The URL can be used to link to this page

02-01-11 CC Agenda Packet (entire)AGENDA Regular Meeting of the City Council Golden Valley City Hall 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Chamber February 1, 2011 6:30 pm The Council may consider item numbers 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 prior to the public hearings scheduled at 7 pm 1. CALL TO ORDER A. Roll Call 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 - Council /Manager Meeting - December 14, 2010 and City Council Meeting - December 21, 2010 B. Approval of Check Register 1. City 2. Housing and Redevelopment Authority C. Licenses: 1. Gambling License Application to Conduct Excluded Bingo - Ladies Auxiliary to the Veterans of Foreign Wars Post #7051 D. Minutes of Boards and Commissions: 1. Human Rights Commission - September 16, 2010 2. Open Space and Recreation Commission - October 25, 2010 3. Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission - December 16, 2010 E. Bids and Quotes: 1. F550 Cab and Chassis Truck and Equipment - Quotes F. Approval of 2011 Legislative Policies G. Authorization to Sign Agreement with Gallagher Benefit Systems, Inc. for HIPPA Compliance 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS 7 PM A. Public Hearing - Preliminary Plat Approval - Fretham 11th Addition - 240 Jersey Avenue North B. Public Hearing - Ordinance #454 - Rezoning 8805, 8905, 9191, 9393 Wayzata Boulevard and Outlot A in PUD 95 (between 8905 and 9191 Wayzata Boulevard) from Industrial Zoning District to Commercial Zoning District 5. OLD BUSINESS 6. NEW BUSINESS A. First Consideration - Ordinance #455 - Amending Section 10.30, Regarding Discontinuance of Dog Licensing Requirement (Except for Dangerous and Potentially Dangerous Dogs) B. Announcements of Meetings C. Mayor and Council Communications D. Executive Session - Christopher Gise vs City of Golden Valley 7. ADJOURNMENT Council /Manager Meeting Minutes December 14, 2010 Present: Mayor Loomis and Council Members Freiberg, Pentel, Scanlon and Shaffer, City Manager Tom Burt, Assistant City Manager Chantell Knauss, Communications Coordinator Cheryl Weiler, City Planner Joe Hogeboom, and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. The meeting began at 6:30 pm in the Council Conference Room. Presentation of City Logo Refresh Cheryl Weiler explained that as a result of the recent changes to the City's web address and email address, staff is in the process of updating business cards and stationery. At the same time, staff has been considering the pros and cons of updating the City logo. She showed the Council a PowerPoint presentation that highlighted the issues with the current City logo versus the proposed new logo and discussed how designing the new logo in- house would be in line with current budget constraints. The Council discussed the various places the logo is used including vehicles, clothing, and on the back wall of the Council Chambers. They also discussed the look of the proposed new logo and suggested some possible changes such as using the same color or style of font for all of the words. Tom Burt said he would have staff make some of the suggested changes and would then forward it on to the City Council. Proposed 2011 Legislative Priorities The Council reviewed its 2011 Legislative Policies which include Inflow and Infiltration (1 /1) and Fiscal Disparities. Tom Burt noted that staff is going to suggest to the Legislature that they continue funding for the 1/1 grant program but streamline the process so it is less costly and onerous for local governments. Council directed staff to continue the legislative priority for fiscal disparities as it related to a rebate of fiscal disparities on properties that receive a property value reduction. Proposed Ordinance Amendment — Rainwater Collection Devices Joe Hogeboom stated that the Environmental Commission and the Planning Commission have informally reviewed the proposed regulations for rainwater collection devices. Staff is now looking for direction from the Council on whether or not to move forward with this ordinance. After discussing the issues regarding rainwater collection devices such as aesthetics, how many would be allowed per down spout and what other cities have done, the Council decided not to go forward with this proposed ordinance at this time. Residential Fence Permit Fee Joe Hogeboom reminded the Council that they have discussed this item at previous Council /Manager meetings. Since the last meeting he has reviewed the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities (AMM) data regarding fence permit costs and found that out of 60 cities reporting, 33 require a fence permit and the average cost for a fence permit is $30.58. He stated that historically, fences constructed in an incorrect location have been treated as a private property matter between homeowners. Tom Burt added that if a permit is required before fence construction there will be an inspection process and the City will be involved fence issues. Council /Manager Meeting Minutes December 14, 2010 — Page 2 The Council discussed whether the City should become more involved in fence issues and if a property survey should be required when installing a fence or if finding the property stakes or if using a site plan would suffice. They also discussed grandfathering of existing fences and the costs to homeowners wishing to install a fence. After their discussion, the Council decided to have an article regarding fences in a future CityNews issue and to bring an ordinance regarding residential fence permit fees to a future City Council meeting. Cable Commission Franchise Council Member Shaffer discussed his participation in the joint powers operation of the Northwest Suburbs Cable Communications Commission and Northwest Community Television and stated that his term ends this year. He asked if other Council Members might be interested in being on the Commission. The Council discussed the future of cable TV and cable TV franchise fees and Council Member Freiberg said that he would be interested in learning more about the Commission and possibly serving on the Commission when Council Member Shaffer's term ends. Paperless Council Agendas Tom Burt stated that staff has determined the cost of printing Council agenda packets to be $2,880 per year. He noted that the cost for netbooks for the Council would be $1,450 and the cost for laptops would be $2,425. The Council discussed the differences between the netbooks, laptops and I -Pads. They also discussed the format of documents used to produce the agenda. After discussion, the Council determined that they would like to use laptops and they would also like to have a technology policy in place regarding the use of the laptops. Wirth Park Mayor Loomis asked that this item be added to the agenda. She referred to a document submitted to the Minneapolis Park & Recreation Board by the City of Lakes Nordic Ski Foundation regarding opening up Wirth Park ski loop to more users. She added that the document is in keeping with the philosophy the Council has discussed in the past. Go Red Campaign Mayor Loomis asked that this item be added to the agenda. She distributed a letter from Kim Rottman explaining the City of Brooklyn Center's centennial celebration and their support of the Go Red Campaign for Women's Heart Health on February 4, 2011. Ms. Rottman is asking Golden Valley to join Brooklyn Center in supporting this campaign by issuing a proclamation. The Council agreed to consider a proclamation at their January 18, 2011 Council meeting and to pass the information along to Golden Valley's 125th Anniversary Committee. The meeting adjourned at 8 pm. Lisa Wittman Administrative Assistant Regular Meeting of the City Council December 21, 2010 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Golden Valley, Hennepin County, Minnesota was held at 7800 Golden Valley Road in said City on December 21, 2010 at 6:30 pm. The following members were present: Freiberg, Loomis, Pentel, Scanlon and Shaffer. Also present were: Thomas Burt, City Manager; Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works; Allen Barnard, City Attorney; and Judy Nally, Administrative Assistant. Approval of Agenda MOVED by Pentel, seconded by Freiberg and motion carried unanimously to approve the agenda of December 21, 2010 as amended: removal of Approval of Minutes - City Council Meeting - November 16, 2010. Approval of Consent Agenda MOVED by Freiberg, seconded by Shaffer and motion carried unanimously to approve the agenda of December 21, 2010 as amended: removal of General Business Licenses. Approval of Minutes - City Council Meeting - November 16, 2010 The City Council meeting minutes of November 16, 2010 will be approved at the next Council meeting. *Approval of Check Register MOVED by Freiberg, seconded by Shaffer and motion carried unanimously to authorize the payment of the City and Housing and Redevelopment Authority bills as submitted. General Business Licenses Council Member Freiberg had questions regarding extra compliance checks for Walgreens. Thomas Burt answered questions from the Council. MOVED by Freiberg, seconded by Shaffer and motion carried unanimously to authorize the issuance of licenses as recommended by staff. Staff was requested to put the League of Minnesota Cities Model Tobacco Licensing Ordinance on a future Council /Manager meeting for discussion. Regular Meeting of the City Council December 21, 2010 Page 2 *City Gambling Licenses MOVED by Freiberg, seconded by Shaffer and motion carried unanimously to approve the City gambling licenses as follows: Chester Bird American Legion Post #523; Golden Valley VFW Post #7051, Minnesota Youth Athletic Services and Crystal Lions. *Fireworks Permit - Sweeney Lake Homeowners Association MOVED by Freiberg, seconded by Shaffer and motion carried unanimously to approve the fireworks display permit for the Sweeney Lake Homeowners Association. *Minutes of Boards and Commissions MOVED by Freiberg, seconded by Shaffer and motion carried unanimously to receive and file the minutes as follows: Planning Commission - October 25, 2010 Joint Water Commission -October 6, 2010 Minneapolis Water Advisory Board -August 19, 2010 *Acceptance of Donations for Ongoing Programs and Other Miscellaneous Donations Member Freiberg introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION 10 -79 RESOLUTION ACCEPTING DONATIONS FOR ONGOING PROGRAMS AND OTHER MISCELLANEOUS DONATIONS The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Member Shaffer and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Freiberg, Loomis, Pentel, Scanlon and Shaffer; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the Mayor and her signature attested by the City Clerk. *Acceptance of Donation to Golden Valley 125th Anniversary Member Freiberg introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION 10 -80 RESOLUTION ACCEPTING DONATION FOR GOLDEN VALLEY 125TH ANNIVERSARY The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Member Shaffer and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Freiberg, Loomis, Pentel, Scanlon and Shaffer; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the Mayor and her signature attested by the City Clerk. Regular Meeting of the City Council December 21, 2010 Page 3 *Approval of City Manager Salary Member Freiberg introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION 10 -81 RESOLUTION UPDATING THE ADDENDUM TO THE CITY MANAGER EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Member Shaffer and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Freiberg, Loomis, Pentei, Scanlon and Shaffer; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the Mayor and her signature attested by the City Clerk. *Approval of 2011 General Wages and Salaries for Non -union Personnel Member Freiberg introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION 10 -82 RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING 2011 GENERAL WAGES AND SALARIES FOR ALL NON -UNION PERSONNEL The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Member Shaffer and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Freiberg, Loomis, Pentel, Scanlon and Shaffer; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the Mayor and her signature attested by the City Clerk. *Receipt of November 2010 Financial Reports MOVED by Freiberg, seconded by Shaffer and motion carried unanimously to receive and file the November 2010 Financial Reports. *Waiver of Public Hearing and Certification of Special Assessments - 2010(B) Driveways Member Freiberg introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION 10 -83 RESOLUTION WAIVING THE PUBLIC HEARING PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA STATUTES 429.031 AND ORDERING CERTIFICATION OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS ON PRIVATE DRIVEWAYS THAT INVOLVE 2010 CITY STREET IMPROVEMENTS (AREA 2B & 3) Regular Meeting of the City Council December 21, 2010 Page 4 *Waiver of Public Hearing and Certification of Special Assessments - 2010(6) Driveways - Continued The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Member Shaffer and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Freiberg, Loomis, Pentel, Scanlon and Shaffer; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the Mayor and her signature attested by the City Clerk. *Approval of Plat - North Wirth Parkway 6th Addition PUD 33 Member Freiberg introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION 10 -84 RESOLUTION FOR APPROVAL OF PLAT - NORTH WIRTH PARKWAY 6TH ADDITION PUD 33 The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Member Shaffer and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Freiberg, Loomis, Pentel, Scanlon and Shaffer; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the Mayor and her signature attested by the City Clerk. *Amending Health Reimbursement Arrangement (HRA) Plan Documents Member Freiberg introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION 10 -85 RESOLUTION AMENDING THE HEALTH REIMBURSEMENT ARRANGEMENT (HRA) PLAN DOCUMENTS The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Member Shaffer and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Freiberg, Loomis, Pentel, Scanlon and Shaffer; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the Mayor and her signature attested by the City Clerk. *Amending Cafeteria Plan Summary Plan Description Member Freiberg introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION 10 -86 RESOLUTION AMENDING THE CAFETERIA PLAN SUMMARY PLAN DESCRIPTION Regular Meeting of the City Council December 21, 2010 Page 5 *Amending Cafeteria Plan Summary Plan Description - Continued The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Member Shaffer and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Freiberg, Loomis, Pentel, Scanlon and Shaffer; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the Mayor and her signature attested by the City Clerk. *Adoption of Hennepin County Multi- Jurisdictional All- Hazard Mitigation Plan Member Freiberg introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION 10 -87 RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE HENNEPIN COUNTY MULTI - JURISDICTIONAL ALL - HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Member Shaffer and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Freiberg, Loomis, Pentel, Scanlon and Shaffer; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the Mayor and her signature attested by the City Clerk. *Continued Item - Appeal of Right -of -Way Management Permit Denial - 4846 Glenwood Avenue MOVED by Freiberg, seconded by Shaffer and motion carried unanimously to acknowledge the letter to Darren and Jennifer Schwiebert from Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works, dated December 16, 2010 and to dismiss the right -of -way appeal. Announcements of Meetings The next City Council meeting will be held on January 4, 2011 at 6:30 pm. The next Housing and Redevelopment Authority meeting will be held on January 11, 2011 at 6:30 pm. The next Council /Manager meeting will be held on January 11, 2011 immediately following the HRA meeting. Mayor and Council Communications Mayor Loomis reported on the closed Executive Session held on December 7, 2010 regarding the City Manager performance. Regular Meeting of the City Council December 21, 2010 Page 6 Adiournment The Mayor adjourned the meeting at 6:37 pm. Linda R. Loomis, Mayor ATTEST: Judy Nally, Administrative Assistant "Golden Valley Memorandum Finance 763- 593 -8013 / 763- 593 -8109 (fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting February 1, 2011 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. 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. Ga ra o s valley Memorandum City Administration /Council 763- 593 -8006 / 763- 593 -8109 (fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting February 1, 2011 Agenda Item 3. C. 1. Gambling License Application to Conduct Excluded Bingo - Ladies Auxiliary to the Veterans of Foreign Wars Post #7051 Prepared By Judy Nally, Administrative Assistant Summary As per State Statute organizations that conduct gambling within the City limits have to submit an application for a lawful gambling permit to the State after the permit has been approved or denied by the City. Attachments Application to Conduct Excluded Bingo (2 pages) Recommended Action Motion to approve the gambling license application to conduct excluded bingo for the Ladies Auxiliary to the Veterans of Foreign Wars Post #7051. Minnesota Lawful Gambling LG240B Application to Conduct Excluded Bingo 1/10 Page 1 of 2 No fee ORGANIZATION INFORMATION Organization name Previous gambling permit number o V u .>4 90S M''.r6 - /O -DO`/ Type of nonprofit organization. Check (4) one. ❑ Fraternal ❑ Religious [Z] Veterans ❑ Other nonprofit organization Mailing address City State Code County 7-7-75 /??c��`a�t�c %k� f�c� Coo d n I%lle MN .57.s-ya gehei, e ATTACH A COPY OF ONE OF THE FOLLOWING FOR PROOF OF NONPROFIT STATUS * Do not attach a sales tax exempt status or federal ID employer number as they are not proof of nonprofit status. Nonprofit Articles of Incorporation OR a current Certificate of Good Standing. Don't have a copy? This certificate must be obtained each year from: Secretary of State, Business Services Div., 180 State Office Building, St, Paul, MN 55155 Phone: 651 -296 -2803 Internal Revenue Service - IRS income tax exemption 1501(c)] letter in your organization's name. Don't have a copy? To obtain a copy of your federal income tax exempt letter, have an organization officer contact the IRS at 877 -829 -5500. _Internal Revenue Service - Affiliate of national, statewide, or international parent nonprofit organization (charter) If your organization falls under a parent organization, attach copies of both of the following: a. IRS letter showing your parent organization is a nonprofit 501(c) organization with a group ruling, and b. the charter or letter from your parent organization recognizing your organization as a subordinate. ,Internal Revenue Service - proof previously submitted to Gambing Control Board If you previously submitted proof of nonprofit status from the Internal Revenue Service, no attachment is required. EXCLUDED BINGO ACTIVITY 1. X_No _Yes Has your organization held a bingo event in the current calendar year? If yes, list the dates when bingo was conducted 2. The proposed bingo event for which we are applying will be: one of four or fewer bingo events held this year. Dates Y 70- 1 It- 18-1 OR _conducted up to 12 consecutive days in connection with a: _county fair. Dates civic celebration. Dates _Minnesota state fair. Dates 3. Person in charge of bingo event Ge r i Ltien& t N Daytime phonWc 763 4/0 'a0;t l 4. Name of premises where bingo will be conducted V F120 oS/ 5. Premises street address 7776 LAkp 6. City CldcLetn 11&fjr&4 If township, name of township County 11e4 yr e.Ioi rz Bingo hard cards and bingo number selection devices may be borrowed from another organization authorized to conduct bingo. Otherwise, bingo hard cards, bingo paper, and bingo number selection devices must be purchased from a distributor licensed by the Gambling Control Board. To find a licensed distributor, go to www.gcb.state.mn.us and dick on List of Licensed Distributors. Or call 651 - 639 =4000. Be sure to complete page 2 LG240B Application to Conduct Excluded Bingo Page 2 of 2 1/10 Chief Executive Officer's Signature The information provided in this application is complete and accurate to the best of my knowledge. Phone numbe(CJ`743-y`1.3'Ze , Chief executive officer's signature Name (please print) lSer; We * Date Local Unit of Government Acknowledgment and Approval If the gambling premises is within city limits, the city must sign this application. On behalf of the city, I approve this application for p city name (o,0, . UQ X/ excluded bingo activity at the premises located within ` the city's jurisdiction. sinAaqjre of C . personnel receitdg application - L . AVf_'� I Ti �, Date If the gambling premises is located in a township, only the county is required to sign this application. For the county: On behalf of the county, I approve Print county name this application for excluded bingo activity at the premises located within the county's jurisdiction. Signature of county personnel receiving application Title Date J / For the township: On behalf of the township, (Township signature is not required) I acknowledge that the organization is applying for Print township name excluded bingo activity within the township limits. A township has no statutory authority to approve or Signature of township official acknowledging application deny an application (Minn. Stat. 349.166, Subd. 2). / / Title Date Mail Application and Attachment(s) Send the application and proof of nonprofit You will receive a document from the Gambling Control Board with status to: your excluded permit number for the gambling activity. Your Gambling Control Board organization must keep its bingo records for 3 -1/2 years. Suite 300 South 1711 W. County Rd. B Questions? Contact the Gambling Control Board at 651 - 639 -4000. Roseville, MN 55113 This form will be made available in alternative format (i.e. large print, Or, you may fax it to 651 - 639 -4032. Braille) upon request. Data privacy notice: The information requested on this form (and any attachments) will be used by the Gambling Control Board (Board) to determine your organization's qualifications to be involved in lawful gambling activities in Minnesota. Your organization has the right to refuse to supply the information; however, if your organization refuses to supply this information, the Board may not be able to determine your organization's qualifications and, as a consequence, may refuse to issue a permit. If your organization supplies the information requested, the Board will be able to process your organization's application. Your organization's name and address will be public information when received by the Board. All other information provided will be private data about your organization until the Board issues the permit. When the Board issues the permit, all information provided will become public. If the Board does not issue a permit, all information provided remains private, with the exception of your organization's name and address which will remain public. Private data about your organization are available to: Board members, Board staff whose work requires access to the information; Minnesota's Department of Public Safety; Attorney General; Commissioners of Administration, Minnesota Management & Budget, and Revenue; Legislative Auditor, national and international gambling regulatory agencies; anyone pursuant to court order; other individuals and agencies specifically authorized by state or federal law to have access to the information; individuals and agencies for which law or legal order authorizes a new use or sharing of information after this notice was given; and anyone with your written consent. GOLDEN VALLEY HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION MEETING Minutes from the Meeting of September 16, 2010 Members Present: Christopher Jordan, Marion Helland, Roger McConico, Debra Yahle, Anne Dykstra and Bob Hoyt. Members Absent: None. Staff Present: Chief Stacy Altonen. The meeting was called to order by Chair Jordan at 7 pm. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Chair Jordan moved to add "Community Building Activity - PRISM" as an item following the Chair Report on the agenda. Following this item guest Phil Duran with www.outfront.org will speak. Commissioner Dykstra moved to approve this addition; seconded by Commissioner McCoico. The amended agenda was approved by consensus. OPEN FORUM There was no one present requesting to address the Commission. CHAIRPERSON'S REPORT APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chair Jordan advised Jay Sandvik was listed as absent from the May 13, 2010 meeting. Chair Jordan stated Commissioner Sandvik's term ended in May 2010 and he requested that he not be reappointed to the commission. Chair Jordan requested Commissioner Sandvik be removed from the minutes. Commissioner Hoyt moved to approve the revised minutes of the May 13, 2010 meeting; seconded by Commissioner Yahle. The revised minutes were approved by consensus. COMMUNITY BUILDING ACTIVITY- PRISM Chair Jordan advised he contacted PRISM and Feed My Starving Children to inquire if there was interest in working with the Golden Valley Human Rights Commission to establish a program designed to serve Golden Valley residents. Chair Jordan proposed the commission could work with Golden Valley businesses to solicit donations for Feed My Starving Children, which would subsidize the $19,000 needed to sponsor an event in Golden Valley. Chair Jordan advised residents would also be solicited to come out to participate in this event, bringing monetary and non - perishable food donations. Monetary donations would be donated to PRISM and food items would be donated to Feed My Starving Children. Human Rights Commission September 16, 2010 Page 2 Elizabeth Johnson from PRISM addressed the commission and gave an overview of the services PRISM offers. PRISM has been serving Golden Valley for 40 years through its food shelf program, currently serving approximately 500 households each month. PRISM works with 2,000 households each month overall. Commissioner Dykstra inquired about the criteria for families requesting assistance. Ms. Johnson advised food program participants must live in the geographic area PRISM serves and a caseworker reviews income, expenses, and background information for the requesting households. Ms. Johnson stated parties seeking job counseling, mental health counseling and other services not provided by PRISM are referred to other organizations. Chair Jordan moved to make a recommendation to the city council to consider this proposed event. Commissioner Dykstra moved to postpone making a final decision until a representative from Feed My Starving Children can meet with commissioners to give an overview of their program; seconded by Commissioner Hoyt. Motion carried unanimously. www.outfront.org Phil Duran, the legal director with OutFront Minnesota, was introduced by Chair Jordan. Phil Duran gave an overview of domestic partnerships- the definition, significance of protections, etc. A municipal domestic partner registry ordinance is authorized under Minnesota law, but its provisions are relatively limited. Currently there are five cities in Minnesota that have created a domestic partnership registry. Mr. Duran distributed copies of the ordinances and provisions from the City of Edina and the City of Duluth for reference. Municipal ordinances concerning domestic partnerships also recognize domestic partnerships registered in other cities. Chief Altonen advised new ordinances in the City of Golden Valley require two readings. A representative would give an overview of the ordinance to the City Council and the public would be permitted to comment on the proposed ordinance. A final draft ordinance would then be read at another city council meeting for adoption. Chief Altonen advised the city council is requesting commissioners contemplate a domestic partnership ordinance and report feedback to the council as to whether or not language should be drafted for a proposal. Chair Jordan proposed the commission draft language for an ordinance and forward it to the council for consideration. Commissioner Dykstra moved to agree in principle with a domestic partner registration and further consider wording of the ordinance before recommending adoption; seconded by Commissioner Hoyt. Motion carried unanimously. Commissioner Dykstra moved to set a discussion meeting to consider draft language; seconded by Commissioner Yahle. Motion carried unanimously. A discussion meeting was set for Thursday, October 7 at 7 pm. Human Rights Commission September 16, 2010 Page 3 NEW BUSINESS Juvenile Justice Initiative Commissioner Dykstra advised the Hennepin County Juvenile Justice Division has reduced their incarceration rate in the last two years by more than 60 %. A new set of protocols was developed to assess a number of risk factors when a child is charged and increase the family's and child's access to support services to keep them out of jail. Hennepin County is interested in sharing the success of this initiative with other counties across the state. To that end, Chief Altonen had suggested the Human Rights Commission request the Hennepin County Chiefs of Police Association extend an invitation to Angelique Kadem, the state head of juvenile justice, to speak at a Hennepin County Chiefs of Police luncheon, held the first Thursday of each month at the Golden Valley Country Club. Commissioner Dykstra moved to contact the Champlin Police Chief (and current president of the Hennepin County Chiefs of Police Association) Dave Schwarze to arrange a date for Angelique Kadem to be invited to speak on the methods of reducing incarceration rates of children; seconded by Commissioner McConico. Motion carried unanimously. Once a date is set a letter of invitation would be sent to Angelique Kadem on behalf of the Golden Valley Human Rights Commission. COMMITTEE REPORTS I. Executive Committee There was nothing to report. II. Nomination and Governance Committee There was nothing to report. III. League of Minnesota Human Rights Commission Commissioner Dykstra advised the juvenile justice initiative will hopefully result in a statewide conference to organize efforts across Minnesota counties. The LMHRC is working on a format for human rights commissions called Peacebuilding, which is a format that promotes proactive action in the community to build better communities as opposed to always working from a negative aspect of confronting hate and bias crimes. Commissioner Dykstra advised human rights commissions are coming together to plan ways to implement this strategy. Another opportunity would be to do some public forums that promote civility with regards to elections and getting people to the polls. Mr. Cole from Breck contacted Chair Jordan and advised his students are interested in coming before the commission to make a presentation with regard to run -off elections. Human Rights Commission September 16, 2010 Page 4 IV. Program Committees Human Rights Community Issues Chief Altonen advised there is nothing to report. Chair Jordan inquired if the Human Rights Commission budget was reduced. Chief Altonen advised she will check into this and report back to the commission. Chair Jordan inquired if the Human Rights Commission could have a designated email address now that the city web site has been redesigned and Chief Altonen advised questions or complaints can be sent to the main city hall email account and forwarded to her and Amanda Johnson, but HRC cannot have its own address so as to prevent violations of the open meeting law. Share the Dream There was nothing to report. 45th Anniversary of Golden Valley HRC Commissioner Helland moved to cancel the plans for the 45th anniversary event due to reduced membership and many other pending projects; seconded by Commissioner Dykstra. Motion carried unanimously. OLD BUSINESS iNeighbor Setup and Calendaring Option Chair Jordan advised he set up calendaring information on the Neighbor website under zip code 55427. City of Golden Valley's Electronic Documents Retention Policy Chair Jordan inquired about electronic storage of emails and documents. Chief Altonen advised emails that are city - generated are the responsibility of the city. Other emails pertaining to city business that have been circulated amongst commissioners in the past would either need to be circulated to a city staff member for retention or retained by commissioners. Once a commissioner's term has ended a commissioner is advised to purge documents and correspondences related to city business. Chair Jordan advised Marion Helland is being honored with the Envision award next Tuesday at 6:30 pm at City Hall. Chair Jordan thanked Commissioner Helland for all she has done and continues to do. Chair Jordan reported a communication was sent out regarding the 125th anniversary of the City of Golden Valley. A planning meeting will be held on September 22 at 7 pm at City Hall. Human Rights Commission September 16, 2010 Page 5 The City of Robbinsdale will be hosting a human rights event honoring a holocaust survivor on Tuesday, September 28, at 7 pm at the Elim Lutheran Church. NEXT MEETING The next meeting is scheduled for Thursday, November 4, beginning at 7 pm. This meeting was scheduled a week early as November 11 is Veterans Day. ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Dykstra, seconded by Commissioner McConico to adjourn the meeting at 8:58 pm. GOLDEN VALLEY OPEN SPACE & RECREATION COMMISSION Regular Meeting Minutes October 25, 2010 1. Call to Order Sandler called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 2. Roll Call Present: Roger Bergman, Brad Kadue, Kelly Kuebelbeck, Bob Mattison, Emily Piper, Anne Saffert, Jerry Sandler, Dan Steinberg, Rick Jacobson, Director of Parks and Recreation; and Andy Soltvedt, Recreation Supervisor. 3. Agenda Changes or Additions None made. 4. Approval of Minutes — September 27, 2010 MOTION: MOVED by Bergman and seconded by Mattison to approve the September 27 meeting minutes. Motion carried unanimously. S. Recreation Report — Andy Soltvedt Soltvedt said his major program for summer is Tennis, which is run in conjunction with Twin City Tennis Camps. He said registrations have been solid for the past few years and continued this year. He offered over 180 different options this year from ages 3 and up, including private lessons. He had 445 individual registrations, which doesn't include fall offerings. Courts used are at Brookview, Medley, Scheid and South Wesley. He said Scheid numbers were low and plans to offer those classes at Medley next season. Soltvedt said the summer Adult Softball League had 32 Men's teams participating; 8 teams per night Monday thru Thursday. They had quite a few rain outs which extended the season to the first part of September. Thirty -two teams also participated in the fall league, which runs Tuesday nights as co -rec. Eleven Concerts -in- the -Park were well attended with one rain -out. The lowest attendance was 100, with the most at 500 for the Ice Cream Social. Next summer, due to budget restraints, he plans to run only 6 -10 concerts and pursue other options for free entertainment. Soltvedt has been evaluating his program offerings at Davis Community Center. He said most are open gym type programs. He has noticed the family and youth open gym times have had pretty low attendance. He plans to discontinue offering those programs in the fall and spring. He also plans to begin offering more scheduled programs for youth and family in their place. Tae Kwon Do and Little Tiger Self Defense are a few of the programs that have already been moved to Davis. The Adult Open Gyms have been well attended, with volleyball being the most heavily used. Winter break Holiday Youth Open Gym will not be offered due to gym maintenance. Minutes of the Golden Valley Open Space and Recreation Commission October 25, 2010 Page 2 Soltvedt said his fall programs have begun. Tap and Ballet registration is up from last year with over 35 students in the beginning class alone. Last year he had a total of 48 registered. Adult fitness programs are going strong with 20 -30 people in evening sessions and about 20 in day sessions. He plans to filter some of those classes to Davis as well. Registration for Youth Basketball for grades 2 -6 has begun and is run in cooperation with St. Louis Park and Crystal. The program runs 8 weeks with volunteer coaches. The Winter Activities Brochure is currently being put together and has changed to a four - color, web -press printed catalog. Registration for the Music for Everyone program has increased. Programs include: private and introductory piano lessons, First Steps in Musicland for preschooler's and parents, and various youth introductory classes. To help get free entertainment for Concerts -in- the -Park, Kadue suggested inviting the winner from the Golden Valley Days Battle of the Bands back for a concert in the summer. Sandler congratulated Soltvedt on his recognition in the Minnesota Park and Recreation Magazine. 6. Athletic Field Grant Program Soltvedt distributed proposed site plans. He said city staff and Mark Zeman from Golden Valley Little League met with Anderson - Johnson Associates, Inc. to discuss options. After the initial meeting, AJA came back with an additional proposal. The options were discussed, and after input from Little League, it was decided to go with the modified proposal. That proposal would take less earth work, it's more conducive for pedestrian and maintenance vehicle access, and the storm water drainage is better. Funds available for the project are $467,500. Jacobson said once a final design is complete, it will go out for bid in late winter with construction beginning in the spring. Mattison said Golden Valley Girls Softball sent a letter committing up to $1,000 for the study of the proposed improvements to the Sandburg athletic fields. Jacobson said Golden Valley Phoenix Soccer said they would contribute $500 to the project; however, no commitment letter has been received. The Commission then discussed other potential projects for future grant funding. 7. Adjournment MOVED by Piper and seconded by Kuebelbeck to adjourn at 8:00 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission Minutes of the Meeting of December 16, 2010 1. Call to Order The Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission ( BCWMC) was called to order at 11:36 a.m., on Thursday, December 20, 2010, at Golden Valley City Hall by Chair Loomis. Ms. Herbert conducted roll call. Roll Call Crystal Commissioner Pauline Langsdorf, Secretary Administrator Geoff Nash Golden Valley Commissioner Linda Loomis, Chair Counsel Charlie LeFevere Medicine Lake Commissioner Ted Hoshal Engineer Karen Chandler Minneapolis Commissioner Michael Welch, Treasurer Recorder Amy Herbert Minnetonka Not represented New Hope Commissioner John Elder Plymouth Commissioner Ginny Black, Vice Chair Robbinsdale Commissioner Wayne Sicora St. Louis Park Commissioner deLambert Also present: Laura Adler, BCWMC Technical Advisory Committee, City of St. Louis Park Derek Asche, BCWMC Technical Advisory Committee, City of Plymouth Brooke Asleson, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) Jack Frost, Metropolitan Council Environmental Services Richard McCoy, BCWMC Technical Advisory Committee, City of Robbinsdale Jeff Oliver, BCWMC Technical Advisory Committee, City of Golden Valley Stu Stockhaus, Alternate Commissioner, City of Crystal Liz Stout, BCWMC Technical Advisory Committee, City of Minnetonka Liz Thornton, Alternate Commissioner, City of Plymouth 2. Approval of Agenda and Consent Agenda Commissioner Welch requested that the minutes be removed from the Consent Agenda. Commissioner Welch moved to approve the Agenda and the amended Consent Agenda. Commissioner Black seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously with eight votes in favor [City of Minnetonka absent from vote]. 3. Citizen Input on None- Agenda Items No citizen input on non - agenda items. 4. Administration A. Presentation of the November 17, 2010, BCWMC meeting minutes. Commissioner Welch had a few questions stemming from discussions recorded in the November meeting minutes. His questions were answered by staff and the Commission. One action was directed to Karen Chandler and included that the memo being written by Barr Engineering regarding modeling and that will be part of the BCWMC's Technical Advisory Committee discussion at its January 6th meeting will be e- mailed to the Commission when it is e- mailed to the TAC. Commissioner Black moved to approve the November 17, 2010, meeting minutes. Commissioner Elder seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously with eight votes in favor jCity of Minnetonka absent from vote.] B. Presentation of the Financial Statement. Ms. Herbert handed out copies of the December 2010 financial report. Commissioner Welch walked the Commission through a brief review of the fiscal year 2010 budget to -date. Commissioner Elder moved to receive and file the financial report. Commissioner Black seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously with eight votes in favor [City of Minnetonka absent from vote]. The general and construction account balances reported in the December 2010 Financial Report are as follows: Checking Account Balance 458,429.92 TOTAL GENERAL FUND BALANCE 458,429.92 Construction Account Cash Balance 3,116,040.76 Investment due 5/13/2015 508,918.39 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION ACCOUNT BALANCE 3,116,040.76 -Less: Reserved for CH' projects 3,817,884.61 Construction cash/ investments available for projects (192,925.46) C. Presentation of Invoices for Payment Approval. Invoices• i. Kennedy & Graven — Legal Services through October 31, 2010 - invoice for the amount of $1,857.70. ii. Barr Engineering Company — Engineering Services through November 26, 2010 - invoice for the amount of $25,654.21. iii. Watershed Consulting, LLC — Geoff Nash Administrator Services through November 30, 2010 — invoice for the amount of $3,406.08. iv. Amy Herbert — November Recording Administrator Services - invoice for the amount of $3,699.29. v. D'amico Catering — December Meeting Catering - invoice for the amount of $443.26. vi. City of Golden Valley — Reimbursement for Creek Walk Expenses - invoice for the amount of $149.29. Commissioner Welch commented that the Commission should communicate to the Deputy Treasurer regarding the allocation of the Creek Walk expenses. He suggested that the transportation portion of the expenses come out of the secretarial services budget line and the food portion of the expenses come out of the meeting catering budget line. The Commission agreed. Commissioner Black moved to approve payment of all invoices. Commissioner deLambert seconded the motion. By call of roll the motion carried unanimously with eight votes in favor [City of Minnetonka absent from the vote]. D. Resolution 10 -09 to Authorize Deputy Treasurer to Transfer Funds from the BCWMC Administrative Account to the TMDL, Long -term Maintenance, and Channel Erosion Accounts. Commissioner Black moved to approve Resolution 10 -09. Commissioner Langsdorf seconded the motion. Mr. LeFevere remarked that the resolution contains the word "fund" when the resolution title contains the word "account" and recommended that the words be consistent in the title and the body of the resolution. Commission Welch recommended a friendly amendment to the motion on the table that in Resolution 10 -09 the word "fund" that ends the sentences of numbers 1, 2, and 3 be removed and replaced with #249911 v1 2 BCWMC December 16, 2010 Meeting Minutes the word "account." Commissioners Black and Langsdorf approved of the friendly amendment. The motion carried unanimously with eight votes in favor [City of Minnetonka absent from vote]. 5. New Business A. Discussion with Brooke Asleson, MPCA, on the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area Chloride Project. Ms. Asleson explained that she provided a summary of the draft project work plan for the meeting packet for the Commission's review. She said the plan has not yet been finalized. She stated that the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) started the project as a feasibility study. Ms. Asleson reported that the MPCA contracted with Wenck to do the study and that the study took a look at the Twin Cities metro area and how chloride is affecting the area and how chloride effects could be addressed on a regional scale. Ms. Asleson reviewed highlights of the study, including the recognition that more data needs to be collected on chloride in the winter months and not just during the typical May through September monitoring season. She said that another important issue discovered through the study was that lake data show that higher chloride concentrations are in the deepest part of the lakes but most lake sampling targets surface sampling. Ms. Asleson said that a team at the MPCA discussed the feasibility study and its findings and developed three possible approaches to move forward. She said that the next phase, or Phase 2, actually combines the three approaches. Ms. Asleson stated that Phase 2 will include developing a chloride management plan for the seven - county metro area. She said that the MPCA and partners will conduct additional monitoring over the next three years. Ms. Asleson commented that the MPCA is doing a surface and a deep water sample of Medicine Lake as well as a conductivity profile of the entire lake. She noted that the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board is doing the same sampling of Wirth Lake and she mentioned that Sweeney Lake is also on the list for sampling. Ms. Asleson explained that the MPCA created a list of all of the lakes in the Twin Cities and developed a list of criteria or factors that may be causing those lakes to be more sensitive or have a higher priority in regard to chloride. She said that using the criteria, 75 lakes were identified by the MPCA as the focus for collecting monitoring data in collaboration with eight partners. Ms. Asleson said that the data collected will be used to help create the chloride management plan, which will be a protection plan that will include all waters. She said the second part of the management plan will be to create a TMDL for all of the waters that exceed the standard for chloride. Ms. Asleson commented that there will be an implementation plan for the entire metro area. Ms. Asleson explained that the MPCA has created a stakeholder group that comprises several different teams. She encouraged the Commission to appoint a representative to the project's technical stakeholder group. Ms. Asleson stated that the TAC would be a small group of 11 or 12 people who would provide technical guidance on the modeling and the data analysis. She said that the group would meet quarterly over the next three or four years and that the next meeting will be in spring 2011. Commissioner Hoshal asked if the Commission could get a list of the project's monitoring points. Ms. Asleson said that the MPCA is putting together a monitoring plan for the project and the plan will be posted on the MPCA's project Web site. Commissioner Black had questions about salt's impact on aquatic plants. Ms. Asleson said that the MPCA's research found that there is not a lot of data on the impact of chloride on lake biota or wetlands. Commissioner Black asked about what impact the salt is having on the fisheries since the chloride is collecting in the deep parts of #249911 v1 BCWMC December 16, 2010 Meeting Minutes 3 the lakes. Ms. Asleson said that the MPCA can't answer that question and won't be able to do so through this project, but she said that the MPCA will assemble a white paper as part of the project. Commissioner Welch commented that the summary of the project that was given to the Commission was very well put together. He asked if the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) has given feedback about the MPCA's approach. Ms. Asleson said that the U.S. EPA is positive and is looking for this approach to be a model for all cold weather states. She said that the MPCA will be keeping the U.S. EPA updated on the project. Commissioner Welch voiced a concern that a lot of work will be going into the project and perhaps five years later there would be an inability to change road salt practices due to public safety issues. Ms. Asleson said that one of the project's components is education. She said that the MPCA will be developing an educational tool box for groups to use. Ms. Aselson gave a high recommendation of the road salt application training sessions put on by Fortin Consulting. Mr. Oliver recommended that the MPCA involve the Minnesota Public Works Association in the stakeholder process. Commissioner Welch asked how many chloride impairments are currently listed in the metro area. Ms. Asleson responded that there 11 waterbodies listed with chloride impairments in the metro area. Commissioner Welch asked if the MPCA has an official position regarding individual TMDLs being conducted. Ms. Asleson replied that the MPCA has changed its approach and the approach is now to use WRAPP, or Watershed Restoration and Protective Plans, which are watershed -wide. Commissioner Sicora asked if Shingle Creek Watershed is represented on the project's Technical Stakeholder Committee. Ms. Asleson said that no, it's not and the reason is because the MPCA thought that Shingle Creek could be part of the implementation stakeholder group. Commissioner Welch suggested that the Commission direct its TAC to discuss at its January meeting whether the BCWMC should participate by appointing a representative to the project's technical stakeholder group and then who would the TAC recommend appointing. The Commission agreed. B. 2010 Flood Control Project Inspection. Ms. Chandler explained that Barr Engineering staff conducted the inspections and invited member -city staff to participate and that this year Golden Valley staff member Eric Eckman participated in the inspections in Golden Valley. Ms. Chandler reported that with the early onset of winter weather not all culverts and crossings were inspected due to unsafe conditions. She said that the inspection report details the inspection findings and that the majority of the issues comprise the need for tree removal or sediment removal. Commissioner Black voiced a concern about erosion issues that might arise due to tree removal. Ms. Chandler explained that tree removal typically means the removing of trees to prevent them from falling into the creek or blocking the flow of the creek. Ms. Chandler requested Commission direction to Barr Engineering to send the inspection report to the cities, the Department of Natural Resources (DNR), and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). Commissioner Black moved for the Commission Engineer to forward the inspection report to the member cities, the DNR, and the Corps. Commissioner Welch seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously with eight votes in favor [City of Minnetonka absent from vote]. 6. Old Business A. City of Plymouth Final Reimbursement Request for West Medicine Lake Park Pond #249911 v1 4 BCWMC December 16, 2010 Meeting Minutes Project. Ms. Chandler reported that the construction of the project is complete and that this request is the final reimbursement request from the City of Plymouth for the project. She explained that the Commission Engineer reviewed the documents submitted with the reimbursement request and found everything to be in order. Ms. Chandler said that there are funds remaining in the project budget and that the Commission Engineer recommends approval of the reimbursement to the City of Plymouth for the requested amount of $20,643.37. Commissioner Black moved to approve the reimbursement to the City of Plymouth for the requested amount of $20,643.37. Commissioner Langsdorf seconded the motion. By call of roll the motion carried with eight votes in favor [City of Minnetonka absent from vote]. Commissioner Welch asked if photos of the project could be sent to the Commission. Mr. Asche said yes. Mr. Asche also expressed his deep appreciation for the Commission's support on the project. B. TMDL Updates. Mr. Nash reported that the U.S. EPA approved the Wirth Lake TMDL. He said that the Medicine Lake TMDL was sent to the U.S. EPA. Mr. Nash reported that there are no updates regarding the Sweeney Lake TMDL. Mr. Nash opened up discussion on the issue of the Commission's role in categorical TMDLs. Ms. Chandler added that there are two directions in which the Commission could head regarding a monitoring roles for the Commission as the lead entity in the categorical TMDL. She said that the Commission could pursue monitoring in terms of the chemical monitoring and monitoring in terms of oversight. Chair Loomis said that she thinks the TAC should discuss the issue. She said that she had asked Ms. Chandler to work up some costs that would be involved with the water quality monitoring involved with TMDLs and how the monitoring program and costs would coordinate with the Commission's monitoring program that's in place. Ms. Loomis said that she would like that information to be provided to the TAC for the TAC's discussion at the next TAC meeting. She said that the Commission has put a lot of items on the TAC's agenda and the TAC would either need to have a longer meeting or would need to hold monthly meetings until they get through all of the items. Commissioner Welch suggested that the Commission come up with two different names in order to eliminate confusion. He said that monitoring should be the term used for sampling lakes and streams and analyzing the samples, and oversight or administrative oversight could be the term used for the administrative side of the role of the categorical TMDL implementer. He commented that this effort is closely related to how the Commission will integrate the TMDL implementation projects into its capital projects and budget. Commissioner Welch recommended that the Administrative Committee meet with some members of the TAC to talk about how to move forward. Commissioner Black moved for the Commission to authorize the Commission Engineer to pull together an evaluation of the monitoring that is being done and for the evaluation to be submitted to the TAC for its review at its next meeting. Commissioner Welch seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously with eight votes in favor [City of Minnetonka was absent from vote]. Commissioner Black expressed her viewpoint that the Commission should work toward an oversight process that will not create a whole lot of new reporting work for the cities but instead will build off of the processes already undertaken by the cities. She said that she thinks it will take a fair amount of Commission discussion to understand the cities' processes and to develop a Commission oversight plan. Commissioner Black said that she supports the idea of a joint committee of the Commission and the TAC. Mr. LeFevere commented that what the Commission decides to do with its categorical TMDL implementer role may have a lot of influence on what the Next Generation Management Plan looks like and how other TMDLs are incorporated into the Plan or vice versa. Commissioner Welch said he agreed but that the Commission did tell the MPCA that the Commission will be the coordinating entity and will work with the member cities to achieve efficiency of how data is #249911 v1 5 BCWMC December 16, 2010 Meeting Minutes collected and reported and to harmonize and streamline the process of reporting to the MPCA. Commissioner Welch added that there is an approach currently out there regarding TMDLs that addresses TMDLs by saying that Watershed Management Plans covers TMDL requirements under the 4B category of Federal Statute. He said that at some point the Commission may look into the approach. Mr. Oliver recommended that the TAC discuss the issue and assess and make a recommendation to the Commission on whether or not there should be another work group. Ms. Stout added that the MPCA has created a work group to address how to integrate TMDL reporting into MS4 permitting processes and that she is a part of the work group and she will update the Commission on the progress of the work group. Mr. Oliver stated that the Commission has the opportunity to set the expectations of and to define the role of the categorical TMDL implementer. Mr. LeFevere stated that the Commission could be the first one in the door regarding assuming the role of the categorical TMDL implementer and the Commission could structure the role in the way that works for the Commission. Commissioner Welch commented that he thinks there should be a work group to discuss how the Commission wants to develop its role. Commissioner Black suggested that interested commissioners could attend the TAC meetings when the issue is on the TAC's agenda instead of setting up a separate work group and work group meetings. Ms. Chandler stated that it would take some time for Barr Engineering to pull together the water quality monitoring information and evaluation and to investigate where modeling could be used in place of monitoring. Chair Loomis directed the Commission Engineer to work with the Administrator to determine which TAC meeting will include the issue on the agenda and to communicate that meeting date to the Commission. She also said that it would be good for interested commissioners to attend that TAC meeting to participate in the discussion or for commissioners to leave their comments and concerns with the Administrator, who can present them at the meeting. C. Update on BCWMC's Clean Water Legacy Grant Applications. Ms. Chandler said that the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) awarded the Commission a grant for its Wirth Lake Outlet Modification Project, which was one of the three projects the Commission submitted applications for the grant funds. Ms. Chandler reported that the Commission requested a grant amount of $75,000 for the Wirth Lake Outlet project and was awarded that amount by BWSR. Ms. Chandler reminded the Commission that the two other Commission projects that were submitted for grant funds were the Bassett Creek Main Stem restoration project and the North Branch Main Stem project and said that these two projects did not receive high enough rankings to qualify for the grant funds. Administrator Nash said that he called Brad Wozney of BWSR for details on the awards and project rankings. Administrator Nash said that Mr. Wozney commented that BWSR hadn't yet organized any summary of the process but that he personally wondered if the Commission had gone to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources to build support for these streambank restoration projects. Ms. Chandler said that the list of the applicants and projects reviewed by BWSR is available on the BWSR Web site. D. Next Generation Planning Process. Ms. Chandler explained that she prepared a memo and a flow chart of a draft process as a starting point for the Commission's discussion and that the memo and flow chart were included in the meeting packet. She stated that in Step B as illustrated in the flow chart the word Commission should be added regarding issue identification so that the step would read, "...review of Commission -/ TAC - identified issues and identification of additional issues." Ms. Chandler walked the Commission through the steps identified in the flow chart. The Commission discussed the steps as illustrated, discussed some points of the previous Watershed Management Plan planning process, and discussed some differences that they anticipate between #249911 v1 BCWMC December 16, 2010 Meeting Minutes the previous planning process and this one. Commissioner Welch commented that he thought that there are important challenges to the job of protecting water quality through partnerships that the Commission needs to tackle in the planning process such as the challenge of invasive species. He thinks that this process should have everyone who is involved moving together instead of breaking up in to so many separate groups that move parallel to each other. Commissioner Welch also commented he doesn't think the citizen's group should be a separate group because the goal is to have the citizens involved and asking questions about policy and technical issues. Ms. Chandler added that it was her intent to identify in step G that the Planning Advisory Group would include commissioners as well as alternate commissioners as well as residents, citizens, agencies, and everyone the commission wants on board. The Commission agreed that it thinks it is heading down the right path in the process so far. [Commissioner Elder departs meeting] 7. Communications A. Chair: i. Chair Loomis reported that the City of Golden Valley signed the contract for the Bassett Creek Restoration project with Minnesota DirtWorks. ii. Chair Loomis announced that there will be a Mississippi River Forum tomorrow, December 17th, at 8:00 a.m. at the McKnight Center and the discussion will be about the Minnesota Framework. iii. Chair Loomis said that the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board has reconvened the citizen's advisory committee that was developed to discuss the Wirth Beach in the Theodore Wirth Park. She explained that the scope of the Committee has been expanded to cover the entire park. Chair Loomis said there has been a proposal put forward by the Nordic Ski Foundation recommending improvements including trails and bridges and she explained that these improvements could impact the creek. She said that the work plan is online at the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board Web site and that the City of Golden Valley has a copy of the Nordic ski Foundation recommendation. Chair Loomis noted that the meetings of the Theodore Wirth Park Citizen's Advisory Committee are open to the public and that the process is identified on the Web site. iv. Chair Loomis reported that the BCWMC's request for letters of interest for its legal and engineering and technical consultant work will be published in the December 20th issue of Finance and Commerce. B. Administrator: i. Administrator Nash announced that the first draft of the BCWMC's policy manual is being reviewed by the Administrative Services Committee and the Committee is planning to meet in mid - January to discuss it. ii. Administrator Nash reported that he registered the Bassett Creek Web site's domain name in the Commission's name. iii. Administrator Nash said he worked with Commissioner Langsdorf on the distribution of the stickers that needed to be added to the snow and ice removal brochures. #249911 v1 BCWMC December 16, 2010 Meeting Minutes iv. Administrator Nash said that he attended the Minnesota Association for Watershed Districts meeting in Alexandria, Minnesota. v. Administrator Nash stated that he received in the mail a copy of a request from the Department of Natural Resources for review and comment on the Minneapolis Park Board's request to put down sand on Wirth Beach. He said he passed the request on to Barr Engineering. vi. Administrator Nash said that he provided Joel Settles of Hennepin County with the approximate start dates of the two streambank restoration projects so that he can communicate the update to the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners. vii. Administrator Nash reported that MetroBlooms received the Civilian Conservation Corps grant in the form of five crew days and 250 labor hours. He explained that he had prepared and submitted the grant application on behalf of MetroBlooms because the applicant needed the Commission was the primary sponsor. C. Commissioners: i. Commissioner Black updated the Commission about the WalMart project in the City of Plymouth at the Four Seasons Mall site and explained how it may impact the project in the Commission's CH' for 2013. ii. The topic of the Meadowbrook Elementary Education Grant deadline was raised. Commissioner Black moved to extend the deadline of the contract to May 2011. Commissioner Langsdorf seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously with seven votes in favor. [Cities of Minnetonka and New Hope absent from vote]. Mr. LeFevere stated that the Commission could handle the extension by Administrator Nash sending a letter to Meadowbrook Elementary to inform the grantee that the deadline for the contract has been extended to May 2011. D. Committees: Education Committee i. Commissioner Langsdorf announced that the Education Committee will not have a rough draft of the Education and Outreach Plan ready for the TAC's review at its January meeting. She said the Committee has more work to do on the plan and will update the Commission on the progress. ii. Commissioner Langsdorf reported that the West Metro Watershed Alliance (WMWA) met earlier this week and began developing workshops on development practices including infiltration and volume management — one for urban/ suburban areas and one for suburban/ rural areas, and nutrient management and retrofitting best management practices — one for urban/ suburban areas and one for suburban/ rural areas. She said those workshops would be held in March and in May 2011. Commissioner Langsdorf said that another workshop would be developed on the topic of TMDLs and watershed planning to occur in September 2011. She added that Derek Asche has volunteered to be a speaker and she asked that if others know of speakers who would volunteer their time to present at the workshops to please let her and WMWA know. Commissioner Langsdorf said the workshop planning will continue at WMWA's January meeting. #249911 v1 8 BCWMC December 16, 2010 Meeting Minutes iii. Commissioner Langsdorf said that WMWA has spoken over the phone with a staff member at the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District regarding issues and changes to the District's snow and ice care brochure. iv. Commissioner Langsdorf reported that WMWA discussed and made the decision that a membership status with WMWA means that the group or individual provides monetary support to WMWA and that partnership status means that the group or individual provides resources to WMWA but not monetary support. v. Commissioner Langsdorf requested that the January meeting agenda include a business item for the Commission to discuss the BCWMC's Web site. The Commission consented. vi. Commissioner Black explained that the Education Committee would like the BCWMC to participate again in the City of Plymouth's Yard and Garden Expo, held in the spring. She moved to have staff send in the registration and booth fee at a cost not to exceed $60. Commissioner Langsdorf seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously with eight votes in favor [City of Minnetonka absent from vote]. vii. Commissioner Hoshal said that the Education and Public Outreach Committee will be communicating to the Committee through Administrator Nash as a way to comply with the Open Meeting Law. E. Counsel: No Communications. F. Engineer: No Communications. 8. Adjournment Chair Loomis adjourned the meeting at 2:08 p.m. Linda Loomis, Chair Date Amy Herbert, Recorder Date Pauline Langsdorf, Secretary Date #249911 v1 9 BCWMC December 16, 2010 Meeting Minutes '- Golden galley Public Works 763- 593 -8030 / 763- 593 -3988 (fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting February 1, 2011 Agenda Item 3. E. 1. Purchase Ford F550 Cab and Chassis Truck and Equipment Prepared By Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works Bert Tracy, Public Works Maintenance Manager Steve Loomis, Vehicle Maintenance Foreman Summary The 2011 -2015 Capital Improvement Program includes $75,000 for the purchase of a Ford F550 Cab and Chassis truck, equipment, and setup for Public Works Park Maintenance Division (V &E -029, page 35). The Park Maintenance truck scheduled for replacement meets criteria set forth in the City's vehicle replacement policy and Vehicle Condition Index (VCI). The VCI index is a tool utilized to assess all vehicles and equipment scheduled for replacement. Any vehicle /equipment scoring 23 to 27 points meets the category of "qualifies for replacement." A score of 28 points and above meets the category of "needs immediate consideration." The 2000 truck due for replacement scored 29 points. The new truck will be outfitted with a hooklift system to match the 2010 F550 Park Division truck purchased last year. This truck will also be set up to operate the trash compactor purchased last year, and will also hook up to a flat bed, and /or contractor box truck bodies. The truck is utilized for a variety of park maintenance activities such as trash pickup, landscaping activities as well as debris, leaf, grass clipping, and brush hauling. The Minnesota Materials Management Division has awarded the following contracts to Midway Ford for the Ford F550 cab and chassis and ABM Equipment for hooklift system: Contract No. Item Vendor Amount 443069 Ford F550 Midway Ford $37,827.38 443360 Hooklift System ABM Equipment $24,795.00 State Contract Subtotal $62,622.38 The contractor box is not on State of Minnesota contract. Staff obtained the following quotes for the contractor box: Vendor Equipment Amount Alloy Welding & Manufacturing Contractor Box $6,726.56 Aspen Equipment Contractor Box $8,963.61 Recommended Action Motion to authorize the purchase of the following items: 1. Ford F550 cab and chassis truck from Midway Ford for $37,827.38. 2. Hooklift system from ABM Equipment for $24,795.00. 3. Contractor truck box from Alloy Welding & Manufacturing for $6,726.56. l J / // / 01P.,v� � a IT Ems City Administration /Council 763- 593 -8003 1763-593-8109 (fax) Executive Summary for Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting February 1, 2011 Agenda Item 3. F. Approval of 2011 Legislative Agenda Prepared By Thomas D. Burt, City Manager Summary At the December 2010 Council /Manager Meeting the Council decided to focus its legislative agenda on a few items. The attached City of Golden Valley 2011 Legislative Policies outlines the issues and desired response for two issues, fiscal disparities and sanitary sewer inflow and infiltration. If the document adequately addresses the Council concerns, it should be approved. Attachment City of Golden Valley 2011 Legislative Policies dated February 1, 2011 (2 pages) Recommended Action Motion to approve City of Golden Valley 2011 Legislative Policies. 2011 Legislative P"oficies Presented to the City Council February 1, 2011 Policy 1. Fiscal Disparities goldenlovk-,� valley Issue Since enacted in 1971 and implemented in 1975, Fiscal Disparities has required cities to share a portion of their commercial and industrial tax base growth with other jurisdictions. The contribu- tion amount is based on the relative fiscal capacity of each community, which is measured by the market value per capita. Because Golden Valley has a high fiscal capacity, it contributes more to the pool than it receives. In 2011, Golden Valley will contribute $4,356,597 in net tax capacity. In recent years, more commercial and industrial parcels have petitioned for market value changes. It may take a number of years to settle a petition, and the ruling can allow valuations to be revised for the contested year as well as up to two years prior. For example, for taxes payable 2011, the 2009 taxable market values for commercial and industrial properties were used to establish Golden Valley's contribution to the fiscal disparities formula. In 2010, Golden Valley had many parcels petition to lower their valuations and the adjustments are lagging. Response The City of Golden Valley supports a comprehensive study of fiscal disparities to evaluate how it is meeting its original intent and whether revisions to the law are in order. 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, MN 55427 763 - 593 -8006 Pace 1 olicy 2. Metropolitan Council Inflow/ I filtration Issues More than 100 metro area communities own and operate local sewer systems that are connected to the regional interceptor system. In 2009, at least 32 were experiencing problems with excess inflow and infiltration (1 /1), which allows clear water (ground and storm) into sanitary sewer pipes where it eventually get treated, unnecessarily, at wastewater treatment plants. 1/1 also uses sewer pipe capac- ity needed for wastewater throughout the region and can cause sewage backups into homes and spillages into regional waterways. If 1/1 issues are not addressed through repairs to local and private infrastructure, additional sewer capacity will be needed at a cost currently projected to be nearly $1 billion. By contrast, Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) estimates that addressing the problem locally will cost $150 million. Since meeting with Golden Valley legislators in early 2010, the following has been accomplished relevant to I /I: Issue 1: MCES replaced the demand charge for communities with excessive 1/1 with an extended surcharge program. The intent of the demand charge was to defray the cost of providing storage of excessive 1/1 to avoid overloading downstream facilities. In August 2009, MCES established a Demand ChargeTask Force to develop specific recommendations for the demand charge.TheTask Force met every other month until August 2010. Since the beginning of MCES's 1/1 program in January 2007,46 communities have participated. A total of $46 million of local 1/1 mitigation work has been documented through 2009. The recent drought in the region has made assessing the overall effectiveness of the program difficult. However, the decline in influent flow at the region's wastewater treatment plants measured since 2002 is at least partly the result of this investment in 1/1 mitigation. With a desire to continue the 1/1 program's progress and with the understanding that investing in local mitigation rather than storage is the region's preferred ap- proach to reducing 1 /1, the Demand Charge Task Force recommended the following recommendations, which have been accepted by MCES: • Rather than implement a demand charge in 2013, MCES will implement an ongoing 1/1 reduction program similar to but improved from the existing program. • In cases where MCES determines a community is not meeting 1/1 goal(s) or the community has not been implementing an effective 1/1 reduction program, or if regulations and /or regulatory permits re- quire MCES to ensure regulatory compliance, MCES may institute a wastewater rate demand charge. • MCES will amend the 2030 Water Resources Management Policy Plan to reflect these recommenda- tions. Issue 2: Metro Cities, with assistance from the Cities of West St Paul and Golden Valley, successfully championed including a $3 million grant program in the 2010 bonding bill to provide grants to munic- ipalities for capital improvements to public infrastructure to reduce 1 /1. Response The City of Golden Valley recommends its legislative representatives seek: • continued state funding for 1/1 mitigation programs • revision of current grant agreements, developed by the State of Minnesota Office of Management and Budget, so they are less onerous and costly for local governments to implement Page 2 � � City of Golden Valley 2011 Legislative Policies 'Golden galley Memorandum City Administration /Council 763- 593 -8096 / 763- 593 -8109 (fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting February 1, 2011 Agenda Item 3. G. Authorization to Sign Agreement Approval of Business Associate Agreement with Gallagher Benefit Services, Inc. for HIPPA Compliance Prepared By: Chantell Knauss, Assistant City Manager Summary The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 ( HIPAA) requires an employer- sponsored group health plan to have a written agreement with its business associates. The economic stimulus legislation passed in 2010 (American Recovery and Reinvestment Act) contained a section referred to as HITECH that modified HIPAA so that security provisions now directly apply to service providers and business associates. As the City's benefits consultant, Gallagher Benefits Services, Inc. is considered a business associate of the City's group health plan. Adoption of this agreement will allow the City to comply with the modified HIPPA requirements. Attachments Business Associate Agreement with Gallagher Benefit Services, Inc. (9 pages) Recommended Action Motion to authorize the Mayor to sign the Business Associate Agreement with Gallagher Benefit Services, Inc. BUSINESS ASSOCIATE AGREEMENT This Business Associate Agreement ( "Agreement ") is entered into on this eighth day of June, 2010 (the "Effective Date "), by and between the City of Golden Valley on behalf of the City of Golden Valley Group Health Plan ( "Covered Entity ") and Gallagher Benefit Services, Inc. ( "Business Associate "). RECITALS: WHEREAS, Covered Entity and Business Associate mutually desire to outline their individual responsibilities with respect to the use and /or disclosure of Protected Health Information ( "PHl') as mandated by the Privacy Rule promulgated under the Administrative Simplifications subtitle of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 ( "HIPAA ") including all pertinent regulations issued by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services as outlined in 45 C.F.R. Parts 160, 162 and 164; ( "HIPAA Privacy Rules and/or Security Standards ") and WHEREAS, Covered Entity and Business Associate understand and agree that the HIPAA Privacy Rules and Security Standards requires the Covered Entity and Business Associate enter into a Business Associate Agreement which shall govern the use and /or disclosure of PHI and the security of PHI and ePHI. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. Definitions. When used in this Agreement and capitalized, the following terms have the following meanings: (a) "Breach" shall mean the unauthorized acquisition, access, use, or disclosure of PHI which comprises the security or privacy of such information. However, the term 'breach' shall not include (1) any unintentional acquisition, access, or use of PHI by an employee or individual acting under the authority of a covered entity or business associate if such acquisition, access, or use was made in good faith and within the course and scope of the employment or other professional relationship of such employee or individual, respectively, with the covered entity or business associate; and such information is not further acquired, accessed, used, or disclosed by any person; or (2) any inadvertent disclosure from an individual who is otherwise authorized to access protected health information at a facility operated by a covered entity or business associate to another similarly situated individual at same facility; and (3) any such information received as a result of such disclosure is not further acquired, accessed, used, or disclosed without authorization by any person. (b) "Electronic Protected Health Information" or "ePHI' shall mean Protected Health Information transmitted by electronic media or maintained in electronic media. BOSS >Mandatory Standards >Documents>Business Associate Agreement including Security 11 -2009 (c) "Individual" shall have the same meaning as the term "Individual" in 45 C.F.R. §164.103 and shall include a person who qualifies as a personal representative in accordance with 45 C.F.R. §164.502(g). (d) "Privacy Rule" shall mean the Standards for Privacy of Individual Identifiable Health Information as set forth at 45 C.F.R. Parts 160 and 164 Subparts A and E. (e) "Protected Health Information" or "PHT' shall have the same meaning as the term "protected health information" in 45 C.F.R. § 160.103, limited to the information created or received by Business Associate from or on behalf of Covered Entity. (f) "Required by Law" shall have the same meaning as the term "required by law" in 45 C.F.R. § 164.103. (g) "Secretary" shall mean the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services or his or her designee. (h) "Security Incident" shall mean any attempted or successful unauthorized access, use, disclosure, modification or destruction of information or systems operations in an electronic information system. (i) "Security Rule" shall mean the Standards for Security of PHI, including ePHI, as set forth at 45 C.F.R. Parts 160 and 164 Subpart C. 0) "Unsecured Protected Health Information" shall mean protected health information that is not rendered unusable, unreadable, or indecipherable to unauthorized individuals through the use of a technology or methodology specified by the Secretary. Terms used but not defined in this Agreement shall have the same meaning as those terms in the HIPAA regulations. 2. Obligations and Activities of Business Associate Regarding PHI. (a) Business Associate agrees to not use or further disclose PHI other than as permitted or required by this Agreement or as Required by Law. (b) Business Associate agrees to use appropriate safeguards to prevent use or disclosure of the PHI other than as provided for by this Agreement. (c) Business Associate agrees to ensure that any agents, including sub- contractors (excluding entities that are merely conduits), to whom it provides PHI agree to the same restrictions and conditions that apply to Business Associate with respect to such information. BOSS >Mandatory Standards >Documents >Business Associate Agreement including Security 12 -2009 Page 2 (d) Business Associate agrees to provide access, at the request of Covered Entity, and in a reasonable time and manner designated by Covered Entity, to PHI in a Designated Record Set that is not also in Covered Entity's possession, to Covered Entity in order for Covered Entity to meet the requirements under 45 C.F.R. § 164.524. (e) Business Associate agrees to make any amendment to PHI in a Designated Record Set that the Covered Entity directs or agrees to pursuant to 45 C.F.R. § 164.526 in a reasonable time and manner designated by Covered Entity. (f) Business Associate agrees to make internal practices books and records relating to the use and disclosure of PHI available to the Secretary, in a reasonable time and manner as designated by the Covered Entity or Secretary, for purposes of the Secretary determining Covered Entity's compliance with the Privacy Rule. Business Associate shall immediately notify Covered Entity upon receipt or notice of any request by the Secretary to conduct an investigation with respect to PHI received from the Covered Entity. (g) Business Associate agrees to document any disclosures of PHI that are not excepted under 45 C.F.R. § 164.528(a)(1) as would be required for Covered Entity to respond to a request by an Individual for an accounting of disclosures of PHI in accordance with 45 C.F.R. § 164.528. (h) Business Associate agrees to provide to Covered Entity or an Individual, in a time and manner designated by Covered Entity, information collected in accordance with paragraph (g) above, to permit Covered Entity to respond to a request by an Individual for an accounting of disclosures of PHI in accordance with 45 C.F.R. § 164.528. (i) Business Associate agrees to use or disclose PHI pursuant to the request of Covered Entity; provided, however, that Covered Entity shall not request Business Associate to use or disclose PHI in any manner that would not be permissible under the Privacy Rule if done by Covered Entity. 3. Permitted Uses and Disclosures of PHI by Business Associate. (a) Business Associate may use or disclose PHI to perform functions, activities or services for, or on behalf of, Covered Entity provided that such use or disclosure would not violate the Privacy Rule if done by Covered Entity. (b) Business Associate may use PHI for the proper management and administration of Business Associate and to carry out the legal responsibilities of Business Associate. BOSS >Mandatory Standards >Documents >Business Associate Agreement including Security 12 -2009 Page 3 (c) Business Associate may disclose PHI for the proper management and administration of Business Associate and to carry out the legal responsibilities of Business Associate if- (i) such disclosure is Required by Law, or (ii) Business Associate obtains reasonable assurances from the person to whom the information is disclosed that such information will remain confidential and used or further disclosed only as Required by Law or for the purposes for which it was disclosed to the person, and the person agrees to notify Business Associate of any instances of which it is aware that the confidentiality of the information has been breached. (d) Business Associate shall limit the PHI to the extent practicable, to the limited data set or if needed by the Business Associate, to the minimum necessary to accomplish the intended purpose of such use, disclosure or request subject to exceptions set forth in the Privacy Rule. (e) Business Associate may use PHI to provide Data Aggregation services to Covered Entity as permitted by 42 C.F.R. § 164.504(e)(2)(i)(B). 4. Obligations of Covered Entity Regarding PHI. (a) Covered Entity shall provide Business Associate with the notice of privacy practices that Covered Entity produces in accordance with 45 C.F.R. § 164.520, as well as any changes to such notice. (b) Covered Entity shall provide Business Associate with any changes in, or revocation of, authorization by an Individual to use or disclose PHI, if such changes affect Business Associate's permitted or required uses and disclosures. (c) Covered Entity shall notify Business Associate of any restriction to the use or disclosure of PHI that Covered Entity has agreed to in accordance with 45 C.F.R. § 164.522, if such restrictions affect Business Associate's permitted or required uses and disclosures. (d) Covered Entity shall require all of its employees, agents and representatives to be appropriately informed of its legal obligations pursuant to this Agreement and the Privacy Rule and Security Standards required by HIPAA and will reasonably cooperate with Business Associate in the performance of the mutual obligations under this Agreement. BOSS >Mandatory Standards >Documents >Business Associate Agreement including Security 12 -2009 Page 4 5. Securitv of Protected Health Information. (a) Business Associate has implemented policies and procedures to ensure that its receipt, maintenance, or transmission of all protected health information ( "PHI "), either electronic or otherwise, on behalf of Covered Entity complies with the applicable administrative, physical, and technical safeguards required protecting the confidentiality, availability and integrity of PHI as required by the HIPAA Privacy Rules and Security Standards. (b) Business Associate agrees that it will ensure that agents or subcontractors agree to implement the applicable administrative, physical, and technical safeguards required to protect the confidentiality, availability and integrity of PHI as required by HIPAA Privacy Rules and Security Standards. (c) Business Associate agrees to report to Covered Entity any Security Incident (as defined 45 C.F.R. Part 164.304) of which it becomes aware. Business Associate agrees to report the Security Incident to the Covered Entity as soon as reasonably practicable, but not later than 10 business days from the date the Business Associate becomes aware of the incident. (d) Business Associate agrees to establish procedures to mitigate, to the extent possible, any harmful effect that is known to Business Associate of a use or disclosure of PHI by Business Associate in violation of this Agreement. (e) Business Associate agrees to immediately notify Covered Entity upon discovery of any Breach of Unsecured Protected Health Information (as defined in 45 C.F.R. §§ 164.402 and 164.410) and provide to Covered Entity, to the extent available to Business Associate, all information required to permit Covered Entity to comply with the requirements of 45 C.F.R. Part 164 Subpart D. (f) Covered Entity agrees and understands that the Covered Entity is independently responsible for the security of all PHI in its possession (electronic or otherwise), including all PHI that it receives from outside sources including the Business Associate. 6. Term and Termination. (a) Term. This Agreement shall be effective as of the Effective Date and shall remain in effect until the Business Associate relationship with the Covered Entity is terminated and all PHI is returned, destroyed or is otherwise protected as set forth in Section 7(d). BOSS >Mandatory Standards >Documents >Business Associate Agreement including Security 12 -2009 Page 5 (b) Termination for Cause by Covered Entity. Upon Covered Entity's knowledge of a material breach by Business Associate, Covered Entity shall provide an opportunity for Business Associate to cure the breach. If Business Associate does not cure the breach within 30 days from the date that Covered Entity provides notice of such breach to Business Associate, Covered Entity shall have the right to immediately terminate this Agreement and the underlying services agreement between Covered Entity and Business Associate. (c) Termination by Business Associate. This Agreement may be terminated by Business Associate upon 30 days prior written notice to Covered Entity in the event that Business Associate, acting in good faith, believes that the requirements of any law, legislation, consent decree, judicial action, governmental regulation or agency opinion, enacted, issued, or otherwise effective after the date of this Agreement and applicable to PHI or to this Agreement, cannot be met by Business Associate in a commercially reasonable manner and without significant additional expense. (d) Effect of Termination. Upon termination of this Agreement for any reason, at the request of Covered Entity, Business Associate shall return or destroy all PHI received from Covered Entity, or created or received by Business Associate on behalf of Covered Entity. Business Associate shall not retain any copies of the PHI unless necessary for proper document retention/archival purposes only or if such PHI is stored as a result of backup email systems that store emails for emergency backup purposes. If the return or destruction of PHI is infeasible, Business Associate shall extend the protections of this Agreement to such PHI and limit further uses and disclosures of such PHI to those purposes that make the return or destruction infeasible, for so long as Business Associate maintains such PHI. 7. Amendment. The parties may agree to amend this Agreement from time to time in any other respect that they deem appropriate. This Agreement shall not be amended except by written instrument executed by the parties. 8. Indemnification. Business Associate shall indemnify and hold harmless Covered Entity from and against any and all costs, expenses, claims, demands, causes of action, damages, attorneys' fees and judgments that arise out of or that may be imposed upon, incurred by, or brought against Covered Entity to the extent directly resulting from a breach of this Agreement or any violation of the Privacy Rule or other applicable HIPAA regulations by Business Associate. The indemnification obligations provided for in this Section will commence on the effective date of this Agreement and will survive its termination. BOSS >Mandatory Standards >Documents >Business Associate Agreement including Security 12 -2009 Page 6 Covered Entity shall indemnify and hold harmless Business Associate from and against any and all costs, expenses, claims, demands, causes of action, damages, attorneys' fees and judgments that arise out of or are imposed upon, incurred by, or brought against Business Associate to the extent directly resulting from a breach of this Agreement or any violation of the Privacy Rule or other applicable HIPAA regulations by Covered Entity. The indemnification obligations provided for in this Section will commence on the effective date of this Agreement and will survive its termination. 9. Severability. The parties intend this Agreement to be enforced as written. However, (i) if any portion or provision of this Agreement will to any extent be declared illegal or unenforceable by a duly authorized court having jurisdiction, then the remainder of this Agreement, or the application of such portion or provision in circumstances other than those as to which it is so declared illegal or unenforceable, will not be affected thereby, and each portion and provision of this Agreement will be valid and enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law; and (ii) if any provision, or part thereof, is held to be unenforceable because of the duration of such provision, the Covered Entity and the Business Associate agree that the court making such determination will have the power to modify such provision, and such modified provision will then be enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law. 10. Notices. All notices, requests, consents and other communications hereunder will be in writing, will be addressed to the receiving party's address set forth below or to such other address as a party may designate by notice hereunder, and will be either (i) delivered by hand, (ii) made facsimile transmission, (iii) sent by overnight courier, or (iv) sent by registered mail or certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid. If to the Covered Entity: If to the Business Associate: City of Golden Valley 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 Gallagher Benefit Services, Inc. 3600 American Boulevard West Suite 500 Bloomington, MN 55431 BOSS >Mandatory Standards >Documents >Business Associate Agreement including Security 12 -2009 Page 7 11. Regulatory References. A reference in this Agreement to a section in the Privacy Rule means the referenced section or its successor, and for which compliance is required. 12. Headings and Captions. The headings and captions of the various subdivisions of the Agreement are for convenience of reference only and will in no way modify or affect the meaning or construction of any of the terms or provisions hereof. 13. Entire Agreement. This Agreement sets forth the entire understanding of the parties with respect to the subject matter set forth herein and supersedes all prior agreements, arrangements and communications, whether oral or written, pertaining to the subject matter hereof. 14. Binding Effect. The provisions of this Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of both Parties and their respective successors and assigns. 15. No Waiver of Rights, Powers and Remedies. No failure or delay by a party hereto in exercising any right, power or remedy under this Agreement, and no course of dealing between the parties hereto, will operate as a waiver of any such right, power or remedy of the party. No single or partial exercise of any right, power or remedy under this Agreement by a party hereto, nor any abandonment or discontinuance of steps to enforce any such right, power or remedy, will preclude such party from any other or further exercise thereof or the exercise of any other right, power or remedy hereunder. The election of any remedy by a party hereto will not constitute a waiver of the right of such party to pursue other available remedies. No notice to or demand on a party not expressly required under this Agreement will entitle the party receiving such notice or demand to any other or further notice or demand in similar or other circumstances or constitute a waiver of the right of the party giving such notice or demand to any other or further action in any circumstances without such notice or demand. The terms and provisions of this Agreement may be waived, or consent for the departure therefrom granted, only by written document executed by the party entitled to the benefits of such terms or provisions. No such waiver or consent will be deemed to be or will constitute a waiver or consent with respect to any other terms or provisions of this Agreement, whether or not similar. Each such waiver or consent will be effective only in the specific instance and for the purpose for which it was given, and will not constitute a continuing waiver or consent. 16. Governing Law. This Agreement will be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Illinois. BOSS >Mandatory Standards >Documents >Business Associate Agreement including Security 12 -2009 Page 8 17. Interpretation. It is the Parties' intent to comply strictly with all applicable laws, including without limitation, HIPAA, state statutes, or regulations (collectively, the "Regulatory Laws "), in connection with this Agreement. In the event there shall be a change in the Regulatory Laws, or in the reasoned interpretation of any of the Regulatory Laws or the adoption of new federal or state legislation, any of which are reasonably likely to materially and adversely affect the manner in which either Party may perform or be compensated under this Agreement or which shall make this Agreement unlawful, the Parties shall immediately enter into good faith negotiations regarding a new arrangement or basis for compensation pursuant to this Agreement that complies with the law, regulation or policy and that approximates as closely as possible the economic position of the Parties prior to the change. In addition, the Parties hereto have negotiated and prepared the terms of this Agreement in good faith with the intent that each and every one or the terms, covenants and conditions herein be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the respective Parties. To the extent this Agreement is in violation of applicable law, then the Parties agree to negotiate in good faith to amend this Agreement, to the extent possible consistent with its purposes, to conform to law. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Business Associate Agreement as of the Effective Date. BUSINESS ASSOCIATE: Gallagher Benefit Services, Inc. By: Print Name: Michael O'Brien Title: Area President COVERED ENTITY: City of Golden Valley By: Print Name: Title: BOSS >Mandatory Standards >Documents >Business Associate Agreement including Security 12 -2009 Page 9 "Golden Valley Memorandum Planning 763 - 593 -8095 / 763- 593 -8109 (fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting February 1, 2011 "60 Days" Deadline: February 7, 2011 Agenda Item 4. A. Public Hearing - Preliminary Plat Approval - Fretham 11th Addition - 240 Jersey Avenue North Prepared By Joe Hogeboom, City Planner Summary At the January 10, 2011 Planning Commission meeting the Commission unanimously recommended approval of the proposal from Curt Fretham, Lakewest Maki, LLC., to subdivide the property located at 240 Jersey Avenue North into two separate residential lots. The existing home and detached garage on the property will be removed. This action qualifies as a minor subdivision because the property is part of a recorded plat. In addition, the action will produce fewer than four lots and will not create need for public improvements. Seven specific criteria that govern minor subdivision requests are outlined, in their entirety, in the staff report to the Planning Commission, dated January 5, 2011. Attachment Location Map (1 page) Planning Commission Minutes dated January 10, 2011 (3 pages) Memo to Planning Commission dated January 5, 2011 (3 pages) Memo from City Engineer Jeff Oliver dated December 29, 2010 (2 pages) Preliminary Plat (1 page, loose in agenda packet) Recommended Action Motion to approve the Preliminary Plat for Fretham 11th Addition, 240 Jersey Avenue North, 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. The City Engineer's memo, dated December 29, 2010, will become part of this approval. 3. A park dedication fee in the amount of $1,400 shall be paid by the applicant prior to final plat approval. 4. 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 December 29, 2010. 5. All applicable City permits must be obtained prior to the development of the new lots. 6. The existing home and garage must be removed prior to the approval of the final plat. Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 10, 2011 A regular meeting of the Planning Co ission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall, ncil Chambers, 7800 Golden Vall Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota, on Monday, Jan 10, 2011. Chair Waldhauser Iled the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present Planning Commi inners Cera, Waldhauser. Also pfrftwt was Direct of anning. Planner Joe Hogeboom a dminist tive r Kluchka and McCarty were abs 1. Approval of Minutes Dec:;rao I r 13 0 Regular Eck noted typographical en 5 by Eck, seconded by Cera ber 13, 2010 minutes with the nning k=ent all, Segelbaum and Mark Grimes, City Lisa Wittman. Commissioners motion carried unanimously to ove noted :corrections. the 2. Informal Public Hearing — Minor Subdivision — 240 Jersey Ave N — SU17 -09 Applicant: Lakewest Maki, LLC - Curt Fretham Address: 240 Jersey Ave N Purpose: The applicant is proposing to create two new lots for the construction of one new home. Hogeboom stated that since the hearing notices were mailed and the agenda packet was sent out the applicant has changed his proposal slightly. He distributed a copy of the proposed new plat and explained that the east/west property line has been redrawn to be straight across instead of angled. The applicant is also proposing to demolish the existing home and garage and construct two new homes, rather than allowing the existing house to remain as stated on the hearing notice and the agenda. Hogeboom stated that staff feels that straightening out the property line between the proposed new lots is the preferred way to draw property lines in order to accommodate utilities and reduce the need for easements. He referred to City Engineer Jeff Oliver's staff report and noted that since the property line will be straight across the lots the condition of requiring a private easement for utilities no longer applies. Hogeboom noted that both lots will be 10, 974 square feet in size and both lots will meet all of the City's requirements, therefore staff is recommending approval of this subdivision request. Segelbaum asked who owns the property. Hogeboom stated that the applicant is in the process of purchasing the property and will own it before final plat approval. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 10, 2011 Page 2 Cera asked about the age of the existing home. Hogeboom said he didn't know. Eck asked if the subdivision is approved and the existing home was not removed if it would meet setback requirements. Hogeboom stated that the existing home would not meet the side yard setback requirements with the proposed new lot line configuration. Grimes stated that a condition could be added by the City Council requiring that the existing home be removed before final plat approval. Martin Campion, Campion Engineering Services, representing the applicant, stated that the closing for this property is scheduled for January 28, 2011. At that point, Lakewest Maki, LLC will be the property owner. He referred to the suggestion regarding removal of the existing house prior to final plat approval. He said he would prefer that the condition state that the house and garage will be removed before building permit approval because the final plat will be filed at the County in February so there won't be enough time to remove the house and garage before final plat approval. Cera explained that the City can't approve a plat that would create a non- conforming situation. Grimes said he would speak with the City Attorney regarding the existing house being removed. 'Campion stated their intent is to remove the house and garage at the same time. Cera asked why the plans changed from the original submittal. Campion explained that they have a potential buyer who would like to build a new house on the lot where the existing house is currently located. Cera asked if the house will be demolished or moved. Campion said at this point they are planning on demolishing it. Segelbaum asked the applicant how their plans would be impacted if the sale of the property falls through. Campion reiterated that their intent at this point is to go through with the plans to remove the house. Waldhauser opened the public hearing. Joanne Marben, 220 Jersey Avenue North, asked how big the new homes will be. Waldhauser said that probably hasn't been determined yet, but any new construction will have to be built per the requirements of the Zoning Code. Marben asked if both of the entrances to the properties would be on Jersey Ave. Waldhauser said yes. Steve Mickelson, 6809 Glenwood Avenue, asked if there is any chance to sell the lot "as is ". He asked if anything can be done, or if this public hearing is just a matter of law and if the proposal meets the requirements, the property can be developed. He asked if any consideration will be given to the oak trees on the property. Waldhauser explained that the City asks developers to consider certain things but if a proposal meets all of the City's requirements it is difficult to deny a subdivision proposal. Eck added that it is in the developer's best interest to keep as many trees as possible. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 10, 2011 Page 3 Mickelson asked what would happen if the developers want to get a variance. Waldhauser explained that there is a variance process. Since this proposal deals with new construction she doesn't think there would be any basis to grant any variances. Mickelson noted that the hearing notice he received said the existing house would remain. Hogeboom reiterated that the applicant's proposal changed after the hearing notices were already mailed. He explained that an updated hearing notice will be mailed prior to the City Council hearing on this proposal. Waldhauser asked the applicant if the trees on the site have been identified. Campion said the trees have been identified but he is not sure at this point which ones will be removed. He reiterated that the trees are valuable to the lot and they want to keep as many as possible. Schmidgall referred to the tree preservation ordinance which requires the replacement of trees if they're removed. Grimes discussed the tree preservation process and noted that a significant number of tress will be preserved in this case. He stated that he realizes this type of proposal is frustrating for neighbors because they are invited to a public hearing for an item that is basically administrative because it meets all of the City's requirements. Waldhauser agreed and added that it is good for the developer and City to know the neighbor's concerns. Hearing and seeing no one else wishing to comment, Waldhauser closed the public hearing. Schmidgall said he is not comfortable leaving the existing home out of conformance once the subdivision is approved. Cera said the Planning Commission needs to consider this subdivision as if the house and garage are being removed and the City Council can put further conditions on their approval if they wish. He said he wanted it noted that the hearing notice that was mailed for this item is not what the Planning Commission discussed because the notice said the house is going to remain when it is not. Segelbaum said he likes the new proposal,because better homes will be built on both lots. Eck added that there is no legal basis to deny this request. Waldhauser suggested a condition be added that states prior to final plat approval, all existing structures shall be removed. MOVED by Schmidgall, seconded by Cera and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of the proposed minor subdivision at 240 Jersey Avenue North subject to following conditions: 1. The City Attorney will determine if a title review is necessary prior to approval of the final plat. 2. The City Engineer's memo, dated December 29, 2010, will become part of this approval. 3. A park dedication fee in the amount of $1,400 shall be paid by the applicant prior to final plat approval. 4. 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 December 29, 2010. 5. All applicable City permits must be obtained prior to the development of the new lots. 6. Prior to final plat approval, all existing structures shall be removed. Date: January 5, 2011 To: Planning Commission From: Joe Hogeboom, City Planner Planning 763- 593 - 80951763- 593 -8109 (fax) Subject: Informal Public Hearing on Minor Subdivision of Property at 240 Jersey Avenue North — Curt Fretham, Lakewest Maki, LLC., Applicant Summary of Request Curt Fretham, Lakewest Maki, LLC., is proposing to subdivide the property located at 240 Jersey Avenue North into two separate lots. The existing home at 240 Jersey Avenue will remain in place on the newly created northernmost lot. The existing detached garage will be removed. City Code requires that each new lot meet the required 10,000 square foot minimum lot size standard set forth by the Zoning Code. For this proposal, the northern -most lot would consist of 11,572 square feet of land and the southern -most lot would consist of 10,376 square feet of land. City code also requires that at least 80 feet of width exists at the front setback line of any newly established lot. In addition, both proposed properties exceed City requirements. Setback boundaries (building envelopes) of the proposed lots would allow generous -sized homes to be constructed without variances. Qualification as a Minor Subdivision The proposed two lot subdivision qualifies as a minor subdivision because the property located at 240 Jersey Avenue North is part of a recorded plat. In addition, this proposed subdivision will produce fewer than four lots and will not create need for public improvements (such as street construction.) The applicant has submitted the required information to the City that allows for the request to be evaluated as a minor subdivision. Staff Review Staff has evaluated this lot subdivision request as a minor subdivision. As previously indicated, this request creates two lots that each exceeds the minimum lot requirements in the R -1 Single Family Residential Zoning District. The applicant has submitted a survey for the affected property following subdivision. The survey includes setback boundaries and lot layout following lot division. This document provides the City with information necessary to evaluate the minor subdivision. The document indicates the preservation of the existing home. City Engineer Jeff Oliver, PE, has submitted a memorandum dated December 29, 2010 regarding recommendations from the Public Works Department concerning this request. Requirements set forth in Mr. Oliver's memo are to be included in the recommended action of this subdivision. Qualification Governing Approval as a Minor Subdivision According to Section 12.50 of the City's Subdivision Regulations, the following are the regulations governing approval of minor subdivisions with staff comment related to this request: 1. Minor subdivisions shall be denied if the proposed lots do not meet the requirements of the appropriate zoning district. Both proposed lots will meet the requirements set forth by the R1 Single Family Residential Zoning District. 2. A minor subdivision may be denied if the City Engineer determines that the lots are not buildable. The City Engineer has determined that both proposed lots are buildable. 3. A minor subdivision may be denied if there are no sewer and water connections available or if it is determined by the City Engineer that an undue strain will be placed on City utility systems by the addition of the new lots. A developer would be required to submit detailed plans regarding the proposed sewer and water locations at the time building permits are applied for. The City Engineer has indicated in his memorandum that the sewer line to the existing home may be used, upon upgrade to City standards. A new sewer line must be created for the home on proposed Lot 2. In addition, it appears that the water service to the existing home on proposed Lot 1 will be partially located on proposed Lot 2 following subdivision. In order to accommodate this water service, the City Engineer has recommended that an easement between the lots be established. This will take place upon approval of the final plat. 4. Approval of the minor subdivision may require the granting of certain easements to the City. The final plat must show all necessary easements as required by the City Engineer and City ordinances. 5. If public agencies other than the City have jurisdiction of the streets adjacent to the minor subdivision the agencies will be given the opportunities to comment. No other public agencies have jurisdiction of the streets adjacent to this site. 6. The City may ask for review of title if required by the City Attorney regarding the dedication of certain easements. The City Attorney will determine if such a title review is necessary prior to approval of the final plat. 7. The minor subdivision may be subject to park dedication requirements. A park dedication fee of $1,400 (1 % of estimated land market value) shall be paid by the applicant prior to final plat approval. 2 Recommended Action The Planning Department recommends approval of the minor subdivision with the conditions listed below: The City Attorney will determine if a title review is necessary prior to approval of the final plat. 2. The City Engineer's memo, dated December 29, 2010, will become part of this approval. 3. A park dedication fee in the amount of $1,400 shall be paid by the applicant prior to final plat approval. 4. 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 December 29, 2010. 5. All applicable City permits must be obtained prior to the development of the new lots. Attachments: Location Map (1 page) Memo from City Engineer Preliminary Plat (2 pages) Jeff Oliver dated December 29, 2010 (2 pages) 3 "Golden Vall.� PIT Date: December 29, 2010 Memorandum Public Works 763.593.8030 / 763.593.3988 (fax) To: Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development From: Jeff Oliver, PE, City Engineer Subject: Minor Subdivision at 240 Jersey Avenue North Public Works staff has reviewed the proposed minor subdivision of property located at 240 Jersey Avenue North. The proposed subdivision, which is located immediately south of Glenwood Avenue, consists of splitting an existing lot into two lots. There is an existing home on the property that will remain on Lot 1, and an existing garage that will be demolished on Lot 2. The property being subdivided was originally subdivided in 1999 and a single - family home was constructed on the newly created lot at the intersection of Jersey Avenue and Glenwood Avenue. The preliminary plat submitted for review must be revised to include a 10 -foot wide drainage and utility easement on the rear lot lines. The existing home on this property is currently served by City sanitary sewer and water. New sewer and water services will be needed to provide service to Lot 2. These services must be extended from the sanitary sewer and watermain within Jersey Avenue, and must be installed according to City standards and specifications. Based upon the information provided by the developer, it appears that the water service to the existing home on Lot 1 will be partially located on Lot 2 following subdivision. In order to accommodate this water service, an easement between the lots will be required. The developer must submit a legal description for this easement to the Public Work Department and an easement document will be prepared by the City. This easement must be signed and be ready for recording prior to forwarding the final plat to the City Council for approval. The existing home on Lot 1 must comply with the Inflow and Infiltration Ordinance. The home has met the inspection requirement and an escrow agreement has been entered into with the City for the repairs to the sanitary sewer service required for compliance. The developer must complete the repairs and obtain the required Certificate of Compliance prior to issuance of permits for the demolition of the existing garage. GADevelopments - Private\240 Jersey North \Review 122910.doc The developer will be required to obtain Right -of -Way Management Permits for the work proposed within the right -of -way for Jersey Avenue. The work includes excavation for the sanitary sewer and water services, driveway construction, sidewalk modifications, driveway aprons, and retaining wall modifications. This development is also subject to the Stormwater Management Ordinance. Therefore, permits will be required for the demolition of the existing garage, construction of a new garage (if applicable) on Lot 1, and new home construction on Lot 2. The construction of a new home on Lot 2 will also require a Tree Preservation Permit. Public Works staff recommends approval of the proposed subdivision on 240 Jersey Avenue North subject to the comments and conditions discussed within this review, and the comments of other City staff. C: Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works Al Lundstrom, Environmental Coordinator Mitch Hoeft, Engineer GADevelopments - Private\240 Jersey North \Review 122910.doc 2 P91 AN ry 0 (Coo !0) House No 300 E a AD FID fl Garage [House No 221 75 7 A 74 PROPOSED SUBDIVISION FOR LAKEWEST DEVELOPMENT DESCRIPTION Lot 2, Block 1, MILLS JERSEY AVENUE ADDITION, according to the recorded plot thereof. TOTAL AREA = 21948 Square Feet POST DEVELOPMENT LOT AREAS NORTHERLY LOT 10974 Square Feet SOUTHERLY LOT 10974 Square Feet 11164,1 ki 0 20 40 80 scale in feet PRESENT ZONING — R 1 MINIMUM BUILDING SETBACKS Front — 35 feet Sides — 12.5 feet Rear — 26.6 feet (20% of lot depth) 12 Existing t n sdo sero'nogets 2�11 a utility rmnen 717 C) of /:Z- 10 0 0 z to to 1 C'j q LO o` Co Co House No 24 House 24 LO UD 2 2 :D 1PROPOSEE) LOT LlN[E z LLJ 133.05 C14 O Bituminous Drive Garage timin z C" 00 to cNi Co S89'44*27"W 133.05 E a AD FID fl Garage [House No 221 75 7 A 74 PROPOSED SUBDIVISION FOR LAKEWEST DEVELOPMENT DESCRIPTION Lot 2, Block 1, MILLS JERSEY AVENUE ADDITION, according to the recorded plot thereof. TOTAL AREA = 21948 Square Feet POST DEVELOPMENT LOT AREAS NORTHERLY LOT 10974 Square Feet SOUTHERLY LOT 10974 Square Feet 11164,1 ki 0 20 40 80 scale in feet PRESENT ZONING — R 1 MINIMUM BUILDING SETBACKS Front — 35 feet Sides — 12.5 feet Rear — 26.6 feet (20% of lot depth) it 0 a S o a e Memorandum Planning 763- 593 -8095 / 763 - 593 -8109 (fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting February 1, 2011 Agenda Item 4. B. Public Hearing - Ordinance #454 - Rezoning 8805, 8905, 9191, 9393 Wayzata Boulevard and Outlot A in PUD 95 (between 8905 and 9191 Wayzata Boulevard) from Industrial Zoning District to Commercial Zoning District Prepared By Joe Hogeboom, City Planner Summary In May of 2010, the Metropolitan Council approved the City's Comprehensive Plan. State Statute requires that the City's zoning designations correspond with the General Land Use Plan Map, which is a component of the Comprehensive Plan. By law, zoning designations must correspond with the General Land Use Plan map within one calendar year of its approval by the Metropolitan Council. One of the areas that must be rezoned to comply with the General Land Use Plan map is the area in the southeast corner of Interstate 394 and U.S. Highway 169. This area, which includes the properties at 8805, 8905, 9191 and 9393 Wayzata Boulevard, is currently zoned "Industrial." The properties are proposed to be rezoned as "Commercial." By designating this area as "Commercial" on the General Land Use Plan map, the City has implied that it envisions long -term commercial use on this site. Auto dealerships and repair shops, which currently exist in this space, are considered conditional uses in both the Industrial and the Commercial zoning districts. The Planning Commission has unanimously voted to recommend approval for this action. Attachments Location Map (1 page) Planning Commission Minutes dated January 10, 2011 (2 pages) Memo to Planning Commission dated January 5, 2011 (2 pages) Ordinance No. 454, Rezoning 8805, 8905, 9191, 9393 Wayzata Boulevard and Outlot A in PUD 95 (between 8905 and 9191 Wayzata Boulevard) from Industrial Zoning District to Commercial Zoning District (1 page) General Land Use Plan Map (1 oversized page, loose in agenda packet) Recommended Action Motion to adopt Ordinance No. 454, Rezoning 8805, 8905, 9191, 9393 Wayzata Boulevard and Outlot A in PUD 95 (between 8905 and 9191 Wayzata Boulevard) from Industrial Zoning District to Commercial Zoning District. n ral Iv 201 Genewl Mills Pond \-j Golf COU, rs e:1 I F as 13410146K""> 1) EM Nilt j YZATA 6 Westwood Hills Environmental Educ Center %W P Westwood Lake ,A) Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 10, 2011 Page 4 3. Informal Public Hearing — Property Rezonings — 8805, 8905, 9191 and 9393 Wayzata Blvd from Industrial to Commercial and 5075 Wayzata Blvd and 1400, 1500 Highway 100 South from Commercial to Business and Professional Offices Applicant: City of Golden Valley Addresses: 8805, 8905, 9191, 9393 and 5075 Wayzata Blvd and 1400, 1500 Highway 100 South Purpose: To bring the properties into conformance with the recently updated Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Hogeboom reminded the Commissioners that the Metropolitan Council recently approved the City's Comprehensive Plan update. As part of the update process, state statute requires that the Zoning Map match the Comprehensive Plan's General Land Use Plan Map. He explained that the City Council has decided they would like to proceed with the rezoning process starting with areas that don't involve residential properties. Hogeboom referred to the General Land Use Plan Map and pointed out the area at the southeast intersection of 1 -394 and TH -169 (8805, 8905, 9191 and 9393 Wayzata Blvd). He explained that these properties are currently zoned Industrial and consist of auto dealerships and auto related uses. In order to match the General Land Use Plan Map the City is proposing to rezone these properties to Commercial. Rezoning these properties will not make the uses become non - conforming because both the Industrial zoning district and the Commercial zoning district require a Conditional Use Permit for auto uses. Hogeboom noted that the other area being discussed at this meeting is the area west of Highway 100, south of 1 -394 (5075 Wayzata Blvd and 1400, 1500 Highway 100 South). This is the area that will be used for the parking ramp for the West End office development proposed by Duke Realty. The property is currently zoned Commercial and the City is proposing to rezone it to Business and Professional Offices (BPO) to better match Duke's proposed office use and the General Land Use Plan map. He stated that Duke has expressed concern about the proposed rezoning because the Commercial zoning district allows for stand -alone parking structure whereas the BPO district requires that a parking ramp be an accessory use to a business or office located on the same parcel. He stated that staff is recommending that the public hearing regarding the rezoning of this area be tabled to a future Planning Commission meeting in order to allow the City Attorney and staff more time for further study. Cera asked how St. Louis Park has the West End office property zoned. Hogeboom said the office tower is part of the West End PUD but the underlying zoning is office. He added that traffic analysis has shown that an office use would work better than a commercial use in this area. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission January 10, 2011 Page 5 Segelbaum referred to the BPO zoning district and asked if a building and parking structure have to be physically connected. Hogeboom said a building and parking structure need to be on the same lot, but they don't have to be connected. Grimes said the City is looking at potential future developments for this area when considering the zoning. He explained that if something changes with Duke's plans to develop the area as an office use and the area is zoned Commercial, then anything allowed in the Commercial zoning district could be built. Segelbaum said rezoning the properties to BPO could limit Duke and questioned if the City wants this land to sit vacant for several years. Schmidgall said that the Commercial zoning district seems more flexible. Waldhauser said they also need to look at what is most advantageous for the City. Grimes noted that offices are also allowed in the Commercial zoning district and at this point the City feels rezoning the properties to BPO is best, with the understanding that the properties could be rezoned and the General Land Use Plan Map could be re- guided in the future. Waldhauser suggested separating the two areas when making a motion. Waldhauser opened the public hearing, seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Waldhauser closed the public hearing. MOVED by Segelbaum, seconded by Cera and motion carried unanimously to table the proposed rezoning for the properties located at 5075 Wayzata Blvd and 1400, 1500 Highway 100 South from Commercial to Business and Professional Offices. Waldhauser referred to the other properties on the agenda (8805, 8905, 9191, 9393 and 5075 Wayzata Blvd) and asked if they remained Industrial if they would have to be rezoned if the auto dealers sold their properties in the future. Hogeboom explained that another auto dealer could apply for a Conditional Use Permit if the properties remained Industrial, but leaving the properties zoned Industrial is contrary to the Comprehensive Plan designation for that area. MOVED, by Cera, seconded by Schmidgall and motion carried unanimously to recommend approval of rezoning the properties located at 8805, 8905, 9191, 9393 and 5075 Wayzata Blvd from Industrial to Commercial. - -Sho Recess- - 5. Reports on Meetin the Ho sin edevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning nd Waldhauser said she atte ary 4, 2 Council where the Menards PUD amendment w proved. She ated that the iss snow storage and requiring to submit a parking Ian were discussed. y tt Date: January 5, 2011 To: Planning Commission From: Joe Hogeboom, City Planner Planning 763- 593 -8095 / 763- 593 -8109 (fax) Subject: Rezoning 8805, 8905, 9191 and 9393 Wayzata Boulevard from "Industrial" to "Commercial" Background In May of 2010, the Metropolitan Council approved the City of Golden Valley's Comprehensive Plan. State Statute requires that the City's zoning designations correspond with the General Land Use Plan Map, which is a component of the Comprehensive Plan. By law, zoning designations must correspond with the General Land Use Plan map within one calendar year of its approval by the Metropolitan Council. Based upon the land use designations on the General Land Use Plan Map, there are eight areas within the City that must be rezoned in order to comply with the General Land Use Plan Map. Six of the areas involve residential areas, while two of the areas are involve non - residential properties on or near the 1 -394 highway corridor. The City Council has directed staff to pursue rezoning the non - residential areas at this time. The Council will continue to study the implications of rezoning residential areas, and pursue that action at a later time. Proposal One of the two non - residential areas that must be rezoned to comply with the General Land Use Plan map is the area in the southeast corner of Interstate 394 and U.S. Highway 169. This area, which includes the properties at 8805, 8905, 9191 and 9393 Wayzata Boulevard, is currently zoned "Industrial." The properties are proposed to be rezoned as "Commercial." By designating this area as "Commercial" on the General Land Use Plan map, the City has implied that it envisions long -term commercial use on this site. Auto dealerships and repair shops, which currently exist in this space, are considered conditional uses in both the Industrial Zone and the Commercial Zone. Therefore, rezoning the properties will not negatively impact the current businesses or create non - conforming uses. Rezoning will, however, guide future development should the existing businesses leave the area. Recommended Action Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval for the rezoning of the properties at 8809, 8905, 9191 and 9393 from "Industrial" to "Commercial." Attachments Location Map (1 page) General Land Use Plan Map (1 page) ORDINANCE NO. 454, 2ND SERIES AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE Rezoning 8805, 8905, 9191, 9393 Wayzata Boulevard and Outlot A in PUD 95 (between 8905 and 9191 Wayzata Boulevard) from Industrial Zoning District to Commercial Zoning District City of Golden Valley, 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, by changing the zoning designation of certain tracts of land from Industrial Zoning District to Commercial Zoning District. Section 2. The tracts of land affected by this ordinance are legally described as: Lots 1 & 2, Block 1, RLT Second Addition PUD No. 91 and Lot 1, Block 1, Carousel Automobiles PUD No. 95 and Lot 1, Block 2, Carousel Automobiles PUD No. 95 and Outlot A, Carousel Automobiles PUD No. 95 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 1st day of February, 2011. /s /Linda R. Loomis Linda R. Loomis, Mayor ATTEST: /s /Susan M. Virnig Susan M. Virnig, City Clerk 9 p d, y U94 r P f r I I � O 100 i I � I i �rewb•4 :, .., : CITY OT `:Ti \ HI?PF. CI LY OF fJEN' HOPE I CIi Y" OF C'R YS T:I I. 1 C 17Y OF R O P B I I: S L 11_ F j _ o Prr - _ \, .a•m,.•a, c.+., s.00d„q scd 4 s $ - U _ _ P,l o I C t., ; =. C�� -�� _ wn .. _ Aso .'',� BvII FfBNV " -_' l � < • . '� 4 ,� ` G y nq. � � 2 • _ Park � s Ji I J18 e..w = R F~ I F ?dicine n.^ Lake a . a a� Pe t l Bore Wirth ' 1 0A l; Regional Park I (MWs Park d Rec Board) AZ dra, \ e,n• e s e SEMI Wirth 9G= n d IC� Jr ,®'.� ... om , t/ a /k- e 6 P P.nO Subject Properties 0 D O z %i f Westwood ST, Louis rwax Lake -'r CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK - City or Golden Valley . - e Rio 7800 Golden Valley Road I , - sartn`- ; La Golden Valley, MN 554274588 =3- 8095 g Id ley mn us Goldt,xn Valley 2010.2030 GENERAL LAND USE PLAN Residential 0 Low Density (Less than 5 units per acre) Medium -Low Density (5 to 11.9 units per acre) C, Medium -High Density (12 to 19.9 units per ac re) High Density (20 or more units per acre) Commercial = Office F7DRetail /Service (also includes Office) industrial ® Light Industrial (also Includes office) - Industrial (also includes Office) Open Space - Public and Private Ownership Schools and Religious Facilities Public Facilities - Miscellaneous _ Semi-Public Facilities - Miscellaneous . Open Water - Based on 2008Aerial Photography I Wetlands - National Wetlands Inventory, Barr Engineering, and HR Green 1999 SWMP - not field verified Railroad Road Rights -of -Way Private Streets Municipal Line Date, D ember4 2008 5 H epin County Surveyors Office for Property Lines (2008) DNR, HR Green Barr Engineering for Wellands City of Golden Valley for all other layers . 0 eo0 1.600 2..00 Feel tp Police Department 763- 593 -8079 / 763- 593 -8098 (fax) Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting February 1, 2011 Agenda Item 6. A. First Consideration - Ordinance #455 - Amending Section 10.30, Regarding Discontinuance of Dog Licensing Requirement (Except for Dangerous and Potentially Dangerous Dogs) Prepared By Stacy Altonen, Chief of Police Summary At the October 12, 2010 Council /Manager Meeting staff discussed discontinuing dog license registration due to the cumbersome nature of staff involvement and the lack of compliance in registering dogs with the City. Section 10.30, Animal Control, was reviewed and proposed changes have been made to discontinue dog licensing requirements (except for dangerous and potentially dangerous dogs), clarify general animal control provisions and expand authority to pick up injured dogs and cats. Attachments Underline /Overstrike version of Section 10.30, Animal Control (16 pages) Ordinance No. 455, Amending Section 10.30, Regarding Discontinuance of Dog Licensing Requirement (Except for Dangerous and Potentially Dangerous Dogs) (4 pages) Recommended Action Motion to adopt on First Consideration, Ordinance No. 455, Amending Section 10.30, Regarding Discontinuance of Dog Licensing Requirement (Except for Dangerous and Potentially Dangerous Dogs). Section 10.30: Animal Control Subdivision 1. Definitions As used in this Section: A. Animal Control: means an agency of the state, county, municipality, or other governmental subdivision of the state which is responsible for animal control operations in a jurisdiction. B. At Large: means off the premises of the Owner and not under the control of the Owner or other competent person, either by leash or otherwise. C. Dangerous Dog: means any Dog that 1. Has without provocation, inflicted Substantial Bodily Harm on a human being on public or private property; 2. Has killed a domestic animal with provocation while off the Owner's property; or 3. Has been found to be Potentially Dangerous, and after the Owner has been noticed that the Dog is Potentially Dangerous, the Dog aggressively bites, attacks, or endangers the safety of humans or domestic animals. D. Dog: means both the male and female of the canine species, commonly accepted as domesticated household pets. E. Great Bodily Harm: means bodily injury which creates a high probability of death, or which causes serious permanent disfigurement, or which causes a permanent or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ or other serious bodily harm. F. Maintenance Costs: means the cost of maintaining an impounded animal including but not limited to impounding fees, boarding fees and reasonable charges for medical treatment for said animal. The amount of fees shall be established by the City Council and adopted by ordinance. G. Owner: means any person or persons, firm, corporation, organization, department, or association owning, possessing, harboring, keeping, having an interest in, or having care, custody or control of a Dog, except veterinary hospitals owned and operated under the provisions of the Veterinary Practice Act of the State of Minnesota and the Animal Humane Society. H. Potentially Dangerous Dog: means any Dog that 1. When unprovoked, inflicts harm or bites on a human or domestic animal on public or private property; 2. When unprovoked, chases or approaches a person, including a person on a bicycle, upon the streets, sidewalks or any public or private property, other than the Dog Owner's property, in an apparent attitude of attack; or 3. Has a known propensity, tendency, or disposition to attack unprovoked, causing injury or otherwise threatening the safety of humans or domestic animals. I. Proper Enclosure: means securely confined indoors or in a securely enclosed and locked pen or structure suitable to prevent the animal from escaping and providing protection from the elements for the Dog. A proper enclosure does not include a porch, patio, or any part of a house, garage, or other structure that would allow the Dog to exit of its own volition, or any house or structure in which windows are open or in which door or window screens are the only obstacles that prevent the Dog from exiting. The enclosure shall not allow the egress of the Dog in any manner without human assistance. A pen shall meet the following minimum specifications: 1. A minimum overall floor size of thirty -two (32) square feet. 2. Sidewalls shall have a minimum height of five (5) feet and be constructed of 11 -gauge or heavier wire. Openings in the wire shall not exceed two (2) inches, support posts shall be one and one -fourth inch (11/4 ") or larger steel pipe buried in the ground eighteen (18) inches or more. When a concrete floor is not provided, the sidewalls shall be buried a minimum of one (1) inch in the ground. 3. A cover over the pen or kennel shall be provided. The cover shall be constructed of the same gauge wire or heavier as the sidewall and openings in the wire shall not exceed two (2) inches. 4. An entrance /exit gate shall be provided and be constructed of the same material as the sidewalls and openings in the wire shall not exceed two (2) inches. The gate shall be self - closing and self - locking. The gate shall be closed at all times when the Dog is in the pen. J. Substantial Bodily Harm: means bodily injury which involves a temporary but substantial disfigurement, or which causes a temporary but substantial loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ, or which causes a fracture of any bodily member. K. Unprovoked: means the condition in which the Dog is not excited, stimulated, agitated or disturbed into action. Subdivision 2. City Veterinarian The Council may appoint a qualified veterinarian, for such term as it shall designate, as City Veterinarian. The City Veterinarian shall act as an advisor to the Council, and City Staff on matters pertaining to animal and human health relationships. It shall be the responsibility of said veterinarian to ensure that qualified veterinary care is available at all times for any injured or diseased animal apprehended by members of the Police Department. Subdivision 3. Beg Meenses Reserved. Subdivision 4. Dog and Cat Impounding A. Impounding. 1. The Police Department shall take up and impound any Degs fewnd On the unlicensed Dangerous -- - - - - - - - - -- - -- - -- - - -- - - - -- - - - -- -- - -- - -- - - -- - ..... -- - - - - - -- . . . . - M_' w -- -- - - -- - -- - -- - -- -- - - -- - -- -- - - - e -- -- - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - 101 W, IL Subdivision 4. Dog and Cat Impounding A. Impounding. 1. The Police Department shall take up and impound any Degs fewnd On the unlicensed Dangerous Dog or Potentially Dangerous Dog found in the City, any Dangerous Dog or Potentially Dangerous Dog that is not properly restrained in accordance with Subdivision 7(d) herein, any Dog or cat found in the City at large while injured or diseased, many Dog or cat found off the owner's premises without the evidence required by this Subdivision of valid and current immunization and any Dog or cat at such other occasion as may be necessary to enforce this Section. Said City personnel are empowered and instructed to enter upon any private premises where they have reasonable cause to believe there is an unlicensed Dangerous Dog or Potentially Dangerous Dog. 2. It is unlawful for the Owner of any cat more than six (6) months of age to fail to have such cat vaccinated for rabies each twelve (12) months and to have evidence of such vaccination permanently attached to a collar kept around the neck of such cat. Any cat found off the Owner's premises without such evidence of valid and current immunization shall be impounded. 3. It is unlawful for the Owner of any Dog more than One hundred fifty (150) days of age to fail to have a valid and current rabies vaccine and to have evidence of such vaccination permanently attached to a collar kept around the neck of such Dog. Any Dog found off the Owner's premises without evidence of a valid and current rabies immunization shall be impounded. For purposes of this subdivision a Dog's vaccination with a killed rabies vaccine shall be deemed valid and current for twelve (12) months, and a Dog's vaccination with a live rabies vaccine shall be deemed valid and current for twenty -four (24) months. B. Notice of Impounding. Upon taking up and impounding any Dog or cat as provided in this Section, the Police Department shall promptly prepare a record describing said impounded Dog or cat and retain a copy of said record during the period of impoundment and during a period of ninety (90) days thereafter. C. Redemption. Any Dog or cat may be redeemed from the Police Department by the Owner within seven (7) days of the impounding by the payment to the Police Department of the license fee ( as applicable) for the current year, and any additional fee if applicable, together with Maintenance Costs for each day or portion thereof that the Dog or cat is confined. D. Release. Upon proof of ownership and payment of all fees and charges as provided herein to the Police Department, the Police Department shall release to any Owner the Dog or cat claimed by such Owner. In any event, all Owners who refuse the return of a Dog or cat, or whose Dog or cat shall die during impoundment, shall be liable for all reasonable charges and fees for the impoundment, care and treatment, board, and disposal of said Dog or cat. E. Unclaimed Dogs or Cats. Any Dog or cat which is not claimed as provided in this Section, within seven (7) days after impounding may be sold for not less than_the total charge provided in this Section, to any desiring to purchase the Dog or cat. Any Dog or cat, which is not claimed by the Owner or sold, may be disposed of, used for research or destroyed by the Police Department. Subdivision S. Power to Contract The Council may, from time to time, and upon such terms and conditions as it deems proper, contract with any qualified person to act as its agent to effectuate the purposes of this Section. Subdivision 6. Confinement of Certain Dogs Any female Dog in heat, and any Dog who annoys or threatens persons passing on or using public streets, and any Dog which habitually chases automobiles shall be confined or effectively restrained by its Owner. In addition to issuing a citation, the Police Department may take up and impound any Dog found at large in violation of this provision, and release it only upon order of the Police Department after payment of the fees provided for herein. Subdivision 7. Registration of Dangerous Dogs A. Adoption by Reference. Except as otherwise provided in this Chapter, the regulatory and procedural provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Sections 34 347.50 through 347.515 347.565 (a part of the law commonly referred to as tl= - °Regulation of Dangerous Doas ") as amended through Laws 280 -1 2008, are hereby incorporated herein and adopted by reference, subject however to adoption by the City of any administrative penalties related to violations of this City Code Section 10.30, subd. 7. B. Declaration of Potentially Dangerous or Dangerous Dogs. 1. A Golden Valley police officer, police officer, community service officer, or animal control officer may declare a Dog to be Potentially Dangerous or Dangerous, when the officer has probable cause to believe that the Dog is Potentially Dangerous or Dangerous as defined herein. The following factors will be considered in determining a Dangerous or Potentially Dangerous Dog: a. Whether any injury or damage to a person by the Dog was caused while the Dog was protecting or defending a person or the Dog's offspring within immediate vicinity of the Dog from an unjustified attack or assault; b. The size and strength of the Dog, including jaw strength, and the animal's propensity to bite humans or other domesticated animals; c. Whether the Dog has wounds, scarring, is observed in a fight, or has other indications that the Dog has been or will be used, trained or encouraged to fight with another animal or whose Owner is in possession of any training apparatus, paraphernalia or drugs used to prepare such Dogs to fight with other animals. 2. Beginning one hundred and eighty (180) days from the date a Dog is declared Potentially Dangerous or Dangerous; the Owner may request annually that the City review the designation. The Owner shall provide clear and convincing evidence to the hearing officer that the Dog's behavior has changed due to the Dog's age; neutering; environment; completion of obedience training that includes modification of aggressive behavior; or other factors rendering the Dog no longer Dangerous or Potentially Dangerous. The hearing officer shall review the evidence without hearing, and if the hearing officer finds sufficient evidence that the Dog's behavior has changed, and the Dog is no longer Potentially Dangerous or Dangerous, the hearing officer may rescind the Dangerous Dog or Potentially Dangerous Dog designation. For purposes of this ordinance, the hearing officer is the Chief of Police, or his /her designee. 3. Exceptions. a. The provisions of this Subdivision do not apply to Dogs used by law enforcement. b. Dogs may not be declared Dangerous or Potentially Dangerous if the threat, injury or danger was sustained by a person who was: 1) Committing a willful trespass or other wrongful act causing injury upon the premises occupied by the Owner of the Dog; or 2) Provoking, tormenting, abusing or assaulting the Dog, or who can be shown to have a history of repeatedly provoking, tormenting, abusing or assaulting the Dog; or 3) Committing or attempting to commit a crime. C. License Required. The Owner must annually license Dangerous and Potentially Dangerous Dogs with the City and must license a newly declared Dangerous or Potentially Dangerous Dog within fourteen (14) days after notice that a Dog has been declared Dangerous or Potentially Dangerous. Regardless of any appeal that may be requested, the Owner must comply with the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Section 347.52(a) and (c) regarding Proper Enclosures and notification to the City upon transfer or death of the Dog, until and unless a hearing officer or court of law reverses the declaration. 1. Process for Dangerous Dogs. The City will issue a license to the Owner of a Dangerous Dog if the Owner presents clear and convincing evidence that: a. There is a Proper Enclosure, as defined herein; b. There is a surety bond by a surety company authorized to conduct business in Minnesota in the sum of at least three hundred thousand dollars ($300,000), payable to any person injured by a Dangerous Dog, or receipt of a copy of a policy of liability insurance issued by an insurance company authorized to do business in Minnesota in the amount of at least three hundred thousand dollars ($300,000), insuring that Owner for any personal injuries inflicted by the Dangerous Dog. Such surety bond or insurance policy shall provide that no cancellation of the bond or policy will be made unless the City is notified in writing by the surety company or the insurance company at least ten (10) days prior to such cancellation and written proof shall be submitted that shows that the Owner's insurance provider has been notified, in writing, of the declaration of the Potentially Dangerous or Dangerous Dog; c. The Owner has paid the annual license fee established by the City Council and adopted by ordinance; d. The Owner has had a microchip identification implanted in the Dangerous Dog. The name of the microchip manufacturer and identification number of the microchip must be provided to the City. If the microchip is not implanted by the Owner at the Owner's expense, it may be implanted by the City at the Owner's expense; and e. The Owner provides proof that the Dog has been sterilized. If the Owner does not sterilize the Dog within thirty (30) days, the City shall seize the Dog and sterilize it at the Owner's expense. 2. Process for Potentially Dangerous Dogs. The City will issue a license to the Owner of a Potentially Dangerous Dog if the Owner presents clear and convincing evidence that: a. There is a Proper Enclosure, as defined herein; b. The Owner has paid the annual license fee established by the City Council and adopted by ordinance; and c. The Owner has had a microchip identification implanted in the Dangerous Dog. The name of the microchip manufacturer and identification number of the microchip must be provided to the City. If the microchip is not implanted by the Owner at the Owner's expense, it may be implanted by the City at the Owner's expense. 3. Inspection. A pre - license inspection of the premises to ensure compliance with the City Code is required. If the City issues a license to the Owner of a Dangerous or Potentially Dangerous Dog, the City shall be allowed at any reasonable time to inspect the Dog, the Proper Enclosure and all places where the animal is kept. 4. Warning Symbol. The Owner of a Dangerous Dog licensed under this Subdivision must post a sign with the unifeFm dangeFeus deg to inform children that there is a Dangerous Dog on the property, including a warning symbol on the property, at a prominent location, clearly visible from any adjoining street, sidewalk or any public right -of -way, in eFdeF te . The sign will be provided upon issuance of the license. 5. Tags. A Dangerous Dog licensed under this Subdivision must wear a standardized, easily identifiable tag at all times that contains the uniform dangerous dog symbol, indentifying the Dog as Dangerous. The tag shall be provided by the City upon issuance of the license. In case any Dog tag is lost, a duplicate shall be issued by the Police Department upon presentation of a receipt showing payment of the license fee in the current year and proof that the other conditions of this Subdivision remain satisfied. The charge for the duplicate tag shall be established by the City Council and adopted by ordinance. 6. License Fee. The City will charge the Owner an annual license fee for a Dangerous or Potentially Dangerous Dog, such fee to be established by the City Council and adopted by ordinance. D. Properly Restrained in Proper Enclosure or Outside of Proper Enclosure. While on the Owner's property, an Owner of a Dangerous or Potentially Dangerous Dog must keep it in a Proper Enclosure. Inside a residential home, there must be a secured area maintained where the Dog will stay when persons other than family members are present. If the Dog is outside the Proper Enclosure, the Dog must be muzzled and restrained by a substantial chain or leash no longer than six (6) feet and under physical restraint by an adult. The muzzle must be made in a manner that will prevent the Dog from biting any person or animal but that will not cause injury to the Dog or interfere with its vision or respiration. E. Notification Requirements to City. 1. Relocation or Death. The Owner of the Dog that has been declared Dangerous or Potentially Dangerous must notify the City Clerk in writing if the Dog is to be relocated from its current address or if the Dog has died. The notification must be given in writing within thirty (30) days of the relocation or death. The notification must include the current Owner's name and address, and the new Owner's name and the relocation address. If the relocation address is outside the City, the City may notify the local law enforcement agency of the transfer of the Dog into its jurisdiction. 2. Renter's Obligations. A person who owns or possesses a Dangerous or Potentially Dangerous Dog and who will rent property from another where the Dog will reside must disclose to the property owner prior to entering the lease agreement and at the time of any lease renewal periods that the person owns or possesses a Dangerous or Potentially Dangerous Dog that will reside at the property. A Dog Owner, who is currently renting property, must notify the property owner within fourteen (14) days of City notification if the owned Dog is newly declared as Dangerous or Potentially Dangerous and that the Dog Owner keeps the Dog on the property. 3. Transfer of Ownership into the City. No Dog that has been previously determined to be Dangerous or Potentially Dangerous by another jurisdiction shall be kept, owned or harbored in the City unless the Dog's Owner complies with the requirements of this Subdivision prior to bringing the Dog into the City. Dogs in violation of this subsection are subject to impoundment and destruction. F. Seizure. Animal control may immediately seize any Dangerous or Potentially Dangerous Dog if: 1. Fourteen (14) days after the Owner has notice that the Dog is declared Dangerous or Potentially Dangerous, the Dog is not validly licensed and no appeal has been filed; 2. Fourteen (14) days after the Owner has notice that the Dog is Dangerous, the Owner has not secured the proper liability insurance or surety eeveFage -bond as required or such required insurance or bond is cancelled; 3. The Dog is not maintained in a Proper Enclosure; 4. The Dog is outside the Proper Enclosure and not under proper restraint, as required by City Code Section 10.30, subd. 7(D); 5. Thirty (30) days after the Owner has notice that the Dog is Dangerous, the Dog is not sterilized, as required by City Code Section 10.30, subd. 7(C)(1)(e); or 6. The Dog's microchip has been removed. G. Reclamation. A Dog seized under Subdivision 7(F) above, may be reclaimed by the Owner of the Dog upon payment of Maintenance Costs, and presenting proof to animal control that the requirements of this Subdivision have been met. A Dog not reclaimed under this Subdivision within seven (7) days may be disposed of, used for research, or destroyed and the Owner will be liable to the City for Maintenance Costs. A person claiming an interest in a seized Dog may pFesent diSpeSitieA prevent disposal or destruction of the Dog by posting a security in an amount sufficient to provide for the Dog's Maintenance Costs. The security must be posted with the City within seven (7) days of the seizure, inclusive of the date seized. H. Subsequent Offenses; Seizure. If a person has been convicted of violating a provision of this Subdivision, and the person is charged with a subsequent violation relating to the same Dog, the Dog must be seized. If the Owner is convicted of the crime for which the Dog was seized, the court may order that the Dog be destroyed in a proper and humane manner and the Owner pay the Maintenance Costs. If the Owner is not convicted and the Dog is not reclaimed by the Owner within seven (7) days after the Owner has been notified that the Dog may be reclaimed, the Dog may be disposed of, used for research, or destroyed. I. Notice, Hearings. 1. Notice. After a Dog has been declared Dangerous or Potentially Dangerous or has been seized for destruction, the City shall give notice by delivering or mailing the notice to the Owner of the Dog, or by posting a copy of the notice at the place where the Dog is kept, or by delivering it to some person of suitable age and discretion residing on the property. The officer shall provide a copy of the notice served upon the Dog Owner, along with an affidavit of service, to the City Clerk. 2. Content of Notice. The notice described above must include: a. a description of the Dog, the authority for and purpose of the declaration or seizure; the time, place, and circumstances under which the Dog was declared or seized; and the telephone number and contact person where the Dog is kept; b. a statement that the Owner of the Dog may request a hearing concerning the declaration or seizure and that failure to do so within fourteen (14) days of the date of the notice will terminate the Owner's right to a hearing; c. a statement that if an appeal request is made within fourteen (14) days of the notice, the Owner must immediately comply with the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Section 347.52, paragraphs (a) and (c) regarding Proper Enclosures and notification to the City upon transfer or death of the Dog, until such time as the hearing officer issues an opinion; d. a statement that if the hearing officer affirms the Dangerous Dog declaration, the Owner will have fourteen (14) days from receipt of that decision to comply with all other requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Sections 347.51, 347.515 and 347.52; e. a form to request a hearing; and f. a statement that if the Dog has been seized, all Maintenance Costs of the care, keeping, and disposition of the Dog pending the outcome of the hearing are the responsibility of the Owner, unless a court or hearing officer finds that the seizure or impoundment was not substantially justified by law. 3. Hearing. a. After a Dog has been declared Dangerous, Potentially Dangerous or has been seized for destruction, the Owner may appeal in writing to the City within fourteen (14) days after notice of the declaration or seizure. Failure to do so within fourteen (14) days of the date of the notice will terminate the Owner's right to a hearing. The Owner must pay a fee for an appeal hearing as established by the City Council and adopted by ordinance. b. The appeal hearing will be held within fourteen (14) days of the request. The hearing officer must be an impartial employee of the City or an impartial person retained by the City to conduct the hearing. The appeal hearing shall be in an informal manner, and the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure and Rules of Evidence shall not be strictly applied. The hearing need not be transcribed, but may be transcribed at the sole expense of the party who requests the transcription. c. If the declaration or destruction is upheld by the hearing officer, actual expenses of the hearing, as well as all Maintenance Costs, will be the responsibility of the Dog's Owner. The hearing officer shall issue a decision on the matter within ten (10) days after the hearing. The decision shall be delivered to the Dog's Owner by hand delivery or registered mail as soon as practical and a copy shall be provided to the City. The decision of the hearing officer is final. d. An Owner's right to appeal or otherwise contest a Potentially Dangerous or Dangerous Dog declaration shall be deemed waived if the Owner fails to serve a written request for appeal, as required herein, or fails to appear at the scheduled appeal hearing date. J. Destruction of Certain Dogs. The Police Chief and /or hearing officer are authorized to order the destruction or other disposition of any Dog, after proper notice is given pursuant to Subdivision 7(I) and upon finding that: 1. The Dog has habitually destroyed property or habitually trespassed in a damaging manner on property of persons other than the Owner; 2. The Dog has been declared Dangerous, the Owner's right to appeal hereunder has been exhausted or expired, and the Owner has failed to comply with the provisions of this Subdivision; 3. It is determined that the Dog is infected with rabies; 4. The Dog inflicted Substantial or Great Bodily Harm on a human on public or private property without provocation; 5. The Dog inflicted multiple bites on a human on public or private property without provocation; 6. The Dog bit multiple human victims on public or private property in the same attack without provocation; 7. The Dog bit a human on public or private property without provocation in an attack where more than one (1) Dog participated in the attack; or 8. The Dog poses a danger to the public's health, safety or welfare. K. . In determining whether the Dog poses a danger to the public's health, safety or welfare, the following factors may be considered: a. The Dog weighs more than twenty (20) pounds; b. The strength of the Dog; c. The Dog's tolerance for pain; d. The Dog's tendency to refuse to terminate an attack; e. The Dog's propensity to bite humans or other domestic animals; f. The Dog's potential for unpredictable behavior; g. The Dog's aggressiveness; h. The likelihood that a bite by the Dog will result in serious injury. L. K4— Concealing of Dogs. Any person that may harbor, hide or conceal a Dog that the City has the authority to seize or that has been ordered into custody for destruction or other proper disposition shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. M. Dog Ownership Prohibited. 1. Except as provided below, a person shall not own a Dog if the person has been: a. Convicted of a 3rd or subsequent violation of City Code Section 10.30, Subd. 7(D), (E) or (F) or Minnesota Statutes Sections 347.51, 347.515 or 347.52; b. Convicted of 2nd degree manslaughter due to negligent or intentional use of a Dog under Minnesota Statutes Sections 609.205(4); or c. Convicted of Gross Misdemeanor harm caused by a Dog under Minnesota Statutes Section 609.226, Subd. 1. N. M—. Dog Ownership Prohibition Review. Beginning three (3) years after a conviction under City Code Section 10.30, Subd. 7(L)(1) that prohibits a person from owning a Dog, and annually thereafter, the person may request in writing to the Police Chief that any limitations imposed by the City be reviewed. The City may consider such facts as the seriousness of the violation or violations that led to the prohibition, any criminal convictions, or other facts that the City deems appropriate. The City may rescind the prohibition entirely or rescind it with limitations. The City also may establish conditions a person must meet before the prohibition is rescinded, including, but not limited to, successfully completing dog training or dog handling courses. If the City rescinds a person's prohibition and the person subsequently fails to comply with any limitations imposed by the City or the person is convicted of any animal violation including, Dog attacks or unprovoked bites by a Dog owned or under his or her control, the City may permanently prohibit the person from owning a Dog in this state. O. N—. Penalties. Unless stated otherwise, any person who violates a provision of this Subdivision is guilty of a misdemeanor or alternatively, any administrative penalties related to violations of this City Code Section 10.30, Subd. 7 Subdivision S. Dogs or Cats Disturbing the Peace It is unlawful for any person to keep or harbor a Dog or cat which barks, cries, squeals, howls or meows, excessively, continuously or in an untimely manner. The phrase "barks, cries, squeals, howls or meows, excessively, continuously or in an untimely manner" includes, but is not limited to, the creation of any noise by any Dog or cat which can be heard by any person, including a law enforcement officer or animal control officer, from a location outside of the building or premises where the Dog or cat is being kept, and which noise occurs repeatedly over at least a five (5) minute period of time, with a thirty (30) second or less lapse of time between each animal noise during the five (5) minute period. Subdivision 9. Interference With Officers It is unlawful for any person to take or attempt to take from any person authorized under the terms of this Section, any Dog or cat taken up in compliance with this Section or in any manner to interfere with or hinder such person in the discharge of his or her duties under this Section. Subdivision 10. Offenses; Tags It is unlawful to counterfeit, attempt to counterfeit or alter the tags provided for in this Section or to give false information concerning vaccination requirements under this Section, or take from any Dog or cat a tag legally placed upon it by its Owner with the intent to place it upon another Dog or cat, or to place such tag upon another Dog or cat. Subdivision 11. Quarantine of Dogs and Cats A. Whenever any person owning, harboring or maintaining a Dog or cat learns that such animal has bitten any human being, such person shall immediately impound said animal at such person's expense in a licensed veterinary hospital of such person's choice and shall also immediately notify the Police Department. If, however, such person submits unequivocal proof to the Police Department that said animal was effectively vaccinated in accord with this Section or approved veterinary practice at the time of said bite, the animal shall be securely quarantined at the residence of the Owner or in such other manner as the Police Department, in its discretion, may direct. B. The Police Department when informed that a Dog or cat has bitten any human being shall ascertain the identity of such animal and the person owning, controlling, or harboring it and shall immediately direct such person to immediately quarantine such animal in the manner set forth above. In the case of stray animals, or in the case of animals whose ownership is not known, such quarantine shall be at a shelter designated by the Police Department. C. Any Dog or cat which has bitten a human being shall be securely quarantined continuously for ten (10) days in the manner described above and shall not be released from such quarantine except by written permission of the Police Department. The Owner or person harboring such animal during confinement shall immediately notify the Police Department of any evidence of sickness or disease in the animal during its period of confinement. D. Upon demand made by the Police Department as contemplated above, the Owner or person harboring said Dog or cat shall immediately comply with any such demand. Said animal may be reclaimed or released from quarantine to the Owner or possessor of the animal if it is adjudged free of rabies by a licensed veterinarian, and upon payment of the license fee authorized by this Section, and compliance with all other stated requirements. Subdivision 12. Muzzling of Dogs Whenever the prevalence of rabies renders such action necessary to protect the public health and safety, the Mayor shall issue a proclamation ordering every person owning or keeping a Dog to confine it securely on the premises of such person unless it is muzzled so that it cannot bite. No person shall violate such proclamation, and any unmuzzled Dog running at large during the time fixed in the proclamation shall be destroyed by the police either with or without notice to the Owner, such notice to be at the discretion of the police. Subdivision 13. Leashing No person having the custody or control of any Dog or animal of the Dog kind shall at any time permit the same to be on or in other than land owned, leased, or occupied by the person having the custody or control of such Dog or animal of the Dog kind, without being effectively restrained by leash or command control as herein set forth, from going beyond such unfenced area or lot; nor shall any person having the custody or control of any Dog or animal of the Dog kind permit the same at any time to be on any street or public place without being effectively restrained by chain or leash not exceeding six (6) feet in length, unless accompanied by and under the control and direction of the person having control or custody so as to be as effectively restrained by command as by a leash. Subdivision 14. Running at Large The Police Department shall take up and impound any Dog or cat or animal of the Dog kind running at large in violation of this Section. Subdivision 15. Limit on Number of Dogs and Cats Not more than three (3) Dogs and three (3) cats are to be maintained on any lot or in any residence except that one (1) litter of pups or kittens in excess of the above number may be kept up to an age of ninety (90) days. Subdivision 16. Kennels A. Defined. For the purpose of this Subdivision, the term "kennels" means any place, building, tract of land, abode or vehicle, wherein or whereon three (3) or more Dogs or cats, over ninety (90) days of age, are kept, kept for sale, or boarded. B License Required. It is unlawful for any person to operate or maintain a kennel without a license therefor from the City. C. License Fee. The annual fee for a kennel license shall be established by the City Council and adopted by ordinance. D. Exception. Hospitals and clinics operated by licensed veterinarians exclusively for the care and treatment of animals and the Animal Humane Society are exempt from the provisions of this Subdivision. Subdivision 17. Humane Treatment of Dogs and Cats Every person shall provide any Dog or cat of which such person has control sufficient and proper food, water, shelter and veterinarian care. No person shall poison, overwork or mistreat or in any way further any act of cruelty to any Dog or cat whether belonging to such person or another. No person shall abandon any Dog or cat of which such person has control. Subdivision 18. Mediation In addition to, but not to the exclusion of, any criminal prosecution by reason of violations of this Section, either party involved in an alleged violation may request a mediation meeting with all other affected parties and a representative of the Police Department. Such a request shall be addressed to, and said meeting shall be arranged by, the Police Department. Subdivision 19. Restrictions on Dogs and Cats No Owner shall permit such Owner's Dog or cat to damage or foul any lawn, garden or other property. Subdivision 20. Enforcement Licensed police officers, reserve officers, and community service officers, employed by the Police Department are authorized to issue citations for the violation of this Section. ORDINANCE NO. 455, 2ND SERIES AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE Amending Section 10.30, Regarding Discontinuance of Dog Licensing Requirement (Except for Dangerous and Potentially Dangerous Dogs) The City Council of the City of Golden Valley ordains as follows: Section 1. City Code Section 10.30, subdivision 3 is hereby amended by deleting Subdivsion 3, entitled "Dog Licenses" and marking subdivision 3 as "Reserved." for future use. Section 2. City Code Section 10.30, is hereby amended by restating subdivision 4(A)(1) as follows: The Police Department shall take up and impound any unlicensed Dangerous Dog or Potentially Dangerous Dog found in the City, any Dangerous Dog or Potentially Dangerous Dog that is not properly restrained in accordance with Subdivision 7(d) herein, any Dog or cat found in the City at large while injured or diseased, any Dog or cat found off the owner's premises without the evidence required by this Subdivision of valid and current immunization, and any Dog or cat at such other occasion as may be necessary to enforce this Section. Said City personnel are empowered and instructed to enter upon any private premises where they have reasonable cause to believe there is an unlicensed Dangerous Dog or Potentially Dangerous Dog. Section 3. City Code Section 10.30, is hereby amended by adding a new subdivision 4(A)(3) as follows: 3. It is unlawful for the Owner of any Dog more than one hundred fifty (150) days of age to fail to have a valid and current rabies vaccine and to have evidence of such vaccination permanently attached to a collar kept around the neck of such Dog. Any Dog found off the Owner's premises without evidence of a valid and current rabies immunization shall be impounded. For purposes of this subdivision a Dog's vaccination with a killed rabies vaccine shall be deemed valid and current for twelve (12) months, and a Dog's vaccination with a live rabies vaccine shall be deemed valid and current for twenty -four (24) months. Section 4. City Code Section 10.30, is hereby amended by restating subdivision 4(C) as follows: C. Redemption. Any Dog or cat may be redeemed from the Police Department by the Owner within seven (7) days of the impounding by the payment to the Police Department of the license fee (as applicable) for the current year, and any additional fee if applicable, together with Maintenance Costs for each day or portion thereof that the Dog or cat is confined. Section 5. City Code Section 10.30, subdivision (4)(E) is hereby amended by inserting the word "the" before the word "total ". Section 6. City Code Section 10.30, is hereby amended by restating subdivision (7)(A) as follows: A. Adoption by Reference. Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, the regulatory and procedural provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Sections 347.50 through 347.565 (a part of the law commonly referred to as "Regulation of Dangerous Dogs ") as amended through Laws 2008, are hereby incorporated herein and adopted by reference, subject however to adoption by the City of any administrative penalties related to violations of this City Code Section 10.30, subd. 7. Section 7. City Code Section 10.30, subdivision (7)(13)(2) is hereby amended by inserting the words "Dangerous Dog or Potentially" before "Dangerous Dog" in the last clause of the second to the last sentence in the paragraph. Section 8. City Code Section 10.30, subdivision (7)(C)(1)(c) is hereby amended by inserting the words "established by the City Council and adopted by ordinance" at the end of the phrase, before the semicolon. Section 9. City Code Section 10.30, subdivision (7)(C)(2)(b) is hereby amended by inserting the words "established by the City Council and adopted by ordinance" at the end of the phrase, before the semicolon. Section 10. City Code Section 10.30, is hereby amended by restating subdivision (7)(C)(4) as follows: 4. Warning Symbol. The Owner of a Dangerous Dog licensed under this Subdivision must post a sign to inform children that there is a Dangerous Dog on the property, including a warning symbol on the property, at a prominent location, clearly visible from any adjoining street, sidewalk or any public right -of -way. The sign will be provided upon issuance of the license. Section 11. City Code Section 10.30, is hereby amended by restating subdivision (7)(C)(5) as follows: 5. Tags. A Dangerous Dog licensed under this Subdivision must wear a standardized, easily identifiable tag at all times that contains the uniform dangerous dog symbol, indentifying the Dog as Dangerous. The tag shall be provided by the City upon issuance of the license. In case any Dog tag is lost, a duplicate shall be issued by the Police Department upon presentation of a receipt showing payment of the license fee in the current year and proof that the other conditions of this Subdivision remain satisfied. The charge for the duplicate tag shall be established by the City Council and adopted by ordinance. Section 12. City Code Section 10.30, subdivision (7)(G) is hereby amended by deleting "present disposition" and inserting, "prevent disposal and destruction" after the word, "may" in the second to the last sentence in subdivision (7)(G). Section 13. City Code Section 10.30, is hereby amended by restating subdivision (7)(J)(8) as follows: 8. The Dog poses a danger to the public's health, safety or welfare. Section 14. City Code Section 10.30, subdivision (7), paragraphs (K), (L), (M) and (N) are hereby amended by adding a new paragraph (K), and renumbering the remaining paragraphs consecutively through paragraph (0); subdivision (7)(K) is as follows: K. In determining whether the Dog poses a danger to the public's health, safety or welfare, the following factors may be considered: a. The Dog weighs more than twenty (20) pounds; b. The strength of the Dog; c. The Dog's tolerance for pain; d. The Dog's tendency to refuse to terminate an attack; e. The Dog's propensity to bite humans or other domestic animals; f. The Dog's potential for unpredictable behavior; g. The Dog's aggressiveness; h. The likelihood that a bite by the Dog will result in serious injury. Section 15. City Code Section 10.30, subdivision (10) is hereby amended by adding the words "or cat" after each occurrence of "Dog ". Section 16. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, word, or other portion of this ordinance is, for any reason, held to be unconstitutional or invalid in whole, or in part, by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion will be deemed severable and such unconstitutionality or invalidity will not affect the validity of the remaining portions or this law, which remaining portions will continue in full force and effect. Section 17. City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" and City Code Chapter 10, Section 10.99 entitled "Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety, by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein. Section 18. This ordinance will be effective upon passage and publication in accordance with law. Adopted by the City Council this 15th day of February, 2011. /s /Linda R. Loomis Linda R. Loomis, Mayor ATTEST: /s /Susan M. Virniq Susan M. Virnig, City Clerk -,, galley Memorandum City Administration /Council 763- 593 -8003 1763-593-8109 (fax) Executive Summary for Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting February 1, 2011 Agenda Item 6. D. Executive Session - Christopher Gise vs City of Golden Valley Prepared By Thomas D. Burt, City Manager Summary Staff is recommending the City Council hold a closed Executive Session on February 1, 2011 in the Manager's Conference Room either during a break during the meeting or immediately following the Council Meeting. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss to discuss the Christopher Gise vs City of Golden Valley lawsuit with legal counsel. Recommended Action Motion to adjourn to an Executive Session on February 1, 2011 to discuss the Christopher Gise vs City of Golden Valley lawsuit with legal counsel.