11-10-09 CM Agenda Packet
AGENDA
Council/Manager Meeting
Golden Valley City Hall
7800 Golden Valley Road
Council Conference Room
November 10, 2009
6:30 pm
1. Bottineau Transitway Alternative Analysis Study - Alternative Evaluation Results
Presentation
2. 2010 General Fund Budget and Tax Levy
3. 2010-2014 Capital Improvement Program
4. Use of Tax Exempt Status and Exemption of Issuance Fee
5. Board/Commission Leave of Absence Policy
6. Festoon Lighting
7. Xcel Energy Request to Install Overhead Utilities - Country Club Drive/Portion of
Dougas Drive
Council/Manager meetings have an informal, discussion-style format and are designed
for the Council to obtain background information, consider policy alternatives, and
provide general directions to staff. No formal actions are taken at these meetings. The
public is invited to attend Council/Manager meetings and listen to the discussion; public
participation is allowed by invitation of the City Council.
is available in alternate formats upon a 72-hour request. Please call
763-593-8006 (TTY: 763-593-3968) to make a request. Examples of alternate formats
may include large print, electronic, Braille, audiocassette, etc.
Hey
M ra d m
Planning
763-593-8095/763-593-8109 (fax)
Executive Summary
Golden Valley Council/Manager Meeting
November 10, 2009
Agenda Item
1. Bottineau Transitway Alternative Analysis Study - Alternative Evaluation Results
Presentation
Prepared By
Joe Hogeboom, City Planner
Summary
Hennepin County is currently studying potential route alignments for the Bottineau LRT/BRT
transit corridor. The Bottineau corridor, a proposed mass transit route connecting downtown
Minneapolis with the northwestern suburbs, contains a potential alignment through the City of
Golden Valley.
Hennepin County has prepared a presentation (attached) summarizing the study and the
proposed alignment options. Hennepin County staff will be present at the Council/Manager
meeting to provide a summary of study activities to-date, including open houses which
occurred in September and October. Hennepin County staff will also discuss possible ways to
increase the City's influence and participation in the Bottineau study, including the possibility
of allowing a Council Member to join the Bottineau Boulevard Policy Advisory Committee.
Attachment
Bottineau Transitway Alternative Analysis Study - Alternative Evaluation Results Presentation
(7 pages)
11/6/2009
2030 Transitway System Plan
HENNEPIN;
Botti neo '!.'emo".e, MO"'. StUdY'
Transil Corridors
- Bus Rapid Transit
-lIghl Rail Transil 1'\
- Commut" Rail
- HIgh SpHd Rail
-LRT or BRT
Alternative Evaluation Results
Q
n H~nCount)'
RPgiOnlll R.aiImo'td Aumonr.,
October 2009
Golden Valley City Council
CARVEl{ 1
lz;
~.;
f :o,UJlI "LJ,...~
lLJI
n=--=-
.. -- .tel
Study Committees
Project Approach
~blic Invol;;~~-;;t/FTA Coo~dination 1
STAGE 1
I
I
hob$em
Statement
() $ ~ Sc,..nlng
, Goo. and . Unl..n.oI . ,..,1 J
-. Objecl....es ~,- Anet'nollvfl holuoHon
Criteria .
oAA!rV-o\lOtt"'oc1cOgc
STAGE 4 STAGE 3 STAGE 2
Final i. Evaluation 01 1 Conceptual (
~ Sc...nlng {TI A"'moi,... ~ A",moll.,. .
Locally
Pr.llM~
AltlHnalive
.f. "epclr
on. 100:'.....01
ol"rno>..,.
.II:~
. COlI<
."""".
. ~oied DeIn' oon
01 Al'emco"'fl
lLJI
n-'-
---
tel
lLJI__
n---
-
fijJ
1
11/6/2009
Suburban Segment Alternatives
Suburban Segment Alternatives
Segment A
Maple Grove terminal to
1-694 via Arbor Lakes
Parkway/77th Ave/BNSF
Stations:
o Hemlock Lane (P&R)
o Zachary Lane (P&R)
o Boone Ave
o 71st Ave (if no B segment)
!!Y!! _,_
n........---
Segment B
Target North Campus to
1-694 via West
Broadway/BNSF
Stations:
o 97th Ave
o 93m Ave (P&R)
o 85th Ave
o Brooklyn Blvd
...---- ~
1tlI__
n......~-
..
~
Suburban Segment Alternatives
Central Segment Alternative
Segment A & B
Both suburban
terminals to 1-694
Stations:
o Hemlock Lane (P&R)
o Zachary Lane (P&R)
o Boone Ave
o 9?1h Ave
o 93m Ave (P&R)
o 85th Ave
o Brooklyn Blvd
g~-,-
n"-,,,,---
Segment C
1-694 to 36th Avenue
via BNSF
Stations:
o 63m Avenue (P&R)
o Bass Lake Road
o Robbinsdale Transit Center
(P&R)
~-,-~
lijJ
g--
n""-'tl--'-"
-~
~
2
11/6/2009
Minneapolis Segment Alternatives
LRT/BRT
Segment 01
36th Avenue to
Minneapolis Transit Hub
Alignment:
BNSF to Olson Highway
Stations:
o Golden Valley Road
o Penn Ave
o Van White Blvd
y---
n.......--
BNSF
Rail
Corridor
BNSF Rail
Corridor
_..~=!'=
lij)
y---
n--..---
tel
Highway 55- Center Running in Median
Ir:m:~~;:CJJI:r
-r
.--'
Jll~'C"',, '-', , :~,:"""'--
I~- .~
L~= ~I:"-=_
1lC...-..- _.'If>~''_
y--<-
n-----,.
...--
lij)
u
n=-=--
.. -- - .-tel
3
11/6/2009
Minneapolis Segment Alternatives
LRT/BRT
Minneapolis Segment Alternatives
LRT/BRT
Segment 02
36th Avenue to
Minneapolis Transit Hub
Alignment:
Broadway to Penn Ave to
Olson Highway
Stations:
o North Memorial
o Broadway/Penn
o Penn/Plymouth
o Van White Blvd
g-,-
n-------
Segment 03
36th Avenue to
Minneapolis Transit Hub
Alignment:
Lowry Ave to Lyndale Ave
Stations:
o North Memorial
o Lowry/Penn
o Lowry/Fremont-Emerson
o Lyndale/Broadway
---
f9J
g--
n.........----
v~ "-!.___
l
.. -
f9J
Minneapolis Segment Alternatives
BRT Only
Segment 04
36th Avenue to
Minneapolis Transit Hub
Alignment:
West Broadway to
Lyndale Ave
Stations:
o North Memorial
o Broadway/Penn
o Broadway/Fremont-Emerson
o Broadway/Lyndale
g~-,-
n-.-..-~
21 Build Alternatives Evaluated
I[JL' a: lZ!!l3;T~:.v 'L~
......Grow
Brooklyn Pri
---
--
,. BNSF .. BNSF 1. BNSF
- --- -
-
2.P.., 5. P..... 8. p....,
- -
3."""" 6. """" G. LCIWf)"
l_ l_ l_
- - - ~
--- -f9J
g--
n""-""---.
-.;..... -f9J
I it; lli~.;Ja.m;.y~
~ -
......Grow
Bolh~burban
-.....
a_Pal<
10. BNSF
14. BNSF
18. BNSF
11. p.".. 15. P_
12. u-yt 18. u-y 20. l.oM'yI
lyndale l\.yndaIe lyndale
- - ----'
13.Bf08dweyI 11.BIUIIC!WlJyI 21.B~
lyndale lyndale lyndale
4
11/6/2009
. Goal 1: Enhance Regional Mobility
. Goal 2: Expand the Effectiveness of Transit
within the Corridor
. Goal 3: Provide a Cost-Effective and
Financially Feasible System
. Goal 4: Encourage Transit-Supportive Land
Use and Development Patterns
. Goal 5: Support Sustainable Communities
and Sound Environmental Practices
S
Project
Goals
31
Alternative Evaluation Process
L.J L.J U L.J
3
2
Evaluation Criteria
Evaluation ,..
Measures
...."
E.v..nc.RqJotWMobIIly
:~
..,
...."
E.-e.eUf__
lofl'-::_
m...":~
.....
E_..Tt~.
~UnIlu.._
----
_.._'~ .r~.
~.
.....
c.=-==., I
E..........--"1dItn
.-.._~
ILl
n-<-
---
.....
Pr-'d<t.COIlE~
..--
T___$otI....
Project Costs
cgJ
OVI"U
TECHNICALSCOflE PROJECT COSTS (VALUATION
!\ANIUNG
1 LRT A+C+Dl Maple Grov~NSF/OI5on . . .
2. lRTA+C+D2 Maple Grove-Penn/Olson @ @ @
3 lRT A+C.03 Mapi(> Gfo1t'~-Lowry!l.ynd~le @ 0 @
4 LRTB+C+Dl Brooklyn Park-BNSF/Olson @ @ @
S lRT fl+C+D1 Brookly!'l Park-P~r'lo/O!,.on 0 0 0
6 lRT 8"C+03 Brooklyn Park-lowryjlyndale 0 0 0
7 lRT AB.C...Dl Both bfanches-BNSF/Olson . 0 @
8 lRTAS.C+D2 Both branches-Penn/Olson @ 0 @J
9 lRT AB+C+03 Boti'l brandles-lowry/Lynda!l! @ 0 @
10 SRT A+C+Ol Maple Grove-8NSF/Olson @l @ @
11 BRT A+C+D2 Maple Gro....~Pelln/Olson 0 0 0
11. BRT A.C+D3 Map!€' Gwve-lowry!lyndale 0 0 0
13 BRT A~+()4 Map!~ Gro..,e-Broildw~ilyndale @ @ @
14 eRT B.C+D1 Brooklyn Park-BN-Sf/Olwn 0 0 0
1S eRT 8.C+D2 Brooklyn Park-Penn/Oison 0 0 0
16 B!H B.C+D3 Brooklyn Park-Lowryilyndah! 0 0 0
17 eRT B.C+D4 Brooklyn Park-Brcadway/Lyndale 0 0 0
18 SRT AB"'(+Dl Beth branc:hes-BNSf/Oison @ 0 0
19 SRT AB.O.02 Both branches....penn;Olson 0 0 0
20 eRT AS.C+03 B"th branches-lowryflynda;e @ 0 0
11 SRT AB.C+D4 Bet!; branches-HrQadwayltynda!e @ 0 @
K..,ID~: ..... ..... e.. 0_ 0......
Scoring r-
Categories
Ranking
Components
r-t Overall
Ranking
.,...--......
Benefits
r--
__ JI
Opportunities r.
Overall
Technical
Score
Technical
Score
and
Project
Costs
Impacts
Project
I Costs
--
Best LRT Prospect:
Maple Grove to Minneapolis via BNSF
. Arbor Lakes Parkway to
BNSF to Olson
Highway
(12 miles)
. Running Time:
26 minutes
. Daily Ridership:
19,500 (2030)
. Construction Cost:
$885 million
(2016 dollars)
g--
n.-.---.-,
--
JS)
5
11/6/2009
LRT Prospect:
Brooklyn Park to Minneapolis via BNSF
LRT Prospect:
Maple Grove to Minneapolis via Penn
. West Broadway to
BNSF to Olson
Highway
(12.6 miles)
. Running Time:
28 minutes
. Daily Ridership:
16,500 (2030)
Construction Cost:
$932 million
(2016 dollars)
H--
---
. Arbor Lakes Parkway to
BNSF to Broadway via
36th to Penn to Olson
Highway
(11.9 miles)
Running Time:
31 minutes
. Daily Ridership:
18,500 (2030)
. Construction Cost:
$929 million
(2016 dollars)
~-,-
n..........--
~-
Iel
on lijJ
Stakeholder Involvement!
Public Outreach
. ARCC, CAC, PAC
· Open houses (6:00 to 8:00 p.m.)
- Wednesday, September 30 (Crystal City Hall)
- Thursday, October 1 (Maple Grove City Hall)
- Tuesday, October 6
(Harrison Neighborhood Association)
- Wednesday, October 7
(Brooklyn Park City Hall)
- Thursday, October 8 (North Regional Library)
Best BRT Prospect:
Maple Grove to Minneapolis via BNSF
. Arbor Lakes Parkway to
BNSF to Olson
Highway
(12 miles)
. Running Time:
31 minutes
. Daily Ridership:
13,000 (2030)
. Construction Cost:
$464 million
(2016 dollars)
H-,-
---
lijJ
u__
n-.---
.. -.:.. Iel
6
Next Steps in Study Process
Publici
Stakeholder Input
Technical Results
Continued
Federal Transit
Administration (FTA)
collaboration
throughout study
u
n-<-
---
PAC
Recommendation
I Complete Study
I Documentation
,--
I HCRRA Board
I Recommendation
Submittal to
Metropolitan Council
11/6/2009
I-
L"
-
-' C9J
7
alley
Mem ran m
Finance
763-593-8013/763-593-8109 (fax)
Executive Summary
Golden Valley Council/Manager Meeting
November 10, 2009
Agenda Item
2. 2010 General Fund Budget and Tax Levy
Prepared By
Sue Virnig, Finance Director
Summary
Discussion needs to be held on the following budget items:
Home Free Shelter service agreement
YMCA service agreement
hlley
Me ran urn
Finance
763-593-8013/763-593-8109 (fax)
Executive Summary
Golden Valley Council/Manager Meeting
November 10, 2009
Agenda Item
3.2010-2014 Capital Improvement Program
Prepared By
Sue Virnig, Finance Director
Summary
Staff will be present at the November 10 Council/Manager meeting to answer questions on
the 2010-2014 Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The Planning Commission will review
the document at their November 23 meeting. Those minutes will be shared with Council
before the Council/Manager meeting on December 8. The document will be presented at the
December 15 Council Meeting for approval. After approval, the document will be bound and
distributed.
Attachments
2010-2014 CIP (3 ring notebook, loose in agenda packet)
alley
Me orand m
Finance
763-593-8013 I 763-593-8109 (fax)
Executive Summary
Golden Valley Council/Manager Meeting
November 10, 2009
Agenda Item
4. Use of Tax Exempt Status and Exemption of Issuance Fee
Prepared By
Sue Virnig, Finance Director
Summary
Local Government Information Systems Association (LOG IS) has requested the City allow
the use of our tax exempt status to issue bonds in the amount of approximately 2.4 million for
the purchase of public safety software and related equipment. LOGIS is also requesting the
City waive the issuance fee. As a member of the Joint Powers consortium waiving the fee will
help defray costs to all member cities.
The City is required by the IRS Code and by Minnesota Statutes to hold a hearing for the
approval of the revenue bonds. LOGIS will pay for all costs related to the public hearing
notice.
The City of Golden Valley is one of three cities that will be first to convert to the new software
system in 2010.
Attachments
Letter from Mike Garris, Executive Director, LOGIS (1 page)
Conduit Debt Issuance Policy (1 page)
Local Government Information Systems Association
The LOGIS Advantage
November 2,2009
Ms. Sue Virnig
City of Golden Valley
7800 Golden Valley Road
Golden Valley, MN 55427-4588
Dear Ms. Virnig:
LOGIS respectfully requests the City of Golden Valley's assistance as the conduit for the
issuance of tax-exempt financing for the acquisition of software and related equipment.
The new software and equipment will replace the out dated Public Safety Application
Suite of software, including the CAD, Mobiles and Records applications which benefit
many local jurisdictions, including the City of Golden Valley.
LOGIS also requests the city waive the conduit debt issuance fee for this transaction to
help hold the costs down for Golden Valley and all ofthe Joint Powers members.
Thank you for your consideration and assistance.
~~
Mike Gattis
Executive Director
LOGIS
5750 Duluth street · Golden Valley, Minnesota 55422-4036
Voice: (763) 543-2600 · Fax: (763) 543-2699 · Internet: www.logis.org
CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY
CONDUIT DEBT ISSUANCE POLICY
CONDUIT DEBT PURPOSE
Periodically, qualified organizations will approach the City to issue tax-exempt debt
through the City for the purchase of qualified equipment or the development,
construction, or remodeling of facilities. The City is able to issue this debt to qualified
organizations as authorized by applicable Minnesota Statutes and Federal Income Tax
Law. The debt is issued in the City's name and reported within the City's
Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. The City has a practice of charging a fee to
qualified organizations who issue this type of debt through the City.
FEE SCHEDULE
New debt issuance fees:
1 % of the initial amount of bonds being issued, due upon issuance. (If the issue amount
is 3,500,000 the fee would be $35,000)
Refinancing issuance fees (periodically, an organization that issued bonds previously
may desire to refund the old bonds and issue new bonds in their place):
.5% of the initial amount of bonds being issued, due upon issuance.
JOINT POWERS FEES
An organization within Golden Valley may desire to finance projects at facilities it owns
within Golden Valley by issuing bonds through another city. This requires the City
Council to give host city approval and/or enter into a Joint Powers Agreement with the
other city. Under this circumstance, the City does not have the on-going disclosure
requirement and therefore a one-time fee is to be assessed of 0.5% of the amount of
bonds being issued related to projects being completed within the City of Golden Valley.
If the City of Golden Valley is a part of the joint powers agreement that is requesting
such funding, the fee may be exempt from the one time fee (ie. LOG IS, Northwest Drug
Task Force).
alley
em rand m
City Administration/Council
763-593-8003/763-593-8109 (fax)
Executive Summary
Golden Valley Council/Manager Meeting
November 10, 2009
Agenda Item
5. Board/Commission Leave of Absence Policy
Prepared By
Thomas Burt, City Manager
Summary
Mayor Loomis requested this item be placed on the agenda.
alley
Mern ran urn
City Administration/Council
763-593-8003/763-593-8109 (fax)
Executive Summary
Golden Valley Council/Manager Meeting
November 10, 2009
Agenda Item
6. Festoon Lighting
Prepared By
Thomas Burt, City Manager
Summary
Council Member Scanlon requested this item be placed on the agenda.
alley
e orandum
Public Works
763-593-8030 I 763-593-3988 (fax)
Executive Summary
Golden Valley Council/Manager Meeting
November 10, 2009
Agenda Item
7. Xcel Energy Request to Install Overhead Utilities on Country Club Drive and a portion of
Douglas Drive
Prepared By
Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works
Jeff Oliver PE, City Engineer
Summary
Xcel Energy has applied for a permit to install overhead power lines and underground cables
on Country Club Drive and a portion of Douglas Drive (see attached map showing the project
overview). The application calls for "double-decking the existing pole line," which includes
installing pole extensions on the existing overhead poles and installing an additional set of
overhead power lines on the extensions (see attached photo). The double-decking is
proposed on approximately 2,800 feet of existing overhead facilities on Country Club Drive.
The application also includes installing two new poles and burial of approximately 930 feet of
new cable between existing overhead facilities west of Douglas Drive. A note on the plan
suggests a Hennepin County permit is needed for the proposed work on Douglas Drive.
According to the City's Right-of-Way Management Ordinance, City Code Chapter 7, Section
7.28, Subd. 3, Xcel Energy's proposal is considered a reconstruction of existing facilities,
which must be located and maintained underground. Therefore, the permit application was
denied in May 2009.
Xcel Energy would like to proceed with the design and installation of the project; however,
there is the issue of cost recovery. Xcel has indicated that they can design the project as an
underground installation, but the incremental costs between overhead (standard construction)
and underground construction (nonstandard construction) must be paid for by the City either
by direct payment to Xcel, through the City Requested Facilities Surcharge (CRFS), or
through a franchise fee. The City Attorney and staff would like to discuss the following issues
with Council:
1. Is Council willing to amend the right-of-way ordinance to allow Xcel to construct the
improvements as proposed? If so, what standards would be developed to determine
when overhead facilities would be required to be placed underground?
2. Is Council willing to consider financial payment to Xcel for incremental cost to place
the overhead utilities underground? If so, staff would work with Xcel to develop a cost
recovery method that is most equitable to property owners.
3. The City could refuse to authorize the permit for overhead work and refuse to
authorize payment for underground work. In that case, the matter would most likely be
considered by the Public Utilities Commission, which would probably authorize a
citywide surcharge to pay for the costs associated with the nonstandard construction.
Attachments
Project Overview Map ( 1 page)
Photo of Double-Deck Pole Line (1 page)
. "
!~. ,...,,~)f
J:" .
-, t. .... ,'~
t .'
;
~ ;~
,~. if~.. ,f,.....
~
"-
".
,
..~
~"
",.
" "
,
'"
""
",,", " " "-
" '
'""",,
"'-
'"
'.
......,
'. .,~
:',. .,' ,..\,~
; t
~.
.f:."
,. i~'
z
o
-
I-
(j
W
en
~
(j
w
o
W
-J
ca
::>
o
Cl
z
o
-
I-
(j
W
en
o
z
::::>
o
c:::
(!)
rl:
w
Cl
Z
::>
z
o
-
I-
(j
W
en
~
(j
W
Cl
W
...J
ca
::::>
o
Cl