (B #28)
Audio System Chambers - Control Room (B #29)
A V Display and Presentation System (B #30)
Community Center Needs Assessment (B #31)
Community Center Building Fund (B #32)
General Building Repairs and Maintenance (B #25)
Facility Analysis Assessment Update (B #33)
TOTAL 2009 Budget
Amount
$50,000
125,000
10,000
65,000
65,000
100,000
60,000
250,000
10,000
$735,000
Resolution 08-57 - Continued
December 16, 2008
PARK IMPROVEMENT FUND
Proiect
Resurfacing Tennis Courts and Hard Surface Areas (P #1)
Asphalt Overlay - Park Walkways, Tennis Courts, and Parking Lots (P #2)
New Playground Equipment and Area Curbing - City Parks (P #3)
Special Assessments - Park Property (P #4)
Park Shelter Building Improvements (P #5)
Chain Link Fence - Repair/Replacement (P #7)
ADA Upgrades for City Parks (P #10)
TOTAL 2009 Budget
Amount
$22,000
15,000
100,000
93,900
20,000
15,000
20,000
$285.900
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Golden Valley
that the sources of financing the sums appropriated above in the various capital project
funds will be those outlined in the "Financing" section of the 2009-2013 Capital
Improvement Program of the City of Golden Valley (Exhibits IV-VI).
Linda R. Loomis, Mayor
ATTEST:
Susan M. Virnig, City Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Member
and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the Mayor
and her signature attested by the City Clerk.
alley
Mem ndu
Finance
763-593-8013/763-593-8109 (fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
December 16, 2008
Agenda Item
3. H. Adoption of 2009 Budgets - Water and Sewer Utility, Brookview Golf, Motor Vehicle
Licensing, Conservation/Recycling, Storm Sewer Utility, Human Services Foundation and
Vehicle Maintenance Funds .
Prepared By
Sue Virnig, Finance Director
Summary
The 2009 Budgets of the above funds have not changed since the Proposed Budgets were
submitted to the Council in October.
Attachments
Resolution Adopting the 2009 Budget of the Water and Sewer Utility Fund (1 page)
Resolution Adopting the 2009 Budget of the Brookview Golf Course Fund (2 pages)
Resolution Adopting the 2009 Budget of the Motor Vehicle Licensing Fund (1 page)
Resolution Adopting the 2009 Budget of the Conservation/Recycling Fund (1 page)
Resolution Adopting the 2009 Budget of the Storm Sewer Utility Fund (1 page)
Resolution Adopting the 2009 Budget of the Human'Services Foundation Fund (1 page)
Resolution Adopting the 2009 Budget of the Vehicle Maintenance Fund (1 page)
Proposed 2009 Budgets of the above funds (distributed previously)
Recommended Action
Motion to adopt the following Resolutions:
Resolution Adopting the 2009 Budget of the Water and Sewer Utility Fund
Resolution Adopting the 2009 Budget of the Brookview Golf Course Fund
Resolution Adopting the 2009 Budget of the Motor Vehicle Licensing Fund
Resolution Adopting the 2009 Budget of the Conservation/Recycling Fund
Resolution Adopting the 2009 Budget of the Storm Sewer Utility Fund
Resolution Adopting the 2009 Budget of the Human Services Foundation Fund
Resolution Adopting the 2009 Budget of the Vehicle Maintenance Fund
Resolution 08-58
December 16, 2008
Member
introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 2009 BUDGET
OF THE WATER AND SEWER UTI UTY FUND
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Golden Valley, Minnesota, that
the appropriations for the Water and Sewer Utility Fund Programs for the calendar year
2009 shall be as follows:
PROGRAM
NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT
TOTAL 2009 BUDGET
$2,018,285
2,183,295
3.691.030
$7,892.61Q
7121
7122
7123
Administration and Overhead
Sewer Maintenance
Water Maintenance
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council that the sources of financing the
sums appropriated shall be:
TOTAL 2009 BUDGET
AMOUNT
$3,879,700
2,980,240
80,000
43,000
150,000
201,000
558.670
$7.892.610
DESCRIPTION
Water Charges
Sewer Charges
Penalties
State Water Testing Fee Pass Through
Interest Earnings
Other
Retained Earnings
Linda R. Loomis, Mayor
ATTEST:
Susan M. Virnig, City Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Member
and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor there,of:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the Mayor
and her signature attested by the City Clerk.
Resolution 08-59
December 16. 2008
Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 2009 BUDGET
OF THE BROOKVIEW GOLF FUND
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Golden Valley, Minnesota, that
the appropriations for the Brookview Golf Fund Programs for the calendar year 2009 shall
be as follows:
PROGRAM
NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT
7151
7152
7153
7154
7155
7156
TOTAL 2009 BUDGET
$707,735
723,180
117,220
202,750
64,580
36,360
$1,851,825
Golf Operations
Course Maintenance
Pro Shop
Grill
Driving Range
Par3
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council that the sources of financing the
sums appropriated shall be:
DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT
Fees and Lessons:
Golf Course
Driving Range
Par3
Handicap
Patron Cards
Golf Lessons
Pro Shop Sales
Pro Shop Rentals
Concession Sales
Other
Interest Earnings
Less: Sales Tax & Credit Card Charges
TOTAL 2009 BUDGET
$1,054,000
107,500
208,260
10,000
47,975
17,550
68,900
270,100
232,000
10,000
40,000
(142,000)
$1.924,285
Resolution 08-59 - Continued
December 16, 2008
Linda R. Loomis, Mayor
ATTEST:
Susan M. Virnig, City Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Member
and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the Mayor
and her signature attested by the City Clerk.
Resolution 08-60
December 16, 2008
Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 2009 BUDGET
OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE LICENSING FUND
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Golden Valley, Minnesota, that
the appropriations for the Motor Vehicle Licensing Fund for the calendar year 2009 shall be
as follows:
PROGRAM
NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT
TOTAL 2009 BUDGET
$540.855
$540.855
7201
Motor Vehicle Licensing
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council that the sources of financing the
sums appropriated shall be:
DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT
TOTAL 2009 BUDGET
$512,000
39,000
14,000
10.000
$575.000
Registration Fees
Passport Fees
Miscellaneous
Interest Earnings
Linda R. Loomis, Mayor
ATTEST:
Susan M. Virnig, City Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Member
and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the Mayor
and her signature attested by the City Clerk.
Resolution 08-61
December 16, 2008
Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 2009 BUDGET
OF THE CONSERVATION/RECYCLING FUND
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Golden Valley, Minnesota, that
the appropriations for the Conservation/Recycling Fund for the calendar year 2009 shall be
as follows:
PROGRAM
NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT
TOTAL 2009 BUDGET
$549,760
$549.76Q
7001
Conservation/Recycling
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council that the sources of financing the
sums appropriated shall be:
DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT
$51,425
220,730
15,000
262,605
$549.760
County Grant
Recycling Charges
Interest Earnings
Retained Earnings
TOTAL 2009 BUDGET
Linda R. Loomis, Mayor
ATTEST:
Susan M. Virnig, City Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Member
and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the Mayor
and her signature attested by the City Clerk.
Resolution 08-62
December 16, 2008
Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 2009 BUDGET
OF THE STORM SEWER UTILITY FUND
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Golden Valley, Minnesota, that
the appropriations for the Storm Sewer Utility Fund for the calendar year 2009 shall be as
follows:
PROGRAM
NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT
7301
. 7302
7303
7304
TOTAL 2009 BUDGET
$1,784,135
117,530
277,020
432.590
$2,611.275
Storm Sewer Maintenance
Street Cleaning
Environmental Control
Debt Service
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council that the sources of financing the
sums appropriated shall be:
DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT
Storm Sewer Charges
Transfer From Conservation/Recycling Fund
Interest Earnings
Retained Earnings
TOTAL 2009 BUDGET
$2,212,150
7,000
50,000
342.125
$2.611.275
Linda R. Loomis, Mayor
ATTEST:
Susan M. Virnig, City Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Member
and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the Mayor
and her signature attested by the City Clerk.
Resolution 08-63
December 16, 2008
Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 2009 BUDGET
OF THE HUMAN SERVICES FOUNDATION
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Golden Valley, Minnesota, that
the appropriations for the Human Services Foundation of the calendar year 2009 shall be
as follows:
PROGRAM
NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT
2020
TOTAL 2009 BUDGET
$55,500
$55,500
Human Services Foundation
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council that the sources of financing the
sums appropriated shall be:
DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT
TOTAL 2009 BUDGET
$19,500
45,000
1,600
$66.100
Charitable Gambling Contributions
Fund Raising Proceeds
Interest Earnings
Linda R. Loomis, Mayor
ATTEST:
Susan M. Virnig, City Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Member
and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the Mayor
and her signature attested by the City Clerk.
Resolution 08-64
December 16, 2008
Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 2009 BUDGET
OF THE VEHICLE MAINTENANCE FUND
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Golden Valley, Minnesota, that
the appropriations for the Vehicle Maintenance Fund for the calendar year 2009 shall be as
follows:
PROGRAM
NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT
TOTAL 2009 BUDGET
$351,775
$351.775
8200
Vehicle Maintenance
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council that the sources of financing the
sums appropriated shall be:
DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT
TOTAL 2009 BUDGET
$351,775
$351.775
Charges to Other Funds
Linda R. Loomis, Mayor
ATTEST:
Susan M. Virnig, City Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Member
and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the Mayor
and her signature attested by the City Clerk.
alley
Me ran m
Finance
763-593-8013/763-593-8109 (fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
December 16,2008
Agenda Item
3. I. Acceptance .of Danatians for Ongaing Pragrams and Other Miscellaneaus Danatians
Prepared By
Sue Virnig, Finance Directar
Summary
This resalutian is ta accept the danatians received by the angaing programs such as
Envisian, and Human Services Faundatian.
Attachments
Resalutian Accepting 2008 Danatians far Ongaing Pragrams and Other Miscellaneaus
Danatians ( 1 page)
Recommended Action:
Matian ta adapt Resalutian Accepting Danatians far Ongaing Pragrams and Other
Miscellaneaus Danatians.
Resolution 08-65
December 16, 208
Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING DONATIONS FOR ONGOING PROGRAMS
AND OTHER MISCELLANEOUS DONATIONS
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution 04-20 on March 16,2004 which
amended the Donation/Gift policy; and
WHEREAS, the Resolution states that a gift of real or personal property must be
accepted by the City Council by resolution and be approved by a two-thirds majority of the
Council.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council accepts the following
donations:
Ongoino Proorams:
Golden Valley Human Services Foundation (HSF)
Morries Cadillac Saab
Rotary Club of Golden Valley
BNC National Bank
Liberty Diversified Industries
Integrated Communications
Best & Flanagan
Anonymous
Individual Contributions to HSF
General Fund Miscellaneous Donations
Centerpoint Energy - Jaws of Life
Envision/Connection Project
Best & Flanagan
Blair Tremere
Helene Johnson
Philip Lund
WSB & Associates
Lupient Buick Pontiac GMC
Mansfield Tanick & Cohen
Suzanne Kelly
1,500
1,100
1,000
2,000
600
1,000
1,000
$6,095
600
100.00
125.00
50.00
25.00
200.00
100.00
100.00
50.00
Linda R. Loomis, Mayor
ATTEST:
Susan M. Virnig, City Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Member
and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the Mayor
and her signature attested by the City Clerk.
Memorandum
Planning
763-593-8095/763-593-8109 (fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
December 16, 2008
"60 Days" Deadline: December 19, 2008
Agenda Item
3. J. Approval of Plat - Quail Woods Addition
Prepared By
Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development
Summary
At the December 2, 2008 City Council meeting this item was removed from the agenda in
order to meet with the applicant regarding amendments to the Subdivision Agreement. At the
October 21,2008 City Council meeting, the Council held a public hearing on the preliminary
plan for the minor subdivision of Quail Woods. After the hearing the Council approved the
preliminary plan with four conditions. The final plat of Quail Woods has now been prepared
by Peter Knaeble of the Golden Valley Land Company. City staff has reviewed the final plat
and finds it consistent with the approved preliminary plan and the requirements of City Code.
The four conditions of approval have been met or will be met prior to the December 16, 2008
meeting. The City Attorney has reviewed the plat and helped draft the required Subdivision
Agreement that is also on this agenda. (At this time, the Subdivision Agreement is not yet
completed but it will be available for City Council review before the December 16, 2008
meeting.) Prior to December 16, 2008, Golden Valley Land Company will have to provide the
City with a check in the amount of $1,100 for park dedication fees. The issue regarding future
variances has been included in the Subdivision Agreement.
In review, Quail Woods subdivides the existing one lot at 1825 Quail Avenue North into three
lots. The middle lot will be the location of the existing single family home that is now located
on the property. The two other lots will be the location of future homes. Each of the lots meets
or exceeds the requirements of both the zoning and subdivision codes. The existing home
will be located on its new lot in a manner that is consistent with zoning code requirements.
Attachments
Location Map (1 page)
Planning Commission minutes dated September 22, 2008 (5 pages)
City Council minutes dated October 21, 2008 (1 page)
Resolution for Approval of Plat - Quail Woods Addition (1 page)
Final Plat of Quail Woods Addition (1 oversized page loose in agenda packet)
Recommended Action
Motion to adopt Resolution for Approval of Plat - Quail Woods Addition.
Motion to approve the Subdivision Development Agreement and authorize the Mayor and
City Manager to execute it on behalf of the City.
2010 I
\,--L
1951
SOREll AVE N
o
1943
4975 4955
4945
4935 4925
o
1931
:z
'"
;>
.;:
!z
t'll
w
OI!
1920
4900
4941
4921
4960
4930
4920
SJUNTCROlX AVE N
@
5025
SOlS
4921
4913
4901
soos
4941
~:~""':g~t ..:~? LOOiS CJ1S ~00;5
J
4815
i
i
~
483$ l!\
1960
1830
1817 I
~
!=
1813 m
-<
'"
e
11'116
1801
i800
1801
1190
49111
1701
..flU
1640
1601
SA.W CROI)( em
4901
164.
o
4140
18411
SPRING VALLEY em
1823
1819
1815
1811
SPfUNG VALLEY tm.
1IlOO 1S04
1624
Regular Meeting of the
Golden Valley Planning Commission
September 22, 2008
.J<,
egular meeting of the Planning Commi . ion was held at the Golden Valley Ci ~II,
Co il Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley R ad, Golden Valley, Minnesota, on "day,
Septe .22,2008. Chair Keysser calle he meeting to order at 7 pm.
1.
lanning Commissio rs Cera, Keysser, Klu
was Director of 'nning and Devel
Wittman. Co missioners Ec .
, McCarty, and
t Mark Grimes, and
Waldhauser were absent.
Those present
Schmidgall. Also pre
Administrative Assistant
Mayor Loomis was in attendan
October 4. She explained that the id
Highway 55 came from Envision Golden
funds for the plant materials and landsc
map of the area and stated that they
General Mills Blvd. to Winnetka
in the volunteer efforts.
anting project scheduled for
nt . and other shrubs and trees along
nd Bridge Builders. She explained that the
. s came from MnDOT. She referred to a
Ian on both sides of Highway 55 from
ed the. ning Commissioners to participate
mission Meeting
,.
McCarty r red to the third paragraph on p ge 15 a!1d stated that he woul
that his' ention was that he would like to s the proposed building be set bac
just t r) from the property line along Gold Valley Road.
2. Informal Public Hearing - Minor Subdivision - Quail Woods -1825 Quail Avenue
- SU06-03
M ED by Cera, seconded by McCarty an, otion carried unanimously to approve the
gust 11, 2008 minutes with the above cia (cation.
Applicant: Peter Knaeble (Golden Valley Land Co.)
Address: 1825 Quail Avenue
Purpose: The subdivision would create three separate lots and allow for the
construction of two new homes. The existing home will remain.
Grimes referred to a location map and noted that the location of his proposed subdivision is
at the southwest corner of Golden Valley Road and Quail Avenue near Scheid Park. He
explained that the applicant is proposing to subdivide the 38,714 square foot lot into three
new lots. He added that the existing home will remain, but the existing garage will be
relocated. He stated that all three lots exceed the minimum lot size requirements and noted
that utilities are available to each lot. He explained that when building permits are applied
for, a tree preservation plan and grading and erosion control plan will be required for each
lot. He stated that staff is recommending approval of this proposed subdivision because it
meets all of the requirements of the zoning code and subdivision code.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
September 22, 2008
Page 2
Kluchka asked if there are any covenants on this property. Grimes said he is not aware of
any covenants on this property. Kluchka asked about the owner of the property. Grimes
stated that the applicant has purchased this property from a trust.
Peter Knaeble, Applicant, stated that his intent is to remodel the existing house which has
been vacant for about a year. He clarified that the sale of the property closes at the end of
October at which time he will rearrange the location of the existing driveway and garage
and start renovating the existing home. He reiterated that all three lots exceed the
minimum standards and that all three homes will meet all of the setback requirements. He
stated that the property is heavily wooded and that the vast majority of the trees will
remain however one or two may be removed on each lot in order to construct the new
homes.
Keysser asked the applicant if he plans to sell the parcels after the property is subdivided
or if he is planning on building the homes on the lots and then selling them. Knaeble
stated that he is subdividing the property then selling the lots to builders or buyers who
would then build custom homes.
Keysser asked the applicant if he anticipates doing any grading of the property. Knaeble
said no and explained that the grading on the individual lots will be done by the builders
when the homes are built.
McCarty referred to Lot 3, the northern most lot, and asked about the square footage of
the proposed home. Knaeble said the footprint would be approximately 1,500 square feet
and the home would be approximately 2,500 to 3,000 square feet in size. Grimes added
that staff and the applicant have made sure that the existing home and both new homes
will meet all of the new setback requirements without any variances being issued.
Kluchka suggested adding a condition of approval that states no variances will be granted
in the future for any of these homes.
Schmidgall asked the applicant if he is planning on "rouging-in" the utilities to the
proposed new lots. Knaeble said they will be "roughing-in" the utilities but not until the first
house is ready to be built.
Grimes asked the applicant to discuss the trees on the property. Knaeble said they did a
complete tree survey. He explained that on Lot 1 there may be one tree removed
depending on the placement of the house. On Lot 2 there may be a couple of trees
removed behind the existif,lg house and on Lot 3 one or two trees may be removed in
order to build a new house. He stated that they will be doing individual tree preservation
plans for each lot.
Keysser asked if there will be a rain garden installed on Lot 2 where the existing house is
located. Knaeble said he is not planning on installing a rain garden at this point but he is
waiting to see what the Bassett Creek Management Commission will require. Grimes
added that this development is small enough not to require any ponding but it will require
that best management practices be followed.
Keysser opened the public hearing.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
September 22,2808
Page 3
Roma Witzig, 1840 Quail Avenue North, asked if the developer could give some
background information on his company, projects they've done in the past and builders
they have used. She asked what assurances the neighbors have as to the quality of these
proposed new homes. She said she is very concerned about these homes becoming
rental properties and she wants to be notified when the proposed new homes are to be
built.
Lynn Gitelis, 4945 Golden Valley Road, said she will end up living next to whatever is built
on this property. She said that some of the existing trees may not be worth preserving
because they are dying. She said she is concerned about having extra activity and a
garage and cars right next door to her. She said she would prefer if two houses were built
instead of three. She referred to the traffic in the area and stated that it is very difficult to
turn left off of Quail Avenue onto Golden Valley Road throughout most of the day. She
said it would be great to see someone living at this property again but reiterated that she
would rather see two houses built, not three. She said she would like to see the property
cleaned up and she is also concerned about the design of the new houses.
Catherine Martignacco, 4846 Golden Valley Road, said she keeps her eye on Golden
Valley. She said she is concerned, and knows there are others concerned, about these
houses becoming rental properties and she would strongly object to any kind of twin
home or rental property being built here. She said she agrees that two houses would be
better than three and that traffic is a concern.
Sam Madrid, 4900 Frontenac Avenue, said he is concerned about the impact tothe side
yard setback area next to his property. He said he realizes this project isn't going to be
stopped by the neighborhood but he lives next to Lot 1 and even though the applicant is
legally meeting the setback requirements he would like to see a larger setback area
between his property and the proposed new Lot 1. He said he thinks the side and front
yard setbacks should be consistent with the other side and front yard setbacks in the
neighborhood. He added that he would also like windows along the south side of the
proposed house on Lot 1 minimized for his privacy.
Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Keysser closed the public hearing.
Knaeble discussed some of the other projects he has done in Golden Valley and other
cities and discussed his background.
Kluchka referred to the other projects the applicant has done and asked if he just
subdivided the properties ~o prepare them for sale or if he has built houses on the
properties and then sold them. Knaeble said he mostly does infill developments where he
subdivides properties and sells them to builders to build what they want. He explained
that he doesn't know what type or style these proposed new homes will be, but the plans
will be reviewed by the City and the City does not have any design standards so he
doesn't know if the neighbors will be able to have input on the building design. He said he
recognizes that this property has been abandoned and is run-down but it is his intent to
clean it up. He referred to the concerns expressed regarding traffic and said he doesn't
see two more lots having an impact to the existing streets. He referred to the concerns
about rental properties and stated that the property is zoned R-1 so single-family homes
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
September 22, 2008
Page 4
will be built but if someone wants to rent out their home in the future he has no control
over that and he is not sure if the City does either.
Kluchka questioned the proposed location of the existing garage. Knaeble said he is not
sure yet where on the lot the garage will be placed but it will probably be attached to
home and it will meet all setback requirements. .
Grimes referred to the concern about the quality of the proposed new homes and stated
that the City does not require single-family homes to be reviewed by neighboring property
owners.
McCarty said he would be in favor of this proposal with the condition added that there will
be no variance requests made in the future. Keysser questioned if the City can legally not
allow someone to ask for a variance.
Grimes stated that a stipulation regarding not allowing future variances has been put in
subdivision development agreements in the past. He stated that the City Council can
always choose to override a subdivision development agreement. He added that he
thinks there is plenty of room for good sized houses on these proposed lots without
needing any variances.
Knaeble said he thinks it would be unfair to the new homeowners to preclude variances
because it is not required for any of the other homes in Golden Valley. He added that he
would ask the City Council to strike language in the subdivision development agreement
regarding not allowing future variances because no one can foresee what the future
zoning code requirements will be.
Keysser suggested getting the City Attorney's opinion regarding future variances. He
noted that just because a homeowner asks for a variance doesn't mean they would get
one and he would like to leave that condition out of the Planning Commission's approval
and let the Board of Zoning Appeals do their job regarding variance requests.
Cera said he agreed with McCarty and Kluchka that there should be a condition of
approval that no variances will be allowed on these lots in the future. Grimes agreed and
said there really is no reason or justification for variances on any of these proposed lots.
He explained that there is a state statute that says subdivision agreements are subject to
the zoning regulations currently in place for two years from the time of approval of the
subdivision agreement.
.
McCarty stated that putting language in the subdivision development agreement about
not allowing future variances doesn't mean that a homeowner can't come before the
Board of Zoning Appeals and ask for a variance especially if it is for a hardship created by
the City if the zoning code requirements are amended.
Keysser suggested the Commissioners take a separate vote on the issue of adding a
condition regarding allowing future variances.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
September 22, 2008
Page 5
The following Commissioners voted yes to add a condition of approval stating that future
variances would not be allowed: Cera, Kluchka and McCarty. Commissioners Keysser
and Schmidgall voted no.
Kluchka asked Grimes about the best way for the neighbors to mitigate the traffic issues.
Grimes stated that there has been additional right-of-way given as a part of this proposal.
He stated that this proposal would add approximately 20 trips per day to the existing
traffic, not counting the 10 trips per day for the existing home. He noted that the City
Engineer does not have concerns about the traffic being generated by this proposal, but
he could ask him to address the issue before this proposal goes on to the City Council.
Kluchka asked what the neighbors could do to be proactive about the traffic issues.
Grimes suggested they talk to the Director of Public Works or the City Engineer about
their traffic concerns.
MOVED by McCarty, seconded by Kluchka and motion carried unanimously to
recommend approval of the request to subdivide the property located at 1825 Quail
Avenue into three lots with the following conditions:
1. The City Attorney will determine if a title review is necessary prior to approval of the final
plat.
2. A park dedication fee in the amount of $1 ,100 shall be paid prior to final plat approval.
3. A Subdivision Agreement will be drafted for review and approval by the City Council
that will include issues found in the City Engineer's memo dated September 12, 2008.
4. No future variances will be allowed on any of these lots.
Roma Witzig, 1840 Quail Avenue North, asked the applicant when the existing home
would be renovated and if there is a prospective buyer for the house. She asked who
would be responsible for the upkeep of the property until they sell the lots. She added that
she never realized how few rights property owners have.
Knaeble said he would be responsible for the properties when they close on the sale at
the end of October. He said the renovations will begin right away and then the existing
home and new lots will be sold.
Grimes explained that ther13 is a single-family housing maintenance code that these
houses will be subject to follow. Knaeble stated that there will be a period of transition but
that the existing house has been in transition for a year and a half already. He added that
in 2006 when the streets were reconstructed in this area the City assessed the property
owner for three lots, not two, so the owners expected there to be three lots in the future.
---Short Recess---
Regular Meeting of the City Council
October 21, 2008
Public Hearing - Preliminary Plat Approval -1825 Quail Avenue North - Quail
Woods Peter Knaeble (Golden Vallev land Co.), Applicant
Peter Knaeble, Applicant, presented the plan amendment and answered questions from
the Council.
Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development, introduced the agenda item and
answered questions from the Council.
The Mayor opened the meeting for public input and persons present to do so were
afforded the opportunity to express their views thereon.
Rosa Witzig, 1840 Quail Avenue North, stated at the Planning Commission that her
neighborhood felt very strongly that if the plat were approved it would have the condition
that no variances would be permitted.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
MOVED by Pentel, seconded by Shaffer and motion carried unanimously to approve the
preliminary plan for the minor subdivision of Quail Woods, located at the corner of Quail
Avenue North and Golden Valley Road, subject to the following conditions:
1. The City Attorney will determine if a title review is necessary prior to approval of the
final plat.
2. A park dedication fee in the amount of $1,100 shall be paid prior to final plat
approval.
3. A Subdivision Agreement will be drafted for review and approval by the City Council
that will include issues found in the City Engineer's memos dated September 12,
2008 and October 13, 2008.
4. It is the present intention of the council not to grant to the developer variances for
this subdivision unless the circumstances. This condition would be included in the
Subdivision Agreement for Quail Woods.
5. The garage on Lot 2 be moved prior to plan approval.
Resolution 08-54
December 16, 2008
Member
introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION FOR APPROVAL OF PLAT - QUAIL WOODS ADDITION
WHEREAS, the City Council for the City of Golden Valley, pursuant to due notice,
has heretofore conducted a public hearing on the proposed plat to be known as Quail
Woods Addition covering the following described tracts of land:
Lot 1, in Auditor's Subdivision Number 330, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
WHEREAS, all persons present were given the opportunity to be heard;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council for the City of Golden
Valley, that said proposed plat be, and the same hereby is, accepted and approved, and
the proper officers of the City are hereby authorized and instructed to sign the original of
said plat and to do all other things necessary and proper in the premises.
Linda R. Loomis, Mayor
ATTEST:
Susan M. Virnig, City Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Member
and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the Mayor
and her signature attested by the City Clerk.
Hey
M morandum
City Administration/Council
763-593-8096/763-593-8109 (fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
December 16, 2008
Agenda Item
3. K. Approval of the Amendment and Restatement of the Cafeteria Plan
Prepared By:
Paula A. Graff, Human Resources Coordinator
Summary
Attached is a resolution amending the City of Golden Valley Cafeteria Plan. The plan
provides employees a vehicle to set aside amounts which would otherwise be payable
as compensation and allows them to use the funds to reimburse medical and
employment-related dependent care expenses and to provide medical insurance
coverage.
The restatement of the plan is necessary because the City is changing vendors from
Acclaim Benefits to OptumHealth Financial Services (previously known as
Administration Resources Corporation (ARC)) effective January 1, 2009. The decision
to change vendors was based on problems employees have experienced with claims
and also administrative errors. OptumHealth has been endorsed by the LOGIS health
consortium and once all of the plan documents have been amended, ongoing service
fees will be lower.
Attachments
Resolution Amending and Restating the Cafeteria Plan (1 page)
Recommended Action
Motion to adopt Resolution Amending and Restating the Cafeteria Plan.
Resolution 08-66
December 16, 2008
Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION AMENDING AND RESTATING THE CAFETERIA PLAN
WHEREAS, the City Council considers it desirable and in the best interests of the City
that it maintains for and provides its employees a vehicle whereby amounts which would
otherwise be payable as salary may be set aside and provided to employees to reimburse
them for medical and employment-related dependent care expenses and to provide
medical insurance coverage and direct compensation (hereafter known as the "City of
Golden Valley Cafeteria Plan"); and
WHEREAS, the City Council has had presented to it for its review amendments to the
cafeteria plan designed to provide the benefits described above; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Golden Valley Cafeteria Plan
("Plan") as presented to the City Council of the City of Golden Valley is amended and
restated, as an employee benefit plan of this City, effective January 1,2009, and the City
Manager is hereby authorized to execute the Plan on behalf of the City; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City is hereby designated as the Plan
Administrator of the Plan and the Human Resources Coordinator of the City is directed to
maintain a copy of the Plan with the permanent records of the City and to make duplicates
thereof available to participating employees upon request; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Golden Valley that
the amendments to the City of Golden Valley Cafeteria Plan, dated January 1, 2009, are
hereby adopted, and the revised plan supersede all previously adopted plans and the City
hereby consents to the adoption of the amendments and restatement of the Plan by any
affiliates of the City as defined by the Plan.
Linda R. Loomis, Mayor
ATTEST:
Susan M. Virnig, City Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Member
and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the Mayor
and her signature attested by the City Clerk.
Hey
emorand m
City Administration/Council
763-593-8096 I 763-593-8109. (fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
December 16, 2008
Agenda Item
3. L. Amending the Health Reimbursement Arrangement and Establishing a Voluntary
Employee Beneficiary Association (HRA VEBA) Benefit for Employees
Prepared By:
Paula A. Graff, Human Resources Coordinator
Summary
Attached is the resolution which amends the Health Reimbursement Arrangement (HRA) plan
which was effective January 1, 2007 and adds a Voluntary Employees' Beneficiary
Association (VEBA) trust.
Since the establishment of the HRA, the City has administered the funds in-house. The funds
are earmarked for reimbursement for eligible health expenses and do not earn interest or
investment returns. As participation in the plan increases, and as employees have retired or
otherwise left the City, administration of the plan has become more complex. Also, the
addition of a new medical plan which allows for employees to establish a Health Savings
Account (HSA) increases the complexity of administering the plan in accordance with Internal
Revenue Service code.
By establishing a VEBA trust, administration is outsourced to OptumHealth Financial
Services and a trust is established where the funds will accrue an interest and/or investment
return. Upon Council approval, the agreement with OptumHealth will be effective January 1,
2009.
Attachments
Resolution Amending the Health Reimbursement Arrangement and Authorizing the
Establishment of a Voluntary Employee Beneficiary Association (HRA VEBA) Plan (2 pages)
Recommended Action
Motion to adopt Resolution Amending the Health Reimbursement Arrangement and
Authorizing the Establishment of a Voluntary Employee Beneficiary Association (HRA VEBA)
Plan.
Resolution 08-67
December 16, 2008
Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION AMENDING THE HEALTH REIMBUSEMENT ARRANGEMENT
AND AUTHORIZING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A VOLUNTARY EMPLOYEE
BENEFICIARY ASSOCIATION ("HRA VEBA") PLAN
WHEREAS, the City Council previously adopted the City of Golden Valley Heath
Reimbursement Arrangement ("HRA") for certain current and former employees of the
City; and
WHEREAS, the HRA is being amended to allow participants to suspend their
participation in the HRA for a future Plan Year by submitting a Health Reimbursement
Arrangement Suspension Election Form to the City of Golden Valley (the "Employer")
before the beginning of the Plan Year; and
WHEREAS, the City of Golden Valley desires to use the services of a Trust to
administer such plan; and
WHEREAS, the Internal Revenue Code Section 501 (c)(9) allows for the creation of a
voluntary employees' beneficiary association which is a tax-exempt health and welfare
trust; and
WHEREAS, the Voluntary Employees' Beneficiary Association (VEBA) through
OptumHealth Financial Services offers and will administer an HRA entitled "Voluntary
Employees' Beneficiary Association Medical Expense Plan" (VEBA); and
WHEREAS, the Plan will be funded with Employer contributions in amounts
determined from time to time pursuant to Employer policies and collective bargaining
agreements.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Golden Valley HRA as
presented to the City Council of the City of Golden Valley is amended and restated, and the
establishment of a VEBA as an employee benefit plan of this City, effective January 1,
2009; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Manager is hereby authorized to
execute the Plan on behalf of the City; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City is hereby designated as the Plan
Administrator of the HRA VEBA Plan and the Human Resources Coordinator of the City is
directed to maintain a copy of the Plan with the permanent records of the City and to make
duplicates thereof available to participating employees upon request; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Golden Valley that the
amendments to the City of Golden Valley Health Reimbursement ArrangemenWoluntary
Employees' Beneficiary Association Plan, dated January 1, 2009, are hereby adopted, and
the revised plan supersedes all previously adopted plans and the City hereby consents to the
adoption of the amendments and restatement of the Plan by any affiliates of the City as
defined by the Plan.
Resolution 08-67 - Continued
December 16, 2008
Linda R. Loomis, Mayor
ATTEST:
Susan M. Virnig, City Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Member
and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the Mayor
and her signature attested by the City Clerk.
alley
M morandum
Fire Department
763-593-8079 I 763-593-8098 (fax)
Executive Summary for Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
December 16, 2008
Agenda Item
3. M. Amendment to Fire Relief Association Funeral Benefits
Prepared By
Mark Kuhnly, Chief of Fire & Inspections
Summary
In 1971 the Golden Valley Fire Relief Association pension fund was established, including a
funeral benefit in the amount of $1,500 per firefighter. Minnesota Statute 424 was established
in 1979 consolidating and standardizing firefighter pensions statewide, including a funeral
benefit. Any special legislation enacted prior to this date was still in effect.
In 1981 the Golden Valley Fire Relief Association approved by-law revisions, increasing the
funeral benefit to $5,000. Following Relief Association approval the City Council approved the
increase to $5,000.
In 1986 the State Legislative Commission on Pensions and Retirement removed funeral
benefits from Minnesota Statute 424. The original special legislation was still in effect and the
Golden Valley Fire Relief Association could pay the $1,500 funeral benefit.
In 2008 the State Legislative Commission on Pensions and Retirements eliminated all special
legislation related to funeral benefits, effectively eliminating the Golden Valley Fire Relief
Association's ability to pay a funeral benefit.
The Golden Valley Fire Relief Association is currently rewriting the by-laws.
Recommended Action
Motion to approve Resolution Adopting Special Legislation of the State of Minnesota
Legislature Providing for Repeal of the Funeral Benefit Provided Members of the Fire Relief
Association.
Resolution 08-68
December 16, 2008
Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION ADOPTING SPECIAL LEGISLATION OF THE
STATE OF MINNESOTA LEGISLATURE PROVIDING FOR
REPEAL OF THE FUNERAL BENEFIT PROVIDED MEMBERS
OF THE FIRE RELIEF ASSOCIATION
WHEREAS, the Minnesota Legislature in special legislation provided for a funeral
benefit for the Fire Relief Association of the City of Golden Valley commencing in 1971;
WHEREAS, the Legislature now is providing an inclusive death benefit which
supplants the funeral benefit previously provided; and
WHEREAS, it is necessary to adopt special legislation of the 2008 Minnesota
Legislature repealing such funeral benefit to provide for the more inclusive death benefit.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council for the City of Golden
Valley that it hereby approves and adopts the special law enacted in the 2008 Session of
the Minnesota Legislature in Chapter 349, Article 14, Section 13, Subdivis.ion 7 of the 2008
Minnesota Session Laws which repeals laws 1971, chapter 140, Sections 2, as amended
by Laws 1973, chapter 30, section 2; 3, as amended byLaws 1973, chapter 30, section 3;
4, as amended by Laws 1973, chapter 30, section 4; and 5, as amended by Laws 1973,
chapter 30, section 5; and Laws 1993, chapter 244, article 4, section 1.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED AND APPROVED by the City Council of the City of
Golden Valley that the City Clerk is directed to complete and file promptly with the
Minnesota Secretary of State, a certificate stating the essential facts necessary to validate
approval of such law in Chapter 349, including a copy of this Resolution of Approval.
Linda R. Loomis, Mayor
ATTEST:
Susan Virnig, City Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Member
and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the Mayor
and her signature attested by the City Clerk.
alley
Memorandum
Planning
763-593-8095/763-593-8109 (fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
December 2, 2008
Agenda Item
3. N. Approval of One Year Extension for Filing of Plat for Lots 11 & 12, Block 3, Glen Urban
2nd Addition (Janalyn Circle and Glencrest Road)
Prepared By
Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development
Summary
Rocky DiGiacomo, applicant and Veryle and DeOnne Hudson, property owners located at
301 Janalyn Circle, have requested to extend the final plat approval for the minor subdivision
of the Lots 11 & 12, Block 3, Glenurban 2nd Addition to July 14, 2009. The parties involved
still intend to subdivide the property however market conditions have affected the sale of the
properties.
On July 15, 2008, the City Council approved the preliminary plat to allow splitting Lots 11 &
12, Block 3, Glenurban 2nd Addition into 3 new lots. Per City Code, the final plat must be
approved within 180 days of preliminary plat approval. An extension to this timeframe would
allow the applicant and property owners to move forward with this project.
Attachment
Location Map (1 page)
Letter from Rocky DiGiacomo, dated December 4,2008 (1 page)
Email from Veryle Logan Hudson and DeOnne Hudson, dated December 9,2008 (1 page)
Recommended Action
Motion to approve an extension until July 14, 2009 to submit the final plat for Lots 11 & 12,
Block 3, Glenurban 2nd Addition.
4~
J:
~
4270 15 I
1:.1
4260 4250 ..
Z
Z
100
208 204
:iU
201
221 211 2U 209 20S
108
310
4300 4:iM 42U 4116 410ll
4100
GLENCREST RD
4301 4U3 4211 4201 4115
515 m 529 535
JANALYN alt"
512 SUi S2iO S2fl 532 536 600
4535
20
15
Il
46011
4520
~
!
~
0(
GLENWOOD AVE
1
4300
4S05
M 13
100
UI4
115
44lI9
4313 009 4301 4263
4Z53
4333
4115 16
043
236
I Subject Properties I 44..
120
4S4O
4520
213
3lIII
309
401 400
409 40il
417
411i
4510
4541
4521 4511
400
4520
4510
SOlI
453li
700
TYROL TRl N
641
709
108
7011
-----
DI
----.
IACOMO
HOMES & RENOVATION, INC.
Dec. 4th 2008
Attn: Mark G.
Planning Dept.
City of Golden Valley
7800 Golden Valley Rd.
Golden Valley MN
RE: 3 lot split of lots II & 12 block 3, Glenurban Second Addition
Hello Mark
I would like to ask of the City Council an extension of 12 months for the required plat
submittal regarding the 3 lot split in Tyrol Hills approved in Aug. '08. There has been
no drop in interest on my part to move forward with this project; however market
conditions have forced me to put this on hold for an unknown period of time. I have
procured a surveyor ready to proceed when the housing market improves. The empty
lot 12 will continue to be mowed and maintained for neighborhood aesthetics.
Please let me know if you or the council needs anything further from me to act on this
request. Thank you,
Rocky DiGiacomo
Cell 612 710 7900
Fax 952591 7654
rgdigiacomo@earthlink.net
DG HomesandRenovation..com
11655 Ridgemount Ave. W.
Minnetonka MN 55305
Wittman. Lisa
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Grimes, Mark
Tuesday, December 09,20088:47 PM
Wittman, Lisa
FW: 3 lot split of Lots 11,12 block 3, Glenurban Second Addition
From: Hudson, Veryle L [mailto:VLHudson@CBBURNET.COM]
Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2008 7:53 PM
To: Grimes, Mark
Subject: 3 lot split of Lots 11,12 block 3, Glenurban Second Addition
Mark Grimes and the City Council'Of Golden Valley
Planning Department
City of Golden Valley
7800 Golden Valley Rd.
Golden Valley, MN
This letter serves as a request for an extension of 12 months for the required plat submittal regarding the 3 lot split in
Tyrol Hills
Approved August, 2008. We are working with Rocky DiGiacomo with a purchase agreement on the home at 301 Janalyn
Circle.
The Market conditions are producing few Buyers ready and able to purchase anyone of the three lots at this time. Most
feel that
The market may improve in 2009 with more corporate relocations taking place for this price range home.
We are still planning to move forward with this project with your assistance in extending the deadline for 12 months.
Please let us know if you need any additional information.
Sincerely,
Veryle Logan Hudson & DeOnne Hudson
301 Janalyn Circle
Golden Valley, MN 55416
Home 763-374-3287
Cell 612-723-6019 Veryle email
,
Cell 763-242-5436 DeOnne email
vlhudson@cbburnet.com
deonne 1024@comcast.net
"'~_'~;"_"""'+""""~~""'0_w",-"",""''''''''~''',.,",;^''",.-,..",.,^'<<~,"h"<"""~,".",.,^"."_.""",_,~.;.,.,,,,_='.,,_.,,,o,,.:.,.'0;"""""-_""~,:",,,,,,,,,",,,~~:,~,"_"'^_",,',_'_~''''''''_''''',^..,=,,,,,,,_,.~,.~_,,,~m..o,,,~,..,,,,,''''W.'~''''''''''''~''''''''''''''''''_'-:''''-'=""'"''''_'~''~'=''''>>'>>>'''''>''''''''':,''W_._8,_'''''_'''_''''''','_~~'''''''.".,..."""...""""",,,>>>>>,,,..,.,,-"",,..,"""',..-
THIS COMMUNICATION MAY CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL i\NDiOR OTHEHWiSE PROPHIET,\HY !v1ATERIP,L and is thus for use only by the Intended recipient
Any unauthorized wview, use, disclosure Of distribution is prohibited, If you received this in (HTOr please notify the sender and delete the e..mail and Its
attachments from all computers.
1
alley
Me ra.n urn
Finance
763-593-8013/763-593-8109 (fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
December 16,2008
Agenda Item
4. A. Public Hearing - Adoption of 2009 Property Tax Levy, General Fund Budget
Prepared By
Sue Virnig, Finance Director
Summary
At the Truth In Taxation hearing on December 1,2008, the City Council announced that the
second Council meeting in December would be the date of the Adoption Hearing for the 2009
Property Tax Levy and the 2009 General Fund Budget. Once adopted, the 2009 property tax
levy will be certified to the County for collection.
Attachments
Resolution Authorizing 2009 Tax Levy (1 page)
Resolution Adopting 2009 General Fund Budget (2 pages)
2009 Proposed General Fund Budget (distributed previously)
Recommended Action
Motion to adopt Resolution Authorizing 2009 Tax Levy.
Motion to adopt Resolution Adopting 2009 General Fund Budget.
Resolution 08-69
December 16, 2008
Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY, MINNESOTA
AUTHORIZING A LEVY FOR 2009
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Golden Valley, Minnesota as
follows:
1. There is hereby approved a General Tax Levy for 2009 for the purposes indicated:
General Fund - Personal Services, Operating Expenses and Capital Outlay
$11,871,685
367,215
Tax Abatement Levy
Bonded Debt:
Certificates of Indebtedness
1999 Street Improvement Bonds
2000 Street Improvement Bonds
2002 Street Improvement Bonds
2003-04 Street Improvement Bonds
2005 Street Improvement Bonds
2006 Street Improvement Bonds
2007 Street Improvement Bonds
2008 Street Improvement Bonds
$819,696
355,118
1,052,944
642,719
745,502
77,597
70,157
54,877
67.140
Total 2009 Tax Levy
I
3.885.750
$:J 6.124,650
2. That the City Clerk shall cause a copy of this resolution to be certified to the County
Auditor so that said sum shall be spread upon the tax rolls and will be payable in the
year 2009.
Linda R. Loomis, Mayor
ATTEST:
Susan M. Virnig, City Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Member
and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the Mayor
and her signature attested by the City Clerk.
Resolution 08-70
December 16, 2008
Member
introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 2009 BUDGET
OF THE GENERAL FUND
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Golden Valley, Minnesota, that
the appropriations for the General Fund Divisions for the calendar year 2009 shall be as
follows:
DIVISION
DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT
01
03
04
05
06
07
11
16
22
23
35
36
37
65
66
67
68
City Council
City Manager
Transfers Out
Administrative Services
Legal
Risk Management
General Government Buildings
Planning
Police
Fire
Public Works Administration
Engineering
Street
Community Center
Park and Recreation Administration
Park Maintenance
Recreation Programs
TOTAL 2009 BUDGET
$333,565
820,770
814,970
1,555,470
115,000
248,765
602,500
356,490
4,531,630
1,549,690 .
312,430
674,750
1 ,400,985
77,125
642,845
976,035
432,680
$15.445,700
Resolution 08-70 - Continued
December 16, 2008
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council that the sources of financing the
sums appropriated shall be:
DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT
Ad Valorem Taxes
Licenses
Permits
Federal Grants
State Grants
Charges For Services
Fines and Forfeitures
Interest Earnings
Miscellaneous Revenue
Transfers In
TOTAL 2009 BUDGET
$11,796,685
151,425
703,000
-0-
10,500
1,888,150
280,000
230,000
210,940
175,000
$15.445.709
Linda R. Loomis, Mayor
ATTEST:
Susan M. Virnig, City Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Member
and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the Mayor
and her signature attested by the City Clerk.
Hey
Memorand m
Planning
763-593-8095 I 763-593-8109 (fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
December 16, 2008
"60 Days" Deadline: January 27, 2009
Agenda Item
4. B. Public Hearing - Ordinance #410 - Rezoning to Moderate Density Residential (R-2)
Zoning District - 3335 Scott Avenue North
Prepared By
Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development
Summary
At the December 2,2008 City Council meeting the Council continued this item because no
applicant and/or members of the public were in attendance. At the November 10, 2008
Planning Commission meeting, the Commission held an informal public hearing on a request
to rezone the property at 3335 Scott Avenue North from Single Family (R-1) Zoning District to
the Moderate Density Residential (R-2) Zoning District. The request was made in order that
the existing home at this address could be used as a two family dwelling. As indicated in the
minutes from the meeting, a number of neighbors spoke to the Commission and they were all
generally opposed to the rezoning. After the hearing closed, the Commission unanimously
voted to recommend denial of the rezoning request that included several findings for denial.
(See recommendation below)
My memo to the Planning Commission dated November 5, 2008 gives a history of this
property. In summary, the house was built in 1958 as a two family dwelling. At the time the
two family dwelling was built, it was considered a permitted use in the single family zoning
district. About 30 years ago, the City altered the single family zoning district to allow only
single family homes as permitted uses. Therefore, all existing two family homes became
nonconforming. The nonconforming status means that a two family home can remain and be
used as a two family home but no changes can be made to enlarge the structure or change
its use. In this case, the two family home was converted to a single family home in 1998 and
has remained that way since that time. Therefore, it cannot be converted back to a two family
dwelling without first rezoning the property to the R-2 zoning district.
The house was put on the market in 2007 and the realtor was told by me in a letter that the
house could not be used as a two family home. Sometime between the summer of 2007 and
September of 2008, the house went into foreclosure. The bank or financial institution who
took the house over put it on the market stating that the house could be converted to a two
family dwelling. The applicant for the rezoning did contact the City and was made aware that
the rezoning was necessary for it to be used as a two family dwelling. At the November 10
Planning Commission meeting, the applicant said she knew of the rezoning requirement and
still began work to convert it to a two family home without the rezoning or a building permit.
(In September 2008, the Inspections Department stopped work at the house because no
building permit had been issued.)
Attachments
Location Map (1 page)
Memo to Planning Commission dated November 5,2008 (4 pages)
Planning Commission Minutes dated November 10, 2008 (5 pages)
Section 11.22: Moderate Density Residential Zoning District (R-2) (4 pages)
Letter from Kevin Boedigheimer, 5420 33rd Avenue North (1 page)
Email from Mark and Lynn Hochhauer, 3344 Scott Avenue North (1 page)
Ordinance #410, Rezoning from Single Family Zoning District (R-1) to Moderate Density
Residential Zoning District (R-2), 3335 Scott Avenue North, Charmain Wahlstrom Schodde,
Applicant (1 page)
Survey of Property (1 oversized page, loose in agenda packet)
Photos of Property (2 pages, loose in agenda packet)
Zoning Map (1 oversized page, loose in agenda packet)
General Land Use Plan Map (1 oversized page, loose in agenda packet)
Existing Land Use Plan Map (1 oversized page, loose in agenda packet)
Recommended Action
The Planning Commission unanimously recommended denial of the rezoning of the 3335
Scott Avenue North property from R-1 to R-2 for the following reasons: 1) Scott Avenue North
is clearly a single family street, 2) the house has already been converted back to a single
family home and, 3) the Planning Commission is uncomfortable with "spot" zoning.
3398
3DO
3384
3J7()
336S
34TH'AVEN
:t
0 3385 0 3J5O
:iI31O 3330
0 ~ 3365 3345
5315 3329
3320 3315
U60
2i (:) 3UO 3321
i 3312 3301
,..
-<
... z 3350 3301 5150 3311 3301
Q a300
Co !
\J
~ 33RD AVE N
5~ 3249 5139 3249 3:H8 5007
3250 0
3244
3245 m 3281
nolo
m
3241 :!i 3240
3241 ~ WI
3Z3ll :2:
3231 3230
3261
(l) 3218 3221
3220
3251
Hey
Planning
763-593-8095/ 763-593-8109 (fax)
Date:
November 5, 2008
To:
Golden Valley Planning Commission
From:
Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development
Subject:
Informal Public Hearing on Amendment to Zoning Map from Single-Family
Residential (R-1) to Moderate Density Residential (R-2) for Property Located at
3335 Scott Ave. N. (Lot 1, Block 2, Dahinden's 3rd Addition)-Charmaine
Wahlstrom Schodde, Applicant
Background
Charmaine Wahlstrom Shodde recently purchased the house at 3335 Scott Ave. N. Staff was
told by the owner that the house had gone into foreclosure and was purchased from the bank.
The applicant purchased the house with the understanding that it could be used as a two
family dwelling. The property is designated on the General Land Use Plan map for Low
Density development as is the area surrounding the house. The Low Density designation
allows housing that is less than 5 units per acre. The property has been zoned Single Family
Residential (R-1) for the past 30 years. Within the R-1 zoning district, only single family homes
are permitted. The surrounding area is also zoned R-1. In order to allow this property to be
used as a two family home, the property must be rezoned to the Moderate Density Residential
(R-2) zoning district that permits two family homes as a permitted use. In terms of the General
Land Use Plan map, a two family dwelling is considered Low Density because it is less than 5
units per acre.
The building was constructed in 1958 as a legal two family home. At that time, the City of
Golden Valley permitted two family homes in the low density residential zoning district. In fact,
there are six or seven two family homes located within a block of the subject property. Over 30
years ago, the City changed the zoning code to permit two family home construction only in a
separate R-2 zoning district. Those existing two family homes (probably less than 25 city-wide)
became non-conforming uses within the revised R-1 zoning district. Under the non-conforming
use status, these two family homes could continue to exist. An owner could improve the two
family home through maintenance and repair but not expand the two family home within the
R-1 zoning district.
In the case of the 3335 Scott Ave. N. property, it continued to operate as a nonconforming two
family home until 1998. At that time, a family converted the structure to a single family home by
modifying the interior layout of the structure.
1
Until the bank foreclosed on the house within the past year of so, it was used only as a single
family home. City Code states that once the nonconformity is discontinued for a period of more
than one year, the use has to conform to the requirements of the zoning code. In other words,
the house lost its legal nonconforming status as soon as the property was converted to a
single family home for more than one year.
In 2007, staff was made aware by a complaint that it appeared that the house was being
marketed as a two family house. I sent the realtor a letter telling the realty firm that the house
could only be sold as a single family home. The realtor indicated to me that it was understood
that the house could only be sold as a single family home. Since that time, the house went into
foreclosure. During last winter, there was water damage to the house due to lack of heat in the
home and the water service being left on.
Earlier this fall, the City received a complaint about work being done at this location and that it
appeared the work was being done so that the structure could be used as a two family home. I
went to the site and found that work was being done at the house without a building permit and
that it appeared the work was being done to convert the structure back to a two family home.
The City issued a stop work order. The owner was told that a building permit must be issued
for work at the house and that any work cannot be done at the house to convert it into a two
family dwelling. The applicant (Charmaine Shodde) was told that the only way the property
could be used for a two family dwelling is to request a rezoning of the property from R-1 to R-2.
In early October 2008, an application for rezoning was submitted.
If the rezoning is approved, Charmaine Shodde plans to live in one side of the two family
dwelling and her daughter and family plan to live in the other side.
(The City has allowed some repair work to continue at the house that was caused by the water
damage. The owner understands that the work done in the lower level does not approve the
rezoning and is necessary whether or not the rezoning is approved or denied.)
Review of Request
The zoning code does not give specific areas or issues for the Planning Commission and City
Council to consider when reviewing a rezoning request. Essentially, the zoning code states
that the Planning Commission will make a recommendation to the City Council regarding the
rezoning request. This is different than the consideration of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) or
Planned Unit Development (PUD) because in both those cases, the zoning code outlines
specific findings that must be made prior to recommending approval or denial of the request.
In this case, there are several issues the Planning Commission may want to consider prior to
making a recommendation. First and foremost is the General Land Use Plan map. This map
indicates that the property is designated for Low Density Residential Uses (5 or fewer units per
acre). The survey provided fo~ the site indicates that the lot on which this structure is located is
21,643 sq. ft. in area. If there were two units on this lot, the density would be about 4.2 units
per acre. Even with the existing nonconforming two family homes in the area, the overall
density of the neighborhood is below 5 units per acre.
Second, the current zoning of the area is R-1 and it has been zoned that way by the City
Council for over 30 years. During this time period, the only way a new two family home could
be built was by rezoning to R-2 or through the PUD process.
2
By creating the R-2 zoning district over 30 years ago, the City stated that in order for a two
family home to be constructed, they would have to be located in a different zoning district than
the R-1 district with a larger lot size, increased setbacks and other requirements. In this case,
the lot and house exceed all the requirements of the R-2 zoning district in terms of lot size,
setbacks and parking.
(Within the R-2 zoning district, lots for two family homes must be at least 11,000 sq. ft. and
meet certain minimum setback requirements. A copy of the R-2 zoning district is attached for
your review.)
Third, the Commission should consider the existing area and whether or not a two family home
is appropriate for the area. In this case, there are five or six others within a block or so area of
the subject structure. Is it best to have a cluster of two family homes within the same area?
Maybe the rezoning should be considered for a larger area than just one lot.
Fourth, the structure was originally constructed as a two family home and does appear to be
one from the outside due to the two front doors. (There are also two addresses on the front of
the house which will have to be removed if the house is not rezoned to R-2.) However, this
structure was used for almost ten years as a one family house by changing interior walls to
allow it to work as one living unit. The structure does have a standard size two car garage in
the rear yard that was built in the early 1970s.
Fifth, if the City chooses not to rezone the property, they have not taken away the right of the
owner of the property to use it in a reasonable way. The property has been used as a single
family home for the past nine or ten years as permitted by the zoning code. Therefore, the City
would not be "taking" any rights away from the owner of the property by not changing the
zoning to R-2.
Summary and Recommended Action
The structure was legally constructed in 1958 as a two family dwelling and was used in such a
manner until 1998. At that time, the house lost its nonconforming status by being converted to
a single family home for a period of nine or ten years. There are five or six other two family
homes in the immediate area that were probably built around the same time. The City has
received complaints or concerns about this house and its conversion back to a two family
home. In 2007, staff did tell the realtor of the status of the structure and that it could only be
sold as a single family home. The bank should have contacted the City and asked about the
zoning of the property prior to the foreclosure sale.
This house and lot would meet all the requirements of the zoning code for an R-2 property and
the property would be low density in character.
.
If the City would decide not to rezone the property, the applicant could share the house with
family members but the house cannot be divided into two separate units. (The zoning code
defines a family as any group of people related by blood or marriage.)
Staff does not have a recommendation on this request. The use of the property for either a two
family dwelling or single family home appears to be appropriate for this location. Staff has tried
to layout factors for consideration that can be used in making a recommendation.
3
Attachments
location Map (1 page)
City Code Section 11.22: Moderate Densi~ Residential Zoning District (R-2) (4 pages)
letter from Kevin Boedigheimer, 5240 33r Ave. N. (1 page)
Photos of property (2 pages)
Survey of property (1 oversized page)
Existing land Use Plan map (1 oversized page)
General land Use Plan map (1 oversized page)
Zoning Map (1 page oversized page)
4
Regular Meeting of the
Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 10, 2008
egular meeting of the Planning mmission was held at the Golden Valley City
Ha , Council Chambers, 7800 Gol n Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota, on
Monda November 10, 2008. Ch Keysser called the meetin rat 7:30 pm.
1.
agraph eight on
ged to the word "no .
Those presen e Planning Co
McCarty, Schmidga
Development Mark Gri
Assistant Lisa Wittman.
MO by Eck, seconded by Wald
rove the October 13 minutes with
ser and motion carried una
e above noted correction:
2. Informal Public Hearing -Property Rezoning - 3335 Scott Avenue
North - Z005-02
Applicant: Charmaine Wahlstrom Schodde
Address: 3335 Scott Avenue North
Purpose: To consider rezoning the property from Single Family Zoning
District (R-1) to Moderate Density Residential Zoning District
(R-2)
Grimes explained that the applicant is requesting to rezone her property from Sing'le
Family Residential (R-1) to Moderate Density Residential (R-2). He noted that the area
is primarily zoned R-1 and added that the applicant recently purchased the house which
had gone into foreclosure.
Grimes explained that from the time the house was built in 1958 until 1998 the house
was used as a two family home. After that time the house was converted to a single
family home so it lost its legally non-conforming status. He explained that when the
house was built the zoning code allowed duplexes as a permitted use in th~ R-1 zoning
district. Approximately 30 years ago the zoning code was amended to allow only single
family homes in the R-1 zoning district causing all existing duplexes to become legally
non-conforming.
Grimes referred to the recent history of the property and explained that in September
there was work being done in the house without a building permit and a stop work order
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 10, 2008
Page 2
was issued. He stated that the City did issue a building permit to allow some work to be
done in the basement due to severe water damage which would have to be done
whether the house is a one or two family home.
Grimes referred to a survey ofthe property and noted that it meets all of the
requirements of the R-2 zoning district and it is designated low density on the General
Land Use Planmap and a two family home would be considered low density. He stated
that the zoning code doesn't have specific issues to consider when a rezoning is
requested but that some of the issues he considered are that the Comprehensive Plan
is designated properly for a two family home (Low Density Residential is less than 5
units per acre), the house was legally built in 1958 before the zoning code was
amended to only allow single family homes, the house looks like a duplex with two front
doors, etc. and there are several other duplexes in the area. He questioned if maybe a
larger area should be considered for rezoning rather than just this one properti He
added that if the City Council chooses not to rezone this property nothing is really being
taken away from the applicant because the house can still be used as a single family
home. He explained that he did not make a recommendation in his staff report because
he can see both sides of this issue and how this request could be considered "spot
zoning".
Keysser questioned a specific duplex in the area that had been brought before the
Planning Commission in the past. He asked if the existing non-conforming duplexes in
the area are "grandfathered in". Grimes said he thought the house Keysser was
referring to is a residential facility serving six or fewer people which is a permitted use in
the R-1 zoning district.
Eck asked how the City knows when an existing duplex is converted into a single family
home. Grimes stated that the City can tell by looking at utility bills and/or building permit
information.
Eck referred to Grimes' staff report regarding Grimes informing a realtor that this house
could not be sold as a duplex. Grimes stated that he was informed by a neighbor that
this house was being marketed as a two family home in 2007. He wrote a letter to the
real estate agent informing him that this house could not be sold as a duplex without
rezoning the property first. He added that sometime after he spoke with this realtor that
the house went into foreclosure so he does not know how the house was marketed to
the applicant.
Eck asked if there is anything specific that needs to be done to a house to make it be
considered a single family home versus a two family home. Grimes explained that once
the wall was removed between the two sides of the house it was considered to be a
single family home.
Charmaine Schodde, Applicant, stated that the MLS listing of the house when she
bought it said the property could be converted into a duplex. She said she spoke with
someone at the City before she bought the house and was informed of the procedure
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 10, 2008
Page 3
required to rezone it from R-1 to R-2 and that is what she is in the process of doing. She
said she was led to believe that rezoning this property would notbe a problem.
She stated that the house was built as a duplex. It looks like a duplex. It has two front
doors, two kitchens, two gas meters, two furnaces and separate utilities and that is why
she would like to have the.property rezoned. She added that the property has a very
large lot and there are several other duplexes in the area. She added that this is a very
stable, family oriented area not a rental community. She explained that whoever lived in
the house before she bought went through the foreclosure process. The heat was shut
off but the water was left on causing the pipes to burst and water to bust out the
windows causing extensive water damage. She stated that her plan is to live in one side
of the house and have her daughter live in the other side of the house.
Keysser asked if the MLS listing stated that the property would have to be rezoned.
Schodde said no. ~
Eck referred to Ms. Schodde saying that she called the City and discussed the
procedure to rezone the property. He asked Schodde if she understood that the
property would need to be rezoned. Schodde said yes. She said the house looked like a
duplex and she believed it would not be a problem to rezone the property to R.;.2.
Keysser stated that the applicant's daughter and family can live in the house with the
applicant without having to rezone the property. Schodde explained that she lost her job
and that her daughter living with her will be a temporary situation and she would
eventually like to rent out half of the house in order to make the home more affordable:
Keysser opened the public hearing.
Lee Johnston, 3336 Scott Avenue North, said she has spent quite a bit of time in the
house and it is her understanding that the house was totally renovated into a single
family home approximately five years ago. She stated that the second kitchen was
totally removed and converted to a bedroom and that the second stairway was removed
as well. She stated that as far as she can tell the applicant has put a second stairway
back in. She said she is mildly opposed to this property being rezoned to R-2 because it
has been a drug house in the past and it is has been a single family home for several
years now.
Craig Hess, 3320 Scott Avenue North, said he is an architect and understands city
codes. He referred to Subdivision 11.90 of the Golden Valley city code regarding non-
conforming uses and stilted that it is very clear that a non-conforming use can exist and
continue a~ long as it is used in the same non-conforming way. He said iris also clear
how the non-conforming status is lost. He said there has been no hardship shown in
order to change the zoning on this property and if this property is rezoned it would be
considered "spot" zoning which is typically not the preferred method of zoning.
Charles Christianson, 3376 Scott Avenue North, said he can confirm the history of the
house which was spoken about by Lee Johnston. He said he is concerned about
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 10\ 2008
Page 4
property values and rental units in the neighborhood. He said he is also concerned
about the applicant purchasing the house in a manner that wasn't really valid.
Waldhauser noted that the Planning Commission also received a letter from Kevin
Boedigheimer, homeowner at 5240 33rd Avenue North. Keysser summarized the letter
received and stated that Mr. Boedigheimer strongly opposes this rezoning request
because he is concerned about the property values and setting a precedent.
McCarty referred to the people who have stated that the home has been converted to a
single family home and questioned how they are able to verify this.
Johnston said she is friends with the previous owner and her children went to this house
for daycare so she has been in the house many times.
Keysser asked Johnston if she saw that the kitchen and stairs had been removed.
Johnston said yes. Christianson said he also had his children in daycare at this house
and he has only seen one kitchen but he has not seen every room in the house.
Schodde stated that there was a kitchen downstairs with full size appliances and
cabinets that had already been pulled out.
Keysser asked Grimes how many unrelated people are allowed to live in a single family
home. Grimes stated that up to five unrelated people can rent a single family home.
Schodde said it seems like the neighbor's concerns are regarding the type of people
living in the area and not if the property is a duplex. She said she could have the
property be a rental property but it looks like a duplex not like a single family home.
Keysser reiterated to the applicant that she has other options if this property is not
rezoned. Schodde said she will have to think about what she is going to do with the
property because she bought it thinking it would not be a problem to rezone it. She
referred to the concerns about property values and stated that she has put a lot of time
and money into fixing up this property.
McCarty questioned the legal issues regarding "spot" zoning. Grimes said he would talk
to the City Attorney about "spot" zoning but he is not sure if that would be an argument
in this case or not because a two family home would still be considered low density.
Kluchka asked about c~ime in the neighborhood. Grimes said he did not do any
research regarding crime and that nothing has been mentioned to him regarding crime
in the area. Kluchka asked if crir:ne is ever a consideration in zoning issues. Grimes said
crime is not usually a consideration in zoning issues.
Eck said notwithstanding that this was obviously built as a two family home and looks
like a two family home he would not be in favor of rezoning this property to R-2 because
it would be "spot" zoning.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
November 10, 2008
Page 5
Keysser stated that if the City does rezone the property and the house is torn down in
the future a new two family home could be built. He noted that the whole block is single
family homes and that the other duplexes in the area are around the corner.
Cera stated that the General Land Use plan has the area designated for single family
(R-1) residential which means that is what is planned for the area.
Waldhauser said this is a very nice, quiet single family neighborhood and she thinks the
best use of the area is single family residential. She added however that a duplex can fit
in a single family neighborhood especially if the owner lives on one side and is
cognizant of who is living next door.
Kluchka said he is also not in favor of this rezoning but he questioned how the City can
encourage higher density and more affordable housing. He suggested maybe allowing
different types of housing in the R-1 zoning district with a Conditional Use Permit.
Grimes stated that the zoning code would have to be amended to allow two family
homes as a conditional use in the R-1 zoning district. Waldhauser stated that the
Planning Commission has seen requests where people with larger homes want to divide
them into apartment for parents, etc. and hopefully they will come up with a way to
address these types of issues in Golden Valley.
Schmidgall said he feels for the applicant if the property was misrepresented to her by
the real estate agent but he is not inclined to support this request because work was
done in the house without obtaining a building permit first and he is not comfortable with
"spot" zoning so he would like to keep the property zoned as it is.
McCarty said he is also not in support of this request.
Keysser agreed and reiterated that the applicant does have other options for sharing the
burden of homeownership.
Grimes suggested that if the Planning Commission recommends denial of this request
that they list findings.
Keysser suggested the following findings: 1) Scott Avenue is clearly a single family
street, 2) the house has already been converted back to a single family home, 3) the
Planning Commission is uncomfortable with "spot" zoning and 4) the applicant has other
options available to make it more affordable.
Waldhauser said she t~inks finding number four should be removed. The
Commissioners agreed.
MOVED by Keysser, seconded by Waldhauser and motion carried unanimously to
recommend denial of the applicant's request to rez.one the property at 3335 Scott
Avenue North from Single Family Zoning District (R-1) to Moderate Density Residential
Zoning District (R-2)
---Short Recess---
9 11.22
Section 11.22: Moderate Density Residential
Zoning District (R-2)
Subdivision 1. Purpose
The purpose of the R-2 Zoning District is to provide for single and two-family
dwellings at a moderate density (up to eight (8) units per acre) along with directly
related and complementary uses.
Subdivision 2. District Established
Properties shall be established within the Two-Family (R-2) Residential Zoning
District in the manner provided for in Section 11.90, Subdivision 3 of this Chapter,
and when thus established shall be incorporated in this Section 11.22, Subdivision 2
by an ordinance which makes cross-reference to this Section 11.22 and which shall
become a part hereof and of Section 11.10, Subdivision 2 thereof, as fully as if set
forth herein. In addition the Two-Family (R-2) Residential Zoning Districts thus
established, and/or any subsequent changes to the same which shall be made and
established in a similar manner, shall be reflected in the official zoning map of the
City as provided in Section 11.11 of this Chapter.
Subdivision 3. Permitted Uses
The following uses and no other shall be permitted in the R-2 Residential Districts:
A. Single Family dwellings
B. Two-Family dwellings
C. Townhouses
D. Foster Family Homes
E. Home occupations, as regulated by Section 11.21, Subdivision 15
F. Essential Services - Class I
G. No more than one (1) kitchen area and one kitchenette shall be permitted in
each dwelling unit
Subdivision 4. Accessory Uses
The following accessory uses and no other shall be permitted in the R-2 Zoning
District:
A. Accessory structures, including private garages as defined in this Chapter.
Subdivision 5. Conditional Uses
The following conditional uses may be allowed after review by the Planning
Golden Valley City Code
Page 1 of 4
9 11.22
Commission and approval by the Council following the standards and procedures
set forth in this Chapter:
A. Residential facilities serving from seven (7) to twenty-five (25) persons
B. Group foster family homes
Subdivision 6. Buildable Lots
In the R-2 Residential Zoning District a lot of a minimum area of eleven thousand
(11,000) square feet shall be required for any principal structure. A minimum lot
width of one hundred (100) feet at the front setback line shall be required.
Subdivision 7. Corner Visibility
All structures in the R-2 Zoning District shall meet the requirements of the corner
visibility requirements in Chapter 7 of the City Code.
Subdivision 8. Easements
No structures in the R-2 Zoning District shall be located in dedicated public
easements.
Subdivision 9. Maximum Coverage by Building and Impervious
Surfaces
Structures, including accessory structures, shall not occupy more than thirty
percent (30%) of the lot area. Total impervious surface on any lot shall not exceed
fifty percent (50%) of the lot area.
Subdivision 10. Principal Structures
Principal structures in the R-2 Zoning District shall be governed by the following
requirements:
A. Setback Requirements. The following structure setbacks shall be required for
principal structures in the R-2 Zoning District. Garages or other accessory
structures which are attached to the house or main structure shall also be
governed by these setback requirements, except for stair landings up to
twenty-five (25) square feet in size and for handicapped ramps.
1. Front Setback. The required minimum front setback shall be thirty-five
(35) feet from any front property line along a street right-of-way line.
Open front porches, with no screens, may be built to within thirty (30)
feet of a front property line along a street right-of-way line.
2. Rear Setback. The required rear setback shall be twenty percent (20)
of the lot depth.
3. Side Setback. The required side setback shall be fifteen (15) feet.
Golden Valley City Code
Page 2 of4
9 11. 22
4. Corner Lot Setbacks. To determine the rear yard setback, use the
longer lot line. To determine the side yard setback, use the shortest lot
line.
B. Height Limitations. No principal structure shall be erected in the R-2 Zoning
District to exceed a height of thirty (30) feet as defined in the City's building
code.
C. Cornices and Eaves. Cornices and eaves may not project more than thirty
(30) inches into a required setback.
D. Decks attached to principal structure. Decks over eight (8) inches from
ground level shall meet the same setbacks as the principal structure.
Subdivision 11. Accessory Structures
Accessory structures shall be governed by the following requirements:
A. Location and Setback Requirements. The following location regulations and
setbacks shall be required for accessory structures in the R-2 Zoning District:
1 Location. A detached accessory structure shall be located completely
to the rear of the principal structure, unless it is built with frost
footings. In that case, an accessory structure may be built no closer to
the front setback and side setback as the principal structure. If an
addition is built on to an existing principal structure that would create
a situation where an existing garage or accessory structure would not
be completely to the rear of the addition to the principal structure, the
addition to the principal structure may be built and the existing garage
or accessory structure may remain and be considered conforming as
long as there is at least ten (10) feet of separation between the
existing principal structure with the addition and the existing garage or
accessory structure. Additions may be made to the existing garage or
accessory structure as long as the ten (10) feet of separation can be
met.
2 Front Setback. Accessory structures shall be located no less than
thirty-five (35) feet from the front property line along a street right-of-
way line.
3 Side and Rear Setbacks. Detached accessory structures shall be
located no less than five (5) feet from a side or rear yard property line.
4 Separation between Structures. Accessory structures shall be located
no less than ten (10) feet from any principal structure and from any
other accessory structure.
B. Height limitations. No accessory structure shall be erected in the R-2 Zoning
District to exceed a height of one (1) story. One (1) story may not exceed
Golden Valley City Code
Page 3 of4
9 11.22
ten (10) feet from the floor to the top plate. Attic space in accessory
structures shall be used only for storage and/or utility space.
C. Garage Construction Required. No building permit shall be issued for the
construction of a new principal structure in the R-2 Zoning District not
including at least a one (1) stall garage per dwelling unit. Single family
dwelling units shall require a two (2) stall garage.
D. Accessory structures including detached and attached garages, detached
sheds, greenhouses and gazebos shall be limited in size to a total of six
hundred fifty (650) square feet per dwelling unit. Swimming pools are not
included in this requirement.
E. Decks. Free standing decks or decks attached to accessory structures shall
meet the same setback requirements as accessory structures.
F. Swimming pools. Swimming pools shall meet the same setback and location
requirements as accessory structures.
G. Central Air Conditioning Units. Central air conditioning units shall not be
allowed in the front yard of any single or two-family dwelling.
Source: Ordinance No. 371, 2nd Series
Effective Date: 07-13-07
Golden Valley City Code
Page 4 of 4
Kevin Boedigheimer
5240 33rd Avenue North
Golden Valley, MN 55422
612-226-4945
Golden Valley City Planning Commission
City Hall
7800 Golden Valley Road
Golden Valley, MN 55427-4588
763-593-8095
RE: Rezoning 3335 Scott Avenue North, Charmaine Wahlstrom Schodde, Applicant
Dear City Planner,
I am unable to attend the public hearing on November 10th at 7:30 pm so I am submitting this objection
in writing.
It is my opinion that we have too many resident duplexes in this neighborhood and any further
development or rezoning seriously threatens the cohesiveness of our community and the value of our
homes. I live across from a historically problematic duplex and do not wish any further encroachment of
multi-unit dwellings in my neighborhood.
Furthermore, a rezoning of this property would set a precedent that would almost guarantee more
duplex development in my neighborhood, further eroding the value of my property.
In these economic times, with all the over development of condominiums, townhomes, single-family
homes, there is just not enough demand to justify turning this single family home into a duplex.
I strongly urge you to consider this objection and to deny the rezoning of this property.
Best Regards,
p----
Kevin Boedigheimer
Nally, Judy
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
City hall
Friday, December 12,20087:29 AM
Wittman, Lisa; Grimes, Mark; Nally, Judy; Hogeboom, Joe
Burt, Tom
FW: Rezoning on Scott Avenue North
This email was sent to the city website.
From: MarkH38514@aol.com [mailto:MarkH38514@aol.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 11, 20087:14 PM
To: Cityhall
Subject: Rezoning on Scott Avenue North
I am Mark Hochhauser. My wife and I live at 3344 Scott Avenue North (since 1977), directly across
the street from 3335 Scott Avenue North which is being considered for rezoning from R-1 to R-2.
We are against the rezoning to R-2. While we have no objection to the owner living in one side of the
house and renting out the other side, we do not want both sides to be rented with an absentee
landlord.
I watched the Planning Commission discuss this issue on Channel 16. Given that everyone who
spoke was against the rezoning, and the Commission voted unanimously to keep the duplex at R-1,
there seemed to be no need to attend the December 2nd City Council Meeting.
It seemed to me, and to our next door neighbors, that the decision had been made and that there was
no need to show up on December 2nd. If our opinions were that important--which they did not seem
to be given the authority and decision of the Planning commission--you could have sent out brief
surveys along with the Hearing Notices.
Mark and Lynn Hochhauser
3344 Scott Avenue North
Golden Valley, MN 55422
Phone: 763':'521-4672
Fax: 763-521-5069
Cell: 612-281-1517
email: MarkH38514@aol.com
Make your life easier with all your friends, email, and favorite sites in one place. Try it now.
THIS COMMUNICATION MAY CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL AND/OR OTHERWISE PROPRIETARY MATERIAL and is thus for use only by the intended recipient.
Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you received this in error. please notify the sender and deiete the e-mail and its
attachments from all
1
ORDINANCE NO. 410, 2ND SERIES
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE
Rezoning 3335 Scott Avenue North from Single Family Zoning District (R-1) to
Moderate Density Residential Zoning District (R-2)
Charmain Wahlstrom Schodde, Applicant
The City Council for the City of Golden Valley hereby ordains as follows:
Section 1. City Code chapter 11 entitled "Land Use Regulations (Zoning)" is
amended in Section 11.10, Subd. 2, Section 11.30, Subd. 2 by changing the zoning
designation of certain tracts of land from Single Family Zoning District (R-1) to Moderate
Density Residential Zoning District (R-2)
Section 2. The tracts of land affected by this ordinance are legally described as:
Lot 1, Block 2, Dahinden's 3rd Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota
Section 3. City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions and Definitions
Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" and Section 11.99
entitled "Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety, by reference, as
though repeated verbatim herein.
Section 4. This ordinance shall take effect from and after its passage and
publication as required by law.
Adopted by the City Council this 16th day of December, 2008.
Is/Linda R. Loomis
Linda R. Loomis, Mayor
ATTEST:
Is/Susan M. VirniQ
Susan M. Virnig, City Clerk
alley
Memo ndu
Finance
763-593-8013/763-593-8109 (fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
December 16, 2008
Agenda Item
5. A. Second Consideration - Ordinance #411 - Establishing A 2009 Master Fee Schedule
Prepared By
Sue Virnig, Finance Director
Summary
At its meeting of December 2, 2008 the City Council adopted on First Consideration the
changes to the 2009 Master Fee Schedule. Staff is recommending adoption of Ordinance
#411 on Second Consideration.
Staff was requested to review the following fees: .
. Tobacco Licenses should increase in the 2010 Master Fee Schedule. Because the
renewal period is January 1 the city would not comply with the notice to the retailer.
. New-Used Car Dealers - Staff has reviewed fees and feel the appropriate amount is
being charged.
. Club Liquor License fees are set by State Statute. The American Legion and VFW are
considered a club status and the fees are based on the number of members.
Attachments
Ordinance #411, Establishing A 2009 Master Fee Schedule (15 pages)
Recommended Action
Motion to adopt on Second Consideration, Ordinance #411, Establishing A 2009 Master Fee
Schedule.
ORDINANCE NO. 411, 2ND SERIES
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE
Establishing A 2009 Master Fee Schedule
The City Council for the City of Golden Valley hereby ordains:
Section 1. The City Code requires that certain fees for City services and licenses
be established from time to time by the City Council.
Section 2. The Master Fee Schedule attached hereto as Exhibit A is hereby
adopted as the city's fee schedule effective January 1,2009, unless otherwise noted and
shall be added to Chapter 25 of the City Code.
Section 3. City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions and Definitions
Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" is hereby adopted in its
entirety, by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein.
Section 4. This ordinance shall take effect from and after its passage and
publication as required by law.
Adopted by the City Council this 16th day of December, 2008.
IslLinda R. Loomis
Linda R. Loomis, Mayor
ATTEST:
IslSusan M. Virniq
Susan M. Virnig, City Clerk
City of Golden Valley
2009 Master Fee Schedule - Exhibit A
Ip~l111its
2008 2009
Fee Fee
Building & Fire Permit Fees based on fee schedule below.
Mandatory State Surcharge: per permit is a minimum of .50 and when a permit
fee is over $1,000 in value the state surcharge is .0005 times the permit value.
Surcharge is remitted to MN State Treasurer.
Permit Cancellation Policy: 80% of the permit fee will be returned upon written
notice of cancellation. If job has been started no refund will be made.
No surcharge or plan review fees will be returned (includes the fees for
grading, drainage, erosion control, ROWand tree preservation permits).
Building/Fire/Plan Review Fee - 65% of the permit fee (no surcharge)
Administrative
Seasonal, Farm Produce, Christmas Tree Sales, etc in Commercial
Zoning District
Fire Alarm System (New Installation or Alteration of Existing)
Up to the 1st $1,200 in value
Over $1,200 value - use fire suppression fee
Fire Commercial Cooking Ventilation Systems
Inspection
Re-inspection
Fire Pumps
Fire Suppression & Special.Fire Suppression Systems:
FM 200 system, C02 systems, spray booths, kitchen extinguisher systems, hood~
Total valuation based on below fee schedule:
Value Range
2004 LMC/AMM Recommendation
$150 $500 $25.00
$501 $2,000 $25.00 for the first $500
$3.25/ additional $100
$2,001 $25,000 $73.50 for the first $2,000
$14.75/ additional $1 000
$25,001 $50,000 $415.75 for the first $25,000
$10.75/ additional $1 000
$50,001 $100,000 $682.50 for the first $50,000
$7.50/ additional $1,000
$100,001 $500,000 $1,053.50 for the first $100,000
$6.00/ additional $1 000
$500,001 $1,000,000 $3,427.75 for the first $500,000
$5.00/ additional $1 000
$1,000,001 and up $5,945.25 for the first $1,000,000
$4.00/ additional $1 000
Fireworks/Pyrotechnic Special Effects
Permit requires rental of fire engine and crew for stand-by at display
75.00
50.00
50.00
75.00
50.00
No change
100.00
75.00
50.00
50.00
75.00
75.00
No change
100.00
City of Golden Valley
2009 Master Fee Schedule - Exhibit A
IPerlllit$-CQntinUed
Grading, Drainage & Erosion Control
House/Building
Moving
Demolition
Mechanical: HVAC, Gas Piping, Refrigeration and Fireplace
(Includes all types of fireplaces - masonry, gas, gas log, gas insert, etc.)
VI
P . h
a ue ermlt c arge
$0 - $999 $15.00
$1,001 - $5,000 $31.50 + 2.60% over $1000
$5.001 - $10,000 $135.50 + 2.15% over $5000
$10,001 - $25,000 $243.00 + 1.85% over $10 000
$25,001 - $50,000 $520.50 + 1.65% over $25 000
$50,001 - over $933.00 + 1.30% over $50,000
Parade/Special Event
Petroleum Tanks
Installation - per dispenser
Installation - per tank
Piping associated with tanks
Removal - per tank
Temporary LP Tank (per site)
Plumbing and Piping Fixtures
Includes hydraulic sewer valves, rain water leaders, and alteration to existing systems.
VI
P 't h
a ue erml c arQe
$0 - $999 $15.00
$1.001 - $5,000 $31.50 + 2.60% over $1000
$5,001 - $10,000 $135.50 + 2.15% over $5000
$10,001 - $25,000 $243.00 + 1.85% over $10 000
$25,001 - $50,000 $520.50 + 1.65% over $25,000
$50,001 - over $933.00 + 1.30% over $50,000
Right Of Way
Obstruction Permit per obstruction (includes courtesy benches)
In Boulevard Excavation Permit per opening
In Street Excavation Permit per opening
Overhead or Trenching Utility
minimum
over one mile
Pavement excavation fee per mile
Sign Permit
Base fee
Area fee (per sq ft of sign area)
Temporary Sign
2
2008
Fee
2F:'<1
100.00
100.00
300.00
300.00
300.00
300.00
25.00 25.00
No change No change
No change No change
No change No change
No change No change
No change No change
25.00 25.00
25.00 25.00
75.00 75.00
60.00 60.00
75.00 75.00
50.00 50.00
25.00 25.00
No change No change
No change No change
No change No change
No change No change
No change No change
100.00
100.00
150.00
100.00
500.00
150.00
100.00
100.00
150.00
100.00
500.00
150.00
50.00
(2.75/sq ft
over 18 sq ft
50.00
(2.75/sq ft
over 18 sq ft
City of Golden Valley
2009 Master Fee Schedule - Exhibit A
~:I
2008
Fee
I Pi!irmits -cQlltit1l1ed
Standpipe
Installation of each standpipe (up to 5 floors)
Each additional floor
50.00
20.00
Temporary Certificate of Occupancy
Partial Certificate of Occupancy
Temporary Certificate of Occupancy
Extension of Temporary Certificate of Occupancy
Penalty for expired Temporary Certificate of Occupancy
100.00
100.00
200.00
300.00
Tent/Canopy Inspections - required for tents exceeding 200 sq ft and
canopies exceeding 400 sq ft (per site)
50.00
Tree Preservation Permit
100.00
Tree Preservation Mitigation Permit - per caliper inch
150.00
Utility Permits
Water Meter Permit
Water Tapping Permit
Water Cut-off Permit
Sewer Permit (connection)
Sewer Repair Permit
Sewer Cut-off Permit
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
50.00
20.00
100.00
100.00
200.00
300.00
50.00
100.00
150.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
I Licellses
........................,
1-Jan 200.00 200.00
1-Apr 50.00 75.00
1-Apr 200.00 200.00
1-Apr 50.00 50.00
1-Apr 15.00 15.00
1-Apr 375.00 375.00
1-Apr 15.00 15.00
1-Apr 15.00 15.00
1-May 100.00 100.00
1-May 350.00 350.00
lR.eneWal Pate I
A",ctioning
Auctioneers do not need to be licensed in the City of Golden Valley. However, they have to show
us a copy of a license or bond from the county or state and provide us a letter on the date, time and
place of the auction.
Cigarettes - Tobacco Products
over the counter
Contractors - Heating, Ventilation, Air Cond and Refrigeration
Dog Kennel - per kennel
Entertainment
Amusement and Shows
(movies - per screen; caravans, circuses, amusement rides)
Bowling Alley (each lane)
Dancing & Entertainment
Pinball Machine, Video Game or Pool Table
each location
each device
Fireworks
Retail consumer fireworks that sell other items
Retail consumer fireworks, retailers that sell only fireworks
3
City of Golden Valley
2009 Master Fee Schedule - Exhibit A
Renewal.O<':lte...
2008 2009
Fee Fee
Garbage Haulers ~ per vehicle
(See also Recylcing Haulers)
1-Jun
Gasoline Stations
First nozzle
Each additional nozzle
1-Apr
Lawful Gambling License
First year
Renewal after 1st year
1-Jan
Liquor License Application Packet
Liquor -Investigation Fee
(Liquor On-sale, Off-sale, and Sunday sale and Wine) new applicant
$500.00 non-refundable administrative fee plus actual costs for investigation
Liquor - Miscellaneous Change thru the year per change
Liquor On, Off and Sunday Sale and Wine (renewal or misc changes)
Liquor License (State law)
Sunday sale 1-Jul
Off-sale 1-Jul
On-sale 1-Jul
Wine On-sale 1-Jul
Club 1-Jul
up to 200 members
200-500 members
501-1,000 members
1,001-2,000 members
2001-4000 members
4001-6000 members
Over 6000 members
Liquor - Non-lntoxicating Malt (On-sale) 1-Apr
(This fee is not charged to applicants holding a wine license and
renewed at the time of the wine license renewal date)
Liquor - Non-Intoxicating Malt (Off-sale) 1-Apr
Massage Therapist - Individual
Certificate (each individual/person) 1-Jan
Investigation fee
Massage Therapist Premise License 1-Jan
Operating location
Investigation fee
New/Used Vehicle Sales 1-Sep
4
50.00
50.00
55.00 55.00
15.00 15.00
250.00 250.00
100.00 100.00
20.00 20.00
3,000.00 3,000.00
100.00 100.00
200.00 200.00
200.00 200.00
8,000.00 8,000.00
2,000.00 2,000.00
300.00 300.00
500.00 500.00
650.00 650.00
800.00 800.00
1,000.00 1,000.00
2,000.00 2,000.00
3,000.00 3,000.00
500.00 500.00
150.00 150.00
50.00 50.00
100.00 100.00
500.00 500.00
200.00 200.00
400.00 400.00
City of Golden Valley
2009 Master Fee Schedule - Exhibit A
I Lic~nses Hcontinued.
2008
Fee
2009
Fee
ReneWal Date
" """,.,,"''''''',
Peddlers and Solicitors 1-Jul
1 st person
Each additional person (up to a max fee of $50.00 per time)
Pawnbroker and Precious Metal
Dealer Location
Dealer
Investigation Fee
$500.00 non-refundable administrative fee plus actual costs for investigation
1-Jan
1-Jan
Recycling Haulers (Multi Family Apartment) - per vehicle
1-Jan
Rental Dwelling License
Single Family Dwellings
One Unit Dwelling
Re-inspection
Additional Unit Inspections
License Transfer
Inspection Appeal Filing Fee
1-Jul
Twin Homes & Duplexes
Re-inspection (per unit/per address)
Additional Inspections (per unit/per address)
1-May
Condominiums & Townhomes
Re-inspection (per unit/per address)
Additional Inspections (per unit/per address)
1-Sep
Group Homes I homes with services
Re-inspection (per unit/per address)
Additional Inspections (per unit/per address)
1-Nov
Multiple Unit Dwelling (3 or more units) per building
Re-inspection (per building/per address)
License Transfer (pro rate)
1-Mar
minimum
Star Program Fees (Based on participation level)
Non-Participant
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Level 4
Administrative Citations on (all) Rental Dwellings
1 st citation
2nd citation
3rd citation
4th citation and subsequentviolations in 12 month period
5
30.00 30.00
5.00 5.00
5000.00 5000.00
400.00 400.00
3000.00 3000.00
50.00 50.00
100.00 100.00
100.00 100.00
50.00 50.00
50.00 50.00
25.00 25.00
100.00 100.00
100.00 100.00
50.00 50.00
100.00 100.00
100.00 100.00
50.00 50.00
100.00 100.00
100.00 100.00
50.00 50.00
100.00 100.00
100.00 100.00
50.00 50.00
$20/unit $20/unit
$10/unit $10/unit
$8/unit $8/unit
$4/unit $4/unit
$O/unit $O/unit
100.00 100.00
250.00 250.00
500.00 500.00
500.00 500.00
City of Golden Valley
2009 Master Fee Schedule - Exhibit A
2008 2009
Fee Fee
Il.icenses .~contintJed
...... -. . -. ,-. . " -. " ."., - '-'.
......................, '-"""'...
. . . . . - - - . , . - . - - , . - ,. - , . . , . , .
I Renewal Delte I
Sexually Oriented Business
License Fee (operating location) 1-Jan
Investigation Fee
$500.00 non-refundable administrative fee plus actual costs for investigation
5000.00
3000.00
I $tl'eetAss~~sl11ents..
Residential/Single Family/Duplex, per dwelling unit on local street
Multi Unit Residential (more than 2 dwelling units) on local street
Residential/Single Family/Duplex, per dwelling unit on state aid street
Multi Unit Residential (more than 2 dwelling units) on state aid street
Other Zonings, Local Streets
Other Zonings, State Aid Streets
2009
4,400.00
62. 28/ft
1,100.00
66.7/ft
74. 881ft
80.991ft
Low Income Level for Senior/Retired due to Disability Deferral
2008
HUD
Limits
....1
5000.00
3000.00
.............201.0 I
:':....:...:.:,.:-:'..:.-:-:....
........... - -. -.
. ...-.-... . .
.. ...0 _... _" _..
4,900.00
69.36
1,225.00
74.28
83.39
90.19
2009
HUD
Limits
IMiscEtUl:ineousFEtEts
Address Change
Administrative Citations - Non Rental Housing
1 st Citation
2nd Citation
3rd Citation
4th Citation and subsequent violations in 12 month period
100.00
250.00
500.00
500.00
Alarm System - False Alarms (12 month period beginning March 1 of each year upon given notice)
1-3 false alarms No charge
4-10 false alarms 100.00
11-15 false alarms 150.00
16 or more false alarms 200.00
Animal Control
Dog License
Duplicate Dog License
Impound Fee for dogs
Boarding Fee for dogs and cats per day (5 day maximum)
6.00
5.00
50.00
20.00
Building Plan/Storage Retrieval
50.00
Certification Fee (Special Assessment)
30.00
City Cemetery
Cemetery Plot
Open/Close Fee:
Crematory (up to 2 per lot)
Burial
500.00
200.00/ ea
750.00
6
50.00
100.00
250.00
500.00
500.00
No charge
100.00
150.00
200.00
6.00
5.00
50.00
20.00
50.00
30.00
500.00
200.00/ ea
750.00
City of Golden Valley
2009 Master Fee Schedule - Exhibit A
I MisceUanE!ousFees-conthiuE!d....
2008
Fee
2009
Fee
.."'."".""."'1
Documents
Address Map
As-builts, Plats per page
City Budget
City Capital Improvement Program
City Code
Full book in binder
Updates
Zoning Chapters Only
City Maps:
Color (81/2 x 11 or 11X17)
Color (larger than 11X17)
B/W (81/2 x 11 or 11 x 17)
B/W (larger than 11 x 17)
Comprehensive Plan
Surface Water Management Plan
Water Supply Plan
Comprehensive Plan Map
Computer Plots per ft
Copies of any black and white, letter or legal size documents of 100 or
fewer pages (Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0300, subpart 4.)
Copies of any color, letter or legal size documents... ......
Digital Format
Aerial photography
Aerial topography
Special Assessment Search (non-owner)
Video Tape Reproduction (per tape + shipping)
Zoning Map (24 X 36)
Dog Owner's List
Equipment Charge per hour
Fire Engine (includes personnel)
Fire Aerial Truck (includes personnel)
Police and Fire Rescue Truck (includes personnel)
Utility Vehicle Qncludes personnel)
Squad Car (includes personnel)
Heavy (motor grader, front end loader, 360 Backhoe, Pickup sweeper,
sewer camera, truck, sewer jet, vac all. aerial truck) does not
include personnel costs
Medium (dump truck, water truck, tractor backhoe, utility tractor/
accessory, 15 ft cut lawn mower, brush chipper, asphalt roller) does
not include personnel costs
Light (truck - one ton and under, air compressor, water pump, generator,
steamer, asphalt/saw, concrete, cable tracer, sewer rodder) does
not include personnel costs
Filing Fee (Administrative Citation Appeal) per violation
7
10.00
6.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
6.00
10.00
10.00
200.00
15/each
10.00
200.00
15/each
10.00
4.00
10.00
1.00
5.00
4.00
10.00
1.00
5.00
120.00 120.00
120.00 120.00
10.00 10.00
5.00/full sheet 5.00/full sheet
. 25/pg . 25/pg
.33/page .33/page
.25 for 8.5X12 .25 for 8.5X12
time & material time & material
time & material time & material
15.00 15.00
20.00 20.00
10.00 10.00
25.00 25.00
250.00 250.00
350.00 350.00
250.00 250.00
100.00 100.00
100.00 100.00
125.00 125.00
80.00 80.00
45.00 45.00
25.00
25.00
City of Golden Valley
2009 Master Fee Schedule - Exhibit A
2008
Fee
2009
Fee
IMiscellaneOUSFees ...continued...
.........................,
Fingerprinting
Golden Valley Resident
Anyone employed in GV
First card
Additional cards each
SECOND OR MORE VIOLATIONS IN ONE SEASON
Vacant land - 1 hour minimum -
Occupied/unoccupied residential/commercial property - 3 hour minimum
10.00
25.00
10.00
5.00
cost of cost of
removal + 20% removal + 20%
2.00 2.00
5.00 5.00
200.00 200.00
1000.00 1000.00
250.00 250.00
$75/hour $75/hour
$25/hour $25/hour
110/ hr 125 / hr
110/ hr 125/ hr
250 / hr
250 / hr
Forced Tree Removal
Hydrant Meter Rental
Residential (per day + consumption)
Commercial (per day + consumption)
Deposit (residential)
Deposit (commercial)
Nuisance Service Call Fee (after three calls)
Personnel
Off Duty Police Officer (minimum applies as determined by
City Manager/designee)
Firefighters, Lieutenants, Captains, & Assistant Chiefs
Weed Eradication/Lawn mowing - per hour (see minimums)
Vacant land - 1 hour minimum
Occupied/unoccupied residential/commercial property - 3 hour minimum
I r:>1~l1l1il1g & ;Zoning Fees
Conditional Use Items
Conditional Use Permit
Amendment to Conditional Use Permit
Floodplain Search Letter
400.00 400.00
300.00 300.00
500.00 500.00
75.00 75.00
25.00 25.00
1% of Land 1 % of Land
Market Value Market Value
400.00 400.00
400.00 400.00
250.00 250.00
Easement Vacation (each request)
Flood Control Management (Special Permit)
Park Dedication Fees
(per Minnesota Statute 462.358)
Planned Unit Development
Preliminary Design Plan
Final Plan of Development
Minor Amendments
8
City of Golden Valley
2009 Master Fee Schedule.. Exhibit A
2008
Fee
2009
Fee
I Plallning. &ZollillgFees .-contilltJed
......................,
Rezoning
Subdivision
Subdivision - Minor
Variance from City Code - Zoning Chapters
Single family residential
All others
Wetland Management (plus professional fees if necessary)
Zoning Examination Letter
Temporary Retail Sales in Industrial Zone
(for each sal~, up to five days)
I Utility Fees
Driveway Covers.. Replace
Meter Testing (to be returned if meter is in error of 5% or more of read)
Sanitary Sewer Inspections and Compliance Fees (Ordinance No. 352)
Noncompliant discharge into sanitary sewer(or refuse inspection)
Single Family Residential
Non Single Family Residential
Application fee for noncompliant winter discharge into sanitary sewer
Application fee for certificate of sewer regulations compliance
Single Family Residential
Non Single Family Residential
Fee to review residential video record completed by private licensed plumber
Fee to review non-residential video record completed by private licensed plumber
Water on/off per each event ( additional charge for call in and overtime)
Utility.. Manual Read of Water/Sewer Meter
Water Meter and Parts (All)
9
500.00
400.00
250.00
125.00
225.00
75.00
75.00
150.00
75.00
50.00
500 / month
1000 / month
250.00
200.00
750.00
500.00
400.00
250.00
. 125.00
225.00
75.00
75.00
150.00
90.00
50.00
500 / month
1000 / month
250.00
250.00
750.00
100.00
375.00
50.00 50.00
100.00 100.00
At cost +20% At cost +20%
City of Golden Valley
2009 Master Fee Schedule - Exhibit A
2008
Fee
2009
Fee
Regulation Course
18 Hole Non-patron
18 Hole Patron
18 Hole Sr Patron
18 Hole Non-patron Senior Rate
18 Hole Non-patron League
18 Tournament
9 Hole Non-patron
9 Hole Patron
9 Hole Sr Patron
9 Hole Non-patron Senior
9 Hole Non-patron League
9 Hole Tournament
2nd Nine Non-patron
2nd Nine Patron
Sunrise/Sunset Rate
Twilight Non-patron
Twilight Patron
Junior Rate (patron/Non/patron)
18 Hole Sr Patron "Special" Monday-Tuesday before 1 pm
9 Hole Sr Patron "Special" Monday-Tuesday
34.00
27.00
24.00
27.00
34.00
34.00
18.50
15.50
14.00
15.50
18.50
18.50
15.50
11.50
14.50
18.50
15.50
20.00/11.00
Par 3 Course
9 Hole Non-patron
9 Hole patron
9 Hole Sr Patron
9 Hole Non-patron Senior Rate
9 Hole League
9 Hole Tournament
9 Hole Junior Rate
Junior Punch Card
9 Hole Sr Patron Special
2nd 9 Par 3
12.00
8.50
8.00
8.50
12.00
12.00
7.50
75.00
Patron Cards
Resident Adult Patron
Non-resident Adult Patron
Resident Senior Patron (age 62+)
Non-resident Senior Patron (age 62+)
Resident Junior Patron .(17 yrs & under)
Non-resident Junior (17 yrs & under)
75.00/70.00
115.00/110.00
45.00/40.00
80.00n5.00
35.00/30.00
40.00/35.00
Driving Range
Warm Up Bucket
Small Bucket
Large Bucket
10 Bucket Punch Pass
Large Patron Bucket
3.00
5.00
7.00
57.00
10
35.00
28.00
25.00
28.00
35.00
35.00
19.00
16.00
14.50
16.00
19.00
20.00
16.00
12.00
15.00
19.00
16.00
20.50/11.50
23.00
14.00
12.50
9.00
8.50
9.00
12.50
12.50
8.00
80.00
8.50
7.50
75.00no.00
115.00/110.00
45.00/40.00
80.00n5.00
35.00/30.00
40.00/35.00
3.00
5.00
7.00
57.00
5.00
City of Golden Valley
2009 Master Fee Schedule - Exhibit A
2008 2009
Fee Fee
I B I'ook"ie"" Golf (:ouf'seRates.~. continued
28.00 29.00
33.00 36.00
19.00 21.00
17.00 17.50
18.00 19.00
12.00 12.50
13.00 15.00
4.50 5.00
3.00 4.00
14.00/9.00 14.00/9.00
24.00
16.00
18.00 18.00
10.00 10.00
7.00 10.00
30.00 20.00
1.00 1.00
2.00 2.00
Cart Rates
18 Hole Power Cart
18 Hole Tournament Cart
9 Hole Tournament Cart
18 Hole Single Rider Cart
9 Hole Power Cart
9 Hole Single Rider Cart
9 Hole Par 3 Power Cart
Pull Cart/Regulation Course
Pull Cart/Par 3 Course
Trailer fee/Use of personal power cart
18 Hole Sr Patron Cart Special
9 Hole Sr Patron Cart Special
Club Rentals
18 Hole full rental - Regulation
9 Hole full rental - Regulation
9 hole Par 3 half rental
Locker Rental
Season
Daily
Towel fee
Miscellaneous Fees
USGA Handicap Service
MGA Non-patron
Patron Annual
No Show Fee
40.00
23.00
FULL FEE
Lessons
Adult Group
Junior Group
90.00
55.00
40.00
24.00
FULL FEE
95.00
60.00
Park & . Recreation. F eM fA Non-Resident fee of ~3.00 is teCI>/niiiendedtl> be 'added to YoutIi,AdUltandSell/l>i' /ActMties.)
Youth Fees
Baseball - Park
Basketball - Mites
Basketball - Youth
Bike Rangers
Catch, Kick & Throw
Chess Club
Drama Club (Summer)
Drama Club (Fall & Winter)
Explorers Hiking & Biking Club
Football- Flag
Football/Basketball/Soccer Skills
Ice Hockey Skills Camp
Jewelry Making
31.00
37.00
45.00
32.00
29.00
26.00
56.00
45.00
30.00
27.00
27.00
47.00
29.00
11
32.00
37.00
45.00
32.00
30.00
26.00
57.00
46.00
31.00
28.00
28.00
48.00
30.00
City of Golden Valley
2009 Master Fee Schedule - Exhibit A
2008
Fee
Jump Rope 16.00
Park&'. Recreation. Fees.... continued. . fA Non-Resident fee of $3.00 Is recollllllendedto be IHJf/IHI tOYOutll..A(/Uft and SelliO,..Ac:tl\t!ties.)
2009 I
Fee
16.00
Youth Fees - continued
Kickball 26.00 26.00
Kids Club 36.00 37.00
Kids Korner 27.00 28.00
Little Critters (Summer) 35.00 35.00
Little likes 35.00 35.00
Pens, Pencils, Markers, & More 22.00 22.00
Pitch by Coach 31.00 32.00
Playgrounds Free Free
Sand Volleyball 26.00 27.00
Slowpitch Softball 31.00 32.00
Soccer - Fall 30.00 31.00
Soccer - Nerf 29.00 30.00
Summer Survivor 28.00 29.00
Tap & Ballet 34.00 35.00
T-Ball 31.00 32.00
Tennis Teen Team League 75.00 125.00
Tennis-Full Day Camp 180.00 190.00
Tennis-Half Day Camp 100.00 110.00
Adult/Senior Activities
Ballroom Dance - Swing & Social 49.00 50.00
Basketball - Open
Drop-in Fee 3.00 3.00
10-time Punch Pass 20.00 20.00
Belly Dancing 40.00-60.00 65.00
Bridge - Beginning 28.00 29.00
Bridge -Intermediate 28.00 29.00
Broomball - Co-Rec
Resident 420.00 425.00
Non-Resident 510.00 515.00
Easy Photo Organization 15.00 15.00
Holiday Photo Greeting Cards 15.00 15.00
Hypnosis Classes (1 day) 20.00 20.00
Line Dancing 40.00-60.00 45.00 - 60.00
Painting (6-time punch pass) 37.00 38.00
Pilates 40.00-60.00 50.00 - 70.00
Scrapbooking - Big Picture 15.00 15.00
Scrapbooking - Bordermania 15.00 15.00
Self Defense - Women's 35.00 35.00
Soccer League - Co-Rec
Resident 435.00 440.00
Non-Resident 585.00 590.00
Softball Leagues - Fall
Resident 300.00 305.00
Non-Resident 425.00 430.00
12
City of Golden Valley
2009 Master Fee Schedule - Exhibit A
2008 2009
Fee Fee
Park&. .Recreation .Fees ....continued.. (A Non.Resident fEleOfi3oo isreoomll1eflcJeeJ to beacJcJEld toYOlJth, .AeJuttaneJsenior AotivWe.s.)
AdultlSenior Activities - continued
Softball Leagues - Spring/Summer
Doubleheader Leagues
Resident
Non-Resident
Single Game Leagues
Resident
Non-Resident
Tennis Drills (2 lessons)
Tennis League - Mixed Doubles
Tennis League - Singles
Volleyball - Open
Drop-in Fee
10-time Punch Pass
Yoga & Pilates
605.00 610.00
805.00 810.00
430.00 435.00
585.00 590.00
35.00 35.00
26.00 26.00
20.00 20.00
3.00 3.00
20.00 20.00
60.00-80.00 60.00 - 80.00
2.00-3.00 2.00 - 5.00
5.00 5.00
2.00 2.00
6.00 - 15.00 6.00 - 15.00
3.00 -10.00 4.00 -10.00
1.00
2.00-3.00 2.00 - 4.00
1.00 - 3.00
8.00 - 12.00 8.00 - 15.00
5.00 5.00 - 7.00
1.00 - 3.00
2.00 2.00
1.00
3.00 - 12.00 3.00 - 20.00
8.00 - 12.00 8.00 - 15.00
200-1,500 200 - 2,000
5.50-70.00 6.00 - 95.00
Senior Programs
Antique Presentation
Bowling Tourney
Coffee Talk
Craft Classes
Dance Parties
Defensive Driving (refreshments only)
Humanities
Living Well and Wise
Lunch Events
Membership Dues
Money Matters
Nutrition and You
Remember When
Special Events
Supper Events
Trips - Extended 2-6 Days
Trips - One Day
Other Park & Recreation Fees
Small Park Shelter
Resident (up to 50 people)
Non-resident
Large Park Shelter
Resident (up to 100 people)
Non-resident
BeerlWine Permit Only with picnic shelter rental
60.00
70.00
75.00
85.00
8.00
Community Center
Resident.(over 75 people; 12 hours)
Non-resident (over 75 people; 12 hours)
Resident (up to 75 people; 5 hours max)
Non-resident (up to 75 people; 5 hours max)
Private Industry or Commercial Use Resident/Non-resident
550.00
635.00
25 per hr
35 per hr
45-55 per hr
13
70.00
80.00
85.00
95.00
10.00
550.00
635.00
25 per hr
25 per hr
50-60 per hr
City of Golden Valley
2009 Master Fee Schedule - Exhibit A
2008 2009
Fee Fee
Parka. Recreation. Fees.... continued.. (ANon-Resident fee of $3.00IsrecOlllmended to be added to YOut~,AdultalldseniorAc:tivities.)......
Other Park & Recreation Fees - continued
Tennis Court
Court/hr/wkday
Eve & Weekend
Picnic Kits
Ball Diamond
Athletic Field
Per hour
W/Lights per hour
Non-Brookview
General Park Usage
Commercial Use of Park
Park Building
Hockey Rink
$30 deposit/$2 add'l item
Per hour
5.00
10.00
10/3 items
35.00
5.00
10.00
15.00/kit
35.00
35.00
50.00
35.00
50.00
per hour
per hour
Per hour
Per hour
35.00
75.00
40.00
35.00
35.00
75.00
40.00
35.00
14
alley
emorandum
Public Works
763-593-8030 I 763-593-3988 (fax)
Executive Summary for Action
Golden Valley Council Meeting
December 16, 2008
Agenda Item
5. B. Continued Item - Call for Public Hearings for the Ordinance Establishing a Franchise
Fee with Northern States Power, d/b/a, XceJ Energy
Prepared By
Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works
Summary
At the November 10 and December 9,2008 Council/Manager meetings, the Council directed
staff to start the process to develop an ordinance which would impose a franchise fee for
services provided by Northern States Power, d/b/a Xcel Energy. Revenue generated by the
franchise fee could be used to assist with the cost of placing overhead power utilities
underground, replacing street lights in pavement management project areas, and funding
other infrastructure projects. The list of infrastructure projects 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, Lindsay Avenue and Harold Avenue.
Xcel Energy recommends that the franchise fee, if imposed, be assessed as a flat fee per
meter basis. The rate schedule, if adopted, would provide the City with approximately
$485,746 in annual revenue. The rate schedule proposed is as follows:
E uivalent Monthl Flat Fee
$2.50
$7.00
$13.50
$80.00
-0-
-0-
-0-
This ordinance is scheduled to be considered at the January 6, 2009 and January 20, 2009
Council meetings. Ifapproved, it would be effective upon publication. However, collection of
the franchise fee would not take place until the debt associated with the TH55/Boone
Avenue/General Mills Boulevard Project is satisfied.
Attachments
Resolution Providing for Public Hearings to Consider an Ordinance Requiring an Electric
Franchise Fee from Northern States Power, d/b/a Xcel Energy, for Providing Electric Service
Within the City of Golden Valley (1 page)
Proposed Rate Schedule for Xcel Energy Franchise Fee (1 page)
Recommended Action
Motion to adopt a Resolution providing for Public Hearing to consider an ordinance requiring
an electric franchise fee from Northern States Power, d/b/a Xcel Energy, for providing electric
service within the City of Golden Valley on January 6, 2009 and January 20, 2009.
Resolution 08-56
December 16, 2008
Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS TO CONSIDER
AN ORDINANCE REQUIRING AN ELECTRIC FRANCHISE FEE FROM
NORTHERN STATES POWER, d/b/a XCEL ENERGY, FOR PROVIDING
ELECTRIC SERVICE WITHIN THE CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Golden Valley, Minnesota, as
follows:
1. Public hearings shall be held on the proposed franchise fee for Northern States
Power, d/b/a Xcel Energy, on January 6, 2009 and January 20, 2009, in the Council
Chambers at City Hall at 7 pm.
Linda R. Loomis, Mayor
ATTEST:
Susan M. Virnig, City Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Member
and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the Mayor
and her signature attested by the City Clerk.
Proposed Rate Schedule for Xcel Energy Franchise Fee
Residential*
Small C&I - Non-Demand*
Small C&I - Demand
Large C&I (> 1 Mw)
Public Street Lighting
Municipal Pumping - Non-Demand
Municipal Pumping - Demand
'ots.
7,177,787
$776,098
$4,483,750
$16,124,076
$261,792
$1,242
$0
:2tM324i74
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.
~'\Rn\^, ""~"4T\J:~n,..hie.a 4.....rA,c,mc.ntC!\Yl"canDrt''\r\t'\C!'crl J:)'!:IIto ~,..hQl'llllo fnl" Y"'.o.1 Cncrr,., ~r~"^hiC!.cr. E:.a.o. 1?_1 n_nA vlC!'v
~
alley
M orandum
City Administration/Council
763-593-8096/763-593-8109 (fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
December 16,2008
Agenda Item
6. A. Approval of 2009 General Wages, Salaries, and Monthly Benefit Contribution for
Non-union Personnel
Prepared By:
Paula A. Graff, Human Resources Coordinator
Summary
Attached is the compensation resolution establishing wages and salaries for all non-
union employees for 2009. The resol.ution proposes a 3% cost-of-living increase.
The resolution also establishes the City's monthly contribution toward employee
benefits in the City's cafeteria plan. There is a $105 per month increase in the benefit
contribution by the City for 2009, driven by the 16% increase in the City's health
insurance premium rates and labor contract language.
Attachments
2008 Resolution Establishing General Wages, Salaries and Monthly Benefit
Contribution for Non-union Personnel (3 pages)
Recommended Action
Motion to adopt Resolution Establishing 2009 Resolution Establishing General Wages,
Salaries and Monthly Benefit Contribution for Non-union Personnel.
Resolution 08-71' December 16, 2008
Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING 2009 GENERAL WAGES, SALARIES AND
MONTHL Y BENEFIT CONTRIBUTION FOR ALL NON-UNION PERSONNEL
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Golden Valley that it hereby
adopts the following general wages and salaries and benefits or all non-union personnel for
the year 2009, said schedule to commence for work performed by the personnel named
herein effective as of January 1, 2009.
MANAGEMENT TEAM Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5
Director of Public Works $101,874 $106,726 $111,577 $116,428 $121,279
Police Chief 99,403 104,137 108,870 113,604 118,337
Finance Director 97,212 101,841 106,470 111 ,099 115,728
Director of Parks and Recreation 95,659 100,214 104,770 109,325 113,880
Director of Planning and Development 90,668 94,985 99,303 103,620 107,938
Chief of Fire and Inspection Services 90,668 94,985 99,303 103,620 107,938
Human Resources Coordinator 84,181 88,189 92,198 96,206 100,215
Assistant City Manager 78,401 82,134 85,867 89,601 93,334
Communications Coordinator 66,148 69,298 72,448 75,598 78,748
DIVISION HEADS/SUPERVISORS Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5
City Engineer $85,436 $89,505 $93,573 $97,642 $101,710
Operations Commander 82,977 86,928 90,879 94,831 98,782
Patrol Commander 82,977 86,928 90,879 94,831 98,782
Public Works Maintenance Manager 80,204 84,023 87,843 91,662 95,481
Street/Vehicle Maintenance Supervisor 76,826 80,485 84,143 87,802 91,460
Park Supervisor 73,490 76,989 80,489 83,988 87,488
Public Works Project Coordinator 73,490 76,989 80,489 83,988 87,488
Information Technology Coordinator 69,892 73,220 76,549 79,877 83,205
Utility Supervisor 67,504 70,719 73,933 77,148 80,362
Golf Operations Manager 67,504 70,719 73,933 77,148 80,362
Greens Superintendent 67,504 70,719 73,933 77,148 80,362
Building Official 65,639 68,765 71,891 75,016 78,142
Environmental Coordinator 63,727 66,762 69,797 72,83n 75,866
Vehicle Maintenance Foreman 62,324 65,292 68,259 71,227 74,195
Deputy Register Supervisor 57,578 60,320 63,061 65,803 68,545
PROFESSIONAL EXEMPT Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5
Accounting Coordinator $64,302 $67,364 $70,426 $73,488 $76,550
Senior Citizen Coordinator 58,116 60,884 63,651 66,419 69,186
Recreation Supervisor 58,116 60,884 63,651 66,419 69,186
Support Services Coordinator 57,578 60,320 63,061 65,803 68,545
Graduate Engineer 56,351 59,034 61,717 64,401 67,084
Accountant I 52,578 55,082 57,586 60,089 62,593
Assistant Golf Operations Manager 49,904 52,281 54,657 57,034 59,410
Planner 48,884 51,212 53,539 55,867 58,195
Assistant Forester 48,123 50,414 52,706 54,997 57,289
Information Technology Technician 48,123 50,414 52,706 54,997 57,289
Resolution 08-71 - Continued December 16, 2008
EXEMPT CREATIVE PROFESSIONAL Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5
Web/Graphic Designer $40,116 $42,026 $43,936 $45,847 $47,757
EXEMPT ESTABLISHMENT
EMPLOYEES Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5
Mechanic-Golf Course $42,575 $44,603 $46,630 $48,658 $50,685
Turf Maintenance Foreman 41,886 43,880 45,875 47,869 49,864
Turf Maintenance Assistant 33,099 34,675 36,251 37,827 39,403
NON-EXEMPT Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5
Engineering Technician III $28.84 $30.21 $31.58 $32.96 $34.33
Public Works Specialist .28.84 30.21 31.58 32.96 34.33
Chief Building Inspector 28.76 30.13 31.50 32.87 34.24
Deputy Fire Marshal 28.67 30.03 31.40 32.76 34.13
Building Inspector 27.34 28.64 · 29.95 31.25 32.55
Fire Education Specialist 25.24 26.44 27.65 28.85 30.05
Fire/Property Maintenance Inspector 25.24 26.44 27.65 28.85 30.05
Crew Leader-Maintenance 27.79
Community Standards Inspector 23.02 24.11 25.21 26.30 27.40
Public Works Maintenance 20.07 21.28 22.51 24.18
Step C 25.41
Step B 25.91
Step A 26.45
Communications Specialist 20.13 21.09 22.05 23.01 23.97
Administrative Assistant 20.13 21.09 22.05 23.01 23.97
Accounts Receivable/Election Assistant 20.13 21.09 22.05 23.01 23.97
AssessmenVAccounts Payable Technician 20.13 21.09 22.05 23.01 23.97
Utility Billing/Accounts Payable Technician 20.13 21.09 22.05 23.01 23.97
Motor Vehicle License Clerk 17.04 17.85 18.66 19.47 20.28
Community Service Officer 16.70 17.03
Office Clerk 15.91 16.67 17.42 18.18 18.94
Receptionist 15.91 16.67 17.42 18.18 18.94
Fire Department
Battalion Chief $18.31 per hour
Captain 17.63 per hour
Lieutenant 16.34 per hour
Firefighter 14.19 per hour
Firefighter - Apprentice 11.96 per hour
Firefighter in Training 8.99 per hour
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that:
1. The dollar amount of the City's contribution to benefits for employees classified under
the categories of Non-exempt, Exempt Establishment, Exempt Creative Professional
and Professional Exempt will be $904.00 per month effective January 1,2009. The
City will also pay the cost of group term life IRS maximum taxable level and group
disability insurance for those employees.
Resolution 08-71 - Continued
December 16, 2008
2. The dollar amount of the City's contribution to benefits for employees classified under
Management Team and/or Division Head/Supervisor categories will be $925.00 per
month plus 2% of monthly salary effective January 1, 2009. The City will also pay the
cost of group term life IRS maximum taxable level and group disability insurance for
those employees.
3. Employee service awards are outlined in the Public Purpose Expenditure Policy and
shall be considered compensation in accordance with IRS regulations.
Linda R. Loomis, Mayor
ATTEST:
Susan M. Virnig, City Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Member
and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the Mayor
and her signature attested by the City Clerk.