04-14-15 CM Agenda Packet AGENDA
Council/Manager Meeting
Golden Valley City Hall
7800 Golden Valley Road
Council Conference Room
April 14, 2015
6:30 pm
Paqes
1. Recycling and Solid Waste Collection 2-5
2. Financing Brookview Cammunity Center 6-49
3. Right-of-Way Management Ordinance and CenturyLink 50-56
4. City Manager Search Timeline and Process 57
5. Duluth Street Bicycle Lane 58-62
6. General Fund Budget Transfer 63-67
7. Council Salaries Review 68-70
8. Security Update 71
9. Set Date for Board/Commission Dinner 72
Council/Manager meetings have an informal, discussion-style format and are designed
for the Council to obtain background information, consider policy alternatives, and
provide general directions to staff. No formal actions are taken at these meetings. The
public is invited to attend Council/Manager meetings and listen to the discussion; public
participation is allowed by invitation of the City Council.
` This document is available in alternate formats upon a 72-hour request. Please call
763-593-8Q06 (TTY: 763-593-3968}to make a request. Examples of alternate farm�ts �
may include (arge print, elecfironic, Braille, audiocassette, etc. � �,,
�`-����# �"�M "� ""-� _�
w�
� � ���� �:��
� � �'"� � i ��a ��� �� r �"�
,
�.E .x ., �m��r � � . �.:,�;��� „ . :� �
�.�
Physi�al I3evelc�pment T)epartment
763-s93-8�3U/75s-59�3-3�38�{fax}
� ��:����m�!r����:� ... -��,�,�������,x�r:��.:�;, � ,�����iu����,.... :. �n���� �y �. =�m_,. w� ������-��� �� �.�.
Executive Summary
Golden Valley Council/Manager Meeting
Aprii 14, 2015
Agenda Item
1. Recycling and Solid Waste Collection
Prepared By
Marc Nevinski, Physical Development Director
Summary
At the December 9, 2014 Council/Manager meeting, the Council directed staff to provide more
information on recycling and solid waste services in Golden Valley, as well as more information
on the process of establishing an organized collection system.
I. Existing Service
Solid waste and recycling are currently collected in Golden Valley as follows:
Service Provided by City
• Curbside recycling service every other week for residential units of single-family homes
through 4-plex units.
• Curbside appliance and electronic recycling (additional fees apply) is available to
properties that participate in the curbside recycling service. Residents must call in
advance to pre-arrange pickup and payment.
• Curbside Spring Brush Pickup is provided to all the properties, single-family homes
through 4-plex units. Residents must simply put the brush at the street during the week
that their area has the Spring Brush Pickup and it is collected.
• Mighty Tidy Cleanup Day (1 day, fees may apply) is an event offered each fall in the City. It
is open to all Golden Valley residents.
• Fall Leaf Drop collection events at Brookview Park (three weekends) is provided to all the
properties, single-family homes through 4-plex units. Residents simply bring their leaves
to Brookview Park and unload them. The leaves are then hauled away to a composting
facility.
Service Contracted bv Residents
• Trash service.
• Organic recycling (depends on if the service is provided by their hauler and if they want to
participate).
Service Provided by the County
• Two drop-off facilities for appliance and electronic recycling facilities (some fees may
apply) and hazardous waste collection.
• Unused medicine collection drop-offs (six locations through County, the nearest one to
Golden Valley is at Hennepin County District Court - Ridgedale).
Curbside Services Other Cities Offer
• Saint Louis Park provides all waste, recycling, and organic curbside service.
• Plymouth provides curbside recycling service, single-family through multi-family. Trash
service is contracted by individual properties.
• New Hope recycling service every other week for residential units of single-family homes
through 8-plex units. Trash service is contracted by individual properties, but there are
specific days in which the service can be completed by area.
� Crystal recycling service every other week for residential units of single-family homes
through S-plex units. Trash service is contracted by individual properties.
• Robbinsdale provides waste and recycling curbside service.
• Minneapolis provides waste and recycling curbside service.
II. Solid Waste Collection Systems
In addition to understanding the current collection system and services offered in Golden Valley,
Council stated its interest last year to learn more about organized collection in general.
There are two types of waste collection systems in Minnesota. Open Collection and Organized
Collection. Open Collection is a system where residents and businesses may contract for trash
collection with any licensed hauler. This is the system currently in place in Golden Valley.
Organized Collection is a system where a specified hauler or group of haulers is approved to
collect waste within a geographic area.
If a city wishes to implement an organized collection system, it must comply with the process
defined in State statute. In 2013, the Legislature adopted significant changes to the Waste
Management Act which simplified the process, which is outline below:
1. Notice
A city must first give notice to the public and any licensed haulers that it is considering an
organized collection system. The League of Minnesota Cities recommends publishing a
notice and mailing notice to the haulers.
2. 60-Day Ne�otiation Period
Once the City provides notice of its intent to consider organized collection, it must enter
into a 60-day period of exclusive negotiations with the licensed haulers. This period allows
haulers to collectively propose a method by which they will collect solid waste within the
city. The proposal must address iden�ified city priorities with regard to zone creation,
traffic, safety, environmental performance, service and price. It must also enable hauler
to retain their existing market share.
An organized collection agreement must be in effect for three to seven years. A city is not
required to reach agreement with the haulers on the collective proposal.
3. Or�anized Collection Options Committee
If agreement is not reached on a proposal as part of the 60-day negotiation period, the
city can form by resolution an options committee to consider various methods of
collection and issue a report. The committee is subject to open meeting law and has the
following mandatory duties:
A. Determine which methods of organized collection to examine.
B. Establish a list of criteria to evaluate the selected methods.
C. Collect information regarding the operation and efficacy of existing methods
of organized collection in other communities.
D. Seek input from council, staff, haulers, and residents.
E. Issue a report to the Council which includes its research, findings, and
recommendations.
4, Public Notice and Hearin�
If a collection agreement is reached as part of a 60-Day negotiation period, a public
hearing must be held before the council decides to implement an organized collection
system.
If a collection agreement is nat reached and an options committee is formed instead, the
council must consider the report by the options committee and then hold at least one
public hearing before implementing an organized collectians system.
5. Implementation
An organized collection system cannot be implemented sooner than six months after the
council's decision to do so. A city may provide organized collection as a municipal service
or contract with private parties. Assuming the latter, cities may implement collection
services via an ordinance, franchise agreement, contract or any other means available.
A 2009 study by the MPCA found that 20-35% of Minnesota cities had an organized collection
system. Currently, Anoka and Bloomington are, to varying degrees, contemplating organized
collection. Anoka has not provided formal notice that it is considering organized collection, but it
is studying the issue closely with the involvement of stakeholders. Bloomington has established
an options committee and is simultaneously negotiating with the haulers. St. Anthony Village
recently implemented an organized collection system which included a number of haulers.
Motivations for these cities to consider organized collection include price, street protection, and
environmental concerns.
C`1�� (7� ,�'.�.
.�
Administrative Services Department
763-593-8013/763-593-3969(fax)
.� � �.�d� ��� . ...� � �i'm � a,
� _..�1��W"���.t� �-�:s._�.���t��i� �r ��: � �.�k a�4��,._ .;..... r ; � � ` ' �. N .; x�i�4n'd , . _
Executive Summary
Golden Valley City/Manager Meeting
April 14, 2015
Agenda Item
2. Financing Brookview Community Center
Prepared By
Sue Virnig, Finance Director
Rick Birno, Director of Park & Recreation
Summary
The Brookview Community Center Task Force presented their final report to the Council on
January 20, 2015. The report is a concept design building plan and cost estimate of$38,381,374.
The second option is a replacement of Brookview Community Center at an estimated cost of
$12,000,000.
The third option is to renovate existing building.
All options will impact the 2016-2017 Biennial Budget and 2016-2020 Capital Improvement
Program, Staff would like Council direction so the community center costs can be included in the
upcoming budget process.
Attachments
• Brookview Community Center Building Assessment dated luly 1, 2014 (18 pages)
• Option 1- Brookview Community Center Task Force Final Report
Brookview Community Center Feasibility Study Summary Report dated December 31, 2014
(15 pages)
• Option 2- Brookview Community Center replacement (3 pages)
• Option 3- Maintaining the current building (included in Cost Outline)
• Three Options - Cost Outline (3 pages)
• House Research - Bill Summary H.F. 782 and H.F. 1671 (3 pages)
• League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo - City Special Elections - Section V. D. Reverse
referenda or election to revoke council action (1 page)
.�,.ry, �
����������:
�,�m
Brooicview Community Center
Building Assessment
July 1, 2014
���
HGA COMMISSION NUMBER2065-004-00
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Golden Valley hired HGA to study three sites for a potential Community Center. One of the three
sites is located at 200 Brookview Parkway and would involve reuse or demolition of the e�sting
Community Center building. We have been asked to perform an assessment and write a short
narrative on our recommendation as to whether a remodel or addition is feasible.
A thorough assessment of the exisung facility was performed by HGA architectural, structural,
mechanical and electrical professionals on May 14, 2014. We recognize some positive aspects of
keeping the e�sring facility, including historical value, embodied energy of existing construction and
cultural memory of the Center that has served its constituents well for almost 100 years. However,
several critical issues that require extensive study and cost to correct were noted and are reported in
more detail in the following pages. The facility has experienced significant deterioration over its life
and needs corrective measures to fix moisture problems inside and out. The air handling units are
past their expected life span and the chillers need replacement. There is questionable capacity of
structural elements that must be addressed. In addition, as a Community Center, access is currently
challenged. Restrooms and locker rooms do not meet current codes and vertical circulation between
floors is only possible by navigating exterior ramps. In addition, this access from the exterior does
not meet current code requirements.
A Golden Valley Task Force has established a vision for the project with important guiding
principles at its core:
The new Golden Valley Community Center is envisioned as a gathering place for the entire Golden
Valley community in its use and identity. Attracrion of residents of all ages is central to this vision,
including building accessibility as well as breadth of programining supported by its spaces and
building systems. A facility that supports these goals will be physically accessible and
programmatically fle�ble.
Given the goals of the project moving forward and the significant cost to correct e�sting problems,
our recommendation is to replace the Brookview Community Center. This will allow the new
facility to be right-sized, accessible, purpose-built and energy efficient for the long-term benefit of
the community.
Brookview Community Center Building Assessment Page 1
HUA Commission Number?065-004-00 July 1,2014
ARCHITECTURAL NARRATIVE
The Brookview Community Center in Golden Valley, Minnesota was originally constructed in 1918.
Since that time, the Center has gone through a number of renovations and additions to meet the
growing demands of the City of Golden Valley. The Center, once again, is at the point where a
decision needs to be made, whether to expand and renovate the e�sting facility or build a new
facility. This report addresses an assessment of the e�sting Community Center facility only. It
should be noted that minimal drawings were available for this study, so some of the information
provided is assumed at this time.
The Community Center is appro�mately 19,300 gross square feet (GSF) total, with 11,300 GSF on
the Lower Level and roughly 8,000 GSF on the First Level. The building is primarily of wood
construction,which would be classified as a Type III or Type V construction per the current edition
of the Minnesota State Building Code (MSBC). The Lower Level perimeter appears to be of block
construction. The Center appears to be at least partially-sprinklered. That said, per Table 503 of the
MSBC, the facility is close to the ma�mum allowable area for this construction type, most likely
Type III-B. Any addition would need a fire separation from the existing facility.
The Center comprises mixed occupancy types;A-3 primary occupancy (Community Rooms on First
Level), B occupancy (Office Areas),A-2 occupancy (Dining at Lower Level), and type M occupancy
(Pro Shop on Lower Level). For non-separated occupancies, the A-3 was used for checking
allowable square footage from Table 503.
Checking the e�sting required egress components, it is observed that none of the e�sting stairs
meet current code, mosdy due to handrail and guardrail requirements. Given that this is a public
facility, the e�t stairs would need to be updated per current MSBC requirements as part of any
renovarion.
At present, the Brookview Community Center Building functions as two separate buildings. This is
partially a result of funcrion, but, more importantly, because there is no elevator. Any mobility
challenged person trying to travel between floors is forced to go outside, traverse the ramping
system and re-enter the building. This is unacceptable for any community facility. In order to meet
the current Minnesota State Accessibility Code,much of the Center would need to be upgraded.
In addition to the elevator, it was observed that none of the toilet faciliries meet the cuYrent
accessibility requirements and would need to be fully renovated. To do so in the current footprint
of the toilet rooms would likely result in the loss of one fixture in each room. It should be noted
that this loss would likely result in a deficit of fixtures required based on occupancy classification, as
set forth in the Plumbing Code. The locker rooms on the Lower Level also do not meet current
accessibility requirements. Again, in the current space, the loss of one fixture is likely. One
accessible shower stall in each locker room would also need to be added. To affectively address
these issues, the locker rooms would require complete demolition and renovation.
It was observed that the original 1918 portion of the Center has settled and is not level (refer to the
structural report for more information). Much of the main storage for the facility is within the
mechanical room in the Lower Level,which is not permitted and would need correction.
Brookview Community Center Building Assessment Y�ge 2
I IGA Cominission Numbcr 2065-004-00 July 1,2014
ARCHITECTURAL NARRATIVE
The small kitchen facilities would also need a thorough evaluation and inspection from a code
perspective. The kitchens are not for cooking, but only preparation. For large events at the
Community Center, only off-site catering can be accommodated. Therefore, the kitchen funcrions
as a catering and waYming kitchen onl�.
The flat roof areas are not adequately sloped to the roof scuppers, resulting in ponding water. Not
surprisingly, water damage to the rooms below this area, as well as to the foundation walls, can be
observed. The e�sting windows are not thermally efficient and have some rot due to exposure to
the elements and leaking over the years.
It was observed that the site retaining wall adjacent to the golf clubhouse area is settling and pulling
away. Due to this, it is also pulling away portions of the patiq walkway and ramp. This uneven
settlement has created uneven pavement, causing a tripping hazard. At the base of the ramp leading
from this area to the First Level, the setdement differential is in excess of 1", which is greater than
that allowed by code for an accessible ramp.
In summary, based on this site observation from May 14, 2014, and a limited review of available
documents, the existing Brookview Community Center Building is in need of extensive renovation
to bring the facility to current Minnesota State Building Code standards and Minnesota State
Accessibility Code standards. Many corrections to the exterior would also need to be made to stop
further damage due to exposure to the elements and settlement.
Brookview Community Center Building Assessment Page 3
HGA Commission Number 2065-004-00 July 1,2014
STRUCTURAL NARRATIVE
On May 14, 2014, a site visit was made to inspect the condition of the existing Brookview
Community Center Building to determine the feasibility of continued use with future remodeling of
the existing facility versus demolishing and building new. All information and recommendations
within this report comes from visual observation during the tour, as well as e�sting drawings
provided to HGA by Brookview Community Center. The original construction documents are not
available; only some of the remodeling drawings e�st at this time.
Without original e�sting drawings, the full structural evaluation requires the follo�ving efforts be
undertaken:
First, a condition survey and forensic investigation will need to be conducted. This involves testing
for moisture penetrarion, in-place nondestructive testing, as well as demolition for material sampling
in preselected areas. These procedures will require isolated removal of e�sting finishes and testing in
limited areas identified through the close collaboration of the engineering, architectural and
investigation team.
Second, drawings based on these finding will need to be created illustrating representative as-built
conditions along with any necessary retrofitting in areas impacted by new addition/retrofitring. Any
addirions, alternations or repairs should comply with current code provisions for new construction.
These assumptions in design direction should be verified with the local building official having
jurisdiction over the project.
The original Brookview Community Center was built in 1918 and constructed with a combination of
materials including exterior wood studs bearing walls above ground, concrete walls below ground,
roof glulam beams spanning over community rooms,and wood trusses spanning over administrauve
area. The floor above the Basement was constructed using timber columns, 2" x 6", 8"and 10"
purlins spanning up to 16 inches on centers and wood girders spanning between the columns.
Limited areas were exposed to verify the structural system throughout the whole structure.
As the result of visual observation of structure, the following are the concerns of structural distress
and require future investigation and repairs to continue to use the building with current functions.
Basement Structural Condition
The main concern for structural stability is the current state of the wood structure supporting the
Main Floor, particularly in the administrative portion of the building. Some of the wood purlins are
damaged or cracked to the point that the capacity to carry the load is questionable. Also, the wood
posts in several places are not properly supported to the girders above. Using wood shims for girder
support in some areas is not acceptable.
The setdements of the structure below are noticeable by walking on the Main Floor in the entry hall
and administrative part of the building. It appears that the structural problems with this part of the
building are long-term and were repaired several times during the life of the structure. The most
intensive strengthening and re-supporting of the structural wood floor system was done in 1984,
based on TKDA drawings. However, only part of the floor was retrofitted; the rest of the structure
has continued to deteriorate over the past 30 years.
Brookview Community Center Building Assessment Page 4
[IGA Commission Number 2065-004-00 )uly 1,2014
STRUCTURAL NARRATIVE
We believe that the structural problem with the wood floor needs to be addressed as soon as
possible to restore the capacity to carry the loads and prevent future deterioration of the structure.
Roof Structure over Community Rooms
The roof over the entire building consists of several steps in elevarion. The top of the roof was not
observed during our visit. The structure supporting the large and small community rooms consists
of wood glulam beams spanning between exterior and interior bearing walls. In general, the beams
appear to be in good shape. A small sag in beams at the large room and a small crack (split) at the
bottom cord of one of the beams is visually noticeable. It is not a concern at this time based on the
long life of the structure, and there is no heavy mechanical/electrical equipment load on the roof.
However,it will be prudent to check the capacity of the structural elements to make sure they are in
compliance with the code.
Building on top of the existing structure or adding additional load is not feasible, as it was not
intended in the original building design.
Exterior of the Building Observations
There is significant deteriorarion visible on the walls in several locarions due to moisture penetration
and subsequent freeze-thaw action. The source of moisture infiltration can be traced to typical areas
such as roof/plaza flashing, high sidewalk elevation with salt splashes and debonded mortar bed
joints. Renovation work should not only involve repairing damaged areas, but also taking correcrive
measures at the sources of moisture infiltration to limit future deterioration.
Also, the soil retention wall at the west side of the building is separated vertically from the railing
and leans toward the west,up to four-five inches at some points.
The structural part of the report covers only the main frame structural elements. However, many
other architectural and engineering survey items are affecting the overall building integrity. Many
areas of the building are covered with architectural finishes and the structural condition is unknown.
Based on the first impression and short-time observation, the large scale renovation of the building
will be very cosdy. It will require rebuilding a large part of the structure, including floor, roof,
bearing walls and retaining walls, as well as other major building systems mentioned in this report.
Brookview Community Center Building Assessment Pagc 5
f iGA Commission Numbcr 2065-004-00 July 1,2014
MECHANICAL NARRATIVE
Air Handling Equipment
Any remodel of the e�sting building will require the ventilation systems to meet current codes for
ventilation air. The cooling coil schedule from the 1984 drawings for the air handling units serving
the Community Rooms and Seniors' Room shows that the units are designed to bring in 20%
outside air. ASHRAE design standards require that meeting rooms be designed for 50 people per
1,000 SF. Using this standard, the Seniors' Room would have 58 people, and would require 580 cfm
of outside air. The total supply air to the Seniors' Room is 600 cfm, or 120 cfm of outside air (20%).
The two community rooms total approximately 3,140 SF, and would require 1,500 cfm of fresh air.
The system supplies approxirnately 630 cfm of fresh air to the two rooms combined.
Some of the building's air handling units are located outside the building, which lessens the life of
the equipment. A packaged rooftop unit installed outdoors in the Midwest has a median expected
life span of 23 years according to the American Society of Heating Refrigeration and Air
Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE.) The newest unit at this facility is an outdoor air handling unit,
Lennox Model RDE installed in 1991, making it 23 years old. tlll other air handling units are older
than their expected service life.
Heating Equipment
The building's boiler was installed in 1984, making it 30 years old. The unit is well maintained, and
boilers of this type can last 40 years or more if well maintained.
Chillers
The chillers are Trane split systems. They were installed in 1984. The average life expectancy of this
type of chiller is 32 years. The chillers use refrigerant R22 which is an ozone-depleting refrigerant
and has been scheduled for a complete phase-out. In 2010 the manufacturers of R22 were allowed
to produce only 10% of the volume produced at peak production. By 2014 they will no longer be
allowed to produce any of this refrigerant. A leak of this type of refrigerant could prove to be very
cosdy to replace.
Fire Protection and Domestic Water
This facility is fully covered with fire sprinklers in every room, and the fire pump has passed its
annual inspection. The domestic water service from the City has a backflow preventer as required
by code. The domestic water heater is appro�rnately five years old and in good condirion.
In summary, it is our recommendation that all mechanical air handling systems be replaced due to
the age of the equipment and the inadequate quantity of outside air being supplied to the current
gathering spaces. Increasing the air supplied to these areas will require larger distribution ductwork
and therefore all supply and return ducts would also have to be replaced. In addition, the chillers are
also nearing the ma�mum estimated service life and will become more difficult to service as the
refrigerant used is phased out of production.
Brookview Community Center Building Assessment Pagc 6
I�GA Commission Number 2065-004-00 July 1,2014
ELECTRICAL NARRATIVE
The building electrical service was updated and enlarged with the building remodel designed in 1984.
The remodel included the west large Community Rooms, Catering Kitchen, Lower Level Locker
Rooms, and Offices.
The existing service is a 120/240V single-phase SOOA underground service from an Xcel pad-
mounted transformer outside the east wall of the building at the Lower LeveL Ma�mum demand
for 2013 was 93kW in May. This equates to 500 amps used of the 800A service. The e�sting
building is appro�mately 19,300 square feet. This load equates to 6.6 Watts/SF for a ma�mum
load. Basically,the existing service is at ma�num load,with no capacity for expansion.
Electrical service equipment is in very good condition; however,it is in the Lower Level on the east
exterior wall, and the Lower Level has experienced flooding in that area. This area also has very low
structure which would hinder adding feeders to the e�sting switchgear. Considering these two
issues, the service equipment should be in a different locauon, not below grade, and have adequate
vertical clearance. The equipment has adequate clearance to the front and working space from side
to side.
It should be noted that this service is a single-phase service, due to the fact that the building is in a
residential neighborhood with single-phase primary overhead lines in the area owned by Xcel
Energy. This is also the largest service size available from Xcel as single-phase, and the largest pad-
mounted transformer available. Planning for an addition to this building or a larger building as a
replacement will require Xcel Energy to extend three-phase primary power to the site for the
electrical service. This should be investigated early with Xcel Energy as there may be significant cost
associated with this construction.
Load centers are located in several locations on both levels. It was observed that circuits have been
added without attention to area/closest panel.
Lighting is a mix of fluorescent and incandescent, with exterior and site lighting being mosdy high-
pressure sodium. There is no generator for the building. There is limited battery pack egress
lighting and battery pack e�t signs.
The building has a fairly new fiber optic service for phone and data connections. Fiber entrance is
in the Lower Level adjacent the electric service equipment. On the Upper Floor Level there is a
small staff room with IT equipment on wall-mounted racks and "chain suspended" shelves. It is
typical practice to have a telecom closet, with a separate cooling system to provide 24/7 system
cooling, to house IT equipment and in which cabling terminates.
There is a minimal fire alarm system in the building— notification and manual system. The system
includes fire sprinkler system connections. The e�sting system is code compliant. The e�sting
system may not have expansion capability.
Brookview Community Center Building Assessment Pagc 7
HGt�Commission Number 2065-004-00 July 1,3014
ELECTRICAL NARRATIVE
In summary, the existing electrical system is in fair condition,yet operates at ma�mum load to serve
current needs. Any expansion will require a new enlarged three-phase service. In addition, Xcel
Energy should be contacted to discuss three-phase power access if renovation or expansion is
pursued.
Brookview Community Center Building Assessment Yage 8
HGA Commission Number 2065-004-00 July 1,2014
IMAGES
Main Entrance to Community Center
■ First Level elevated from parking below by one story.
■ Anyone disable forced to traverse ramping system to enter this level.
■ Seniors forced to climb stairs to enter rather than at-grade.
.� �
�4"`� ����*� � �,� �p� � �,+�'
�.,.4�. � ,. .�. . a r��i�
N� ��r
� t.� �'+a.�� �
�� �� e
��:����� � � � '�.� :a
-�rs o''� �� *��# .� ��a�Araauo� .._ ��'
H ^' � � ' �erw�.r . t.
� �� nU �"r : 1N �"�"' �"�� § " �ai5 b
.,xa �j ���;#h� c��i. �'� . _ . .._...,._ "�'��u`� � � se�..
�E .i�• �{a � $,�� . ��ii:="--^s,_,__..,.�.�.W ,..._._ .,,,,,��'.."'.."'""s",."` �'^ $ ���
�",af � ; � _............. ��
� ,.��.g �'�" � _...-.. .
. �{x� � M f i �� � �....�.�.�,.a._»m.._-�_,,, m-�,�� � .. . _
� � F Y �� _.._ -._e.. ...«�,........e. +��i�' j*�fT*na"wu�. ,@hH,..X
^��� , t �� 3 �;• �a,�i��.t�t�� ��" �
�; �; r. @i,r �� �; ` ..._._.____� � �`� _
�� � f �� P ^� ��� �� '� � � ''� R s, � �� � � � `�}�ry��;� }
t
r � . . ' �tt � m� � k��.�;',�� p.
, ,L .�.�.�.. ..... t�
.��., �_. , .�. �R .'�. {��Y� .., s� :� g� . �„ x <
� rv �
t � 1¢4
� {y � � ,. � ,,�k.{ ...,._... � tS� a� � E
a
� �� �..
� z. , � � .P���� .... ...„;�, V .... . .�.� " ...
. . ._..... . ._._ t ,.� ..., .. ?^M . _.
` � .
� ,;; �.{. s _'_� �x _ �
___.,.a_.__�
t��Vt �
_ ,.,
�'�
,. �;
, � . ,
�, .� ,,� �
.
r .
_ . � , , •N ._._
. �y _ . .«...�.�s _..,..w. �
; y..
,,,
_ .... � ,a. �c.��yi�"—..'�—' �... . � ,., �.,.;..�,,._...4.,� ':
�� �� � "�
_
. ,
. ,
�w.,...0,
i
J,
, � ., � �t .. . �f �
� �
��ahz _ � ;— . � .% . . . �.
,..�,�.,., r . ,., _ . � . �. _.,. .
Brookview Community Center Building Assessment Yagc 9
I IGA Commission Numbcr 2065-004-00 July 1,2014
IMAGES
Restroom Stall
Does not meet MN State Accessibility Code requirements
■ Inadequate clearances within stall, rypical for each
■ Grab bars not to code
� �"��'�� �a �.,�- :�� ��� �
h a f� . ,-��N
3
- �;,`.,. r.{, � , ,.. �`Y% � . �� � e:. .�':.
_ `� �'� �� 'r�� � ,.�
�t � , u%,2.� � ?. '4 �, F
a #'� { '$ . t„�� . �" �" b
� ��k � . �� �., �� '�;
��., � j , ���� �'�d �. .
��"f�'., ,v� . � �.
f`'-X� ✓�„��:+„$i} },i , :.: .. . . .
,{ ��?�t — 1....�� I � '"w .
�`ra ��� , '�"" s }��' ..
.� ie�;<*� s � ��
� �
nk,., ��„";;
t��:� � r'�' . . k yi�'
�:.r
� � � ��� �� �""���w
� �� `
� � ��,��� , �
�� � �
�` �r ,�, � � ,, h3, ,�} �
� �
x. ..�i� � Yd'. r:t
�; , � � .
� � � ��' ��. � ���'' � �
� ps'� � � �„,� �"�"� �
ta }
"'4 � t., ti d ! 4 0 �
� �€� ��y g ...,,� +�"n �' 3� �� �.
� �^.�,, , .,,i ` + ,
..,�`.., •.i`� t.` `.�a '; ��:.:�i
.:��' � ". } ��} ������ �. �..
" �+ yr. �����` �'
".1 '� M I� I�F��'i v}�i 4•��f�� S - �y .
v
;z `'
• ` y s� �"' 4� p;7
� # y �� ,��,, .
<�`' .t� ' �i��� `�'(
�, q ' a �.,'� h� `�1. ��. '� a °� t�r� ,
��- a� ` ,�"� u� �d�� d ��� ����1r, a� y
� z ' y 4 t sk,: � t:, � � �� � >��t
� �� ' �� �.x .��.," �T � '� �a�e�'.
� d�� 'F�,. a: '� ..u. ,„r, x.
��� `^ ,;«7 �,. � �' yp s,:
�# -:r r�p':z'� d .§ � latt �,. N�` �•1py����.
�'a a ,'y;X .�'N .,�k �e k 3 �; '�7. �,r
�.r, � � �? ..�
� ... . 1. �f,. . . .
Brookview Community Center Building Assessment Pagc 10
1 IUA Commission Number 2065-004-00 July 1,2014
IMAGES
Restroom Urinals
Does not meet MN State Accessibiliry Code requirements.
�, � ; � � ��������,� �:,
� ` � � ��
� . . �� y `�t� R }��*f'�b #
� tt?r
� A ��' .c�, kr i��'#�.,�t � �� �.;" ,,.r�,.
t
� �r �"' ���e^'<
�k� f # M
� � ',�.�{r t �. .
v'
. § " . , �}�." ��2� �.
v
Y S9 I .
f,. � z '.�w ������ ..,,�'^�c
k� . .. . . . ... .. � �,����i `��
��w�.a
s
. . . ��.;: k,'�,. . �.�:
� : -� f � .. j `
, p+ r
�, � �r
� ��� ,
, ,
� ; .. . � , .. � .. E� *�'�' ;"� `� �. ° .
� s� ��� � � ���+,
c ! �
- � a'+ � _ '_ �
� y F p s,�a�ti ' �.. d �
# # � , e � ���� �
�t�� ��'���� � �j 12 , ��,;�
� {z� �,r k
� �€t t� �d, i � .. . � , .;'� � t
� � � �st� ��w ��� ��� � � �� ���� � � �
�t s ?' ° 's�� �,� �`���
�t� �k � r�� � s�-y��. � � �
'� . � . r ;�� .
�� � . "' _ � � � +y sk�`h'�'.' '�;Xt� ,�`'���i .
Y } � . � . . ^ � � w�. - �• .
� � �. ;: t���. t.�'r.
��' ����� x�„ . , `.�. ' � � as - .
^'�,����� rX�k� ���t� ��� �.. � � „ .
s
�h � f ��l� s� L�� �a;����' � zf� .
.
. .
� �,, i .�
,nl,a '�'i. . :� � w .'S;�, &; y #;,.' .,..t �. . ..
.�,�� g.�� . �� f � ` � ; �
i,�ik '� ^r`���, �"� '� � � � ! ��#�
�.�r �`'��-R.� �# �r ;
:.�tr,Ld- f `�rYWYJi
Brookview Community Center Building Assessment Page 11
HG/1 Commission Number 2065-004-00 July 1,2014
IMAGES
IT Room, Office Storage, Copy Room
■ Inadequate space
■ Hazardous
� ��.C��{� �- ,� , ry,�
�' � .7""+C'�'� �., s�k 9^ k� 6'
�� a2 'S�a*�Rk�V��a. 7x
r
�`:
� i � ��t�
�
�' �l�� ��`�'
� t � �F��,
� I��� ��;, '�� � � f '�
� J�j� u �� � :� �._
���`�--,,,.� ,�-'',`"` �� 1T�• � � � �
� _ �,�.-: �'"�- � � �.sx,,�� ����
�
�►� �� �a �° �,�� , �
�,�" b 4 �" � z��� ���s �,� ' � � e �� �
p�. ' �� '� .;� d '.t 4 �y � Fa;
i
} ,„�,� � �[ �' ,�
�4` �*��f �"y !1 �5 ' ��i � ��'e
i �
� � �: � _
� � � �
�� �
, �*�'`� '��t , '
� -- �4t« �.. �. �
� �}' ` 4 } �.m$
���� k
` " -
. �� Y
+ �
� �
�1�� ��E � " � �i ,n
°k �i���Y 6.
z*. � ��,
k��j'. :y. � .. �
�"f^ fi k� '�� �'� ' �
''+c ��� �� i4{ E
��'. �'�'? ��i E � � u �^ � � 5'
�, 'SFw �Y! � ' t,.. . ��� � � r¢'�
. �_��Aa � � �t 3 G.
i ���`� ��,r � ��i, � �: �.
� � �,��� 4 � �' `� s� v ��
` � � �x
r s ����r+ �����, 1' "'* ` s �" � �'
� 3 s �a��� ��h*� +� �.; �
�"� t�* �� � .i � ����
v��� �, = `"; � �� z f ����;`
��,,-,,- � � �� �t� � �
�� �: � ��� � i �,' � � �
y � �� `# �:! � � ,; � z�, t �
��� ,�� � �� �r��
R z�f � �, -�� � 3; �' %:��
' *kA ,�,�a'�
�, �
. , , � ,.
�' � ,.� �.
tar�"�a,* y��R� ` r
�, ,_ �� b t"}
� �}rv" � r ;;:
� � �' �
i � �'
�
'
CJtu,.. . ,. ._ . . �.. �_w+.x., t..:._. ' ... .,... . . .
Brookview Community Center Building Assessment Page 12
I IGA Commission I�umber 2065-004-00 ]uly 1,2014
IMAGES
Mechanical Room
■ Building storage within Mechanical Room
■ No sprinkler system in storage room
� ���r �� �, , �.
Ke.^lW��'� {c'`�.i:. ., � . .. � ��� >> �. ' �'� ' �.p,y p.'A� �j t
ue�#-i;�* E � .� . .. � r ' ;i .
�- "'�, �r���1 �� � a � ; r ��' '� `2 ��f
�_ �1��� ,�, � �R. c� � �
.� � .��
f �
e 1�?R�^�. �r 'f r ,.;y2p ;pNMr'.AS� .� -- �,'� � �`'
. �dq � �; # fr'# � �`� ,
i
1 �� £
�,.i� ,�,,n� s��� ^k...'. `" � k ����� .r��"';�r�i�� �'� �:' � .
t,� ��'�"`� � �# � �� kp'-.°e$� �.w�� t �xi. ,,.-..�.+� � ��'r���
� Sy. y„
�f� 1 ' � , k '1 y.V t( : .�'.�7�'.I:N?F.. �_�, ',.:,:�
� hml��� � �{, yp�w ..
'.i _"1`�-��+�3� ...Y� ���. �.iHY.� .
R¢
! �y„ u� �Ik $ � '�i.t � .. � .Jw^�u�:,ew+� �;.�(,�� {�y,+
� f �s��� �� �
�; ���� �.�� � ���. .__ ��� ',� �
»�. '� � � � �=, � ' S y . ;„'�`v` '�
, � .�`�� �� : r ,k � ,{ � � � � �r�'
}���i�„
� �b ������_ = n s� .�,����,xi�d�
k�r� r,�, �; ,� ��� � �r
�� � � �� � �;� �3 � � ����
� ��� ' ��'k � ta ,�'�
° at Y`
av �,�, . ,�t,� "a ��( ,�} v ,�q.
y�� ,` .. F , �,� }.�'��`. ° I I��I�++iIl+,!;�II�� ."",� � ,e��.s,:
'�+� aJ.. �,� . t t ��.s
x ' az
�1 6 I� �� ��[� �
� � ��„� n �� eid� �� ��,�� ,;�
�` �4�,�� �' �{' ` � r `` �� �
;�; � E �
,
� � �_ � �
. �.. � .
, �. ,
�»: '.::��„ �
� ��� �c� � „�
# t�t � �.�
�� � ,.. ,
� i�� "�j �.
`�
� � � ����, �"
�
Brookview Community Center Building Assessment Pa�c 13
HGA Commission Number 2065-004-00 )u1y 1,2014
IMAGES
Ramp
Base of ramp leading to the First Level
■ Does not meet MN State Accessibility Code requirements
■ Greater than 1/2" permitted by code
,� ..
.• � ��, � ��
� � ' �
< <�.�_ 4 � n � �
�.�
�; ��' ,r
, ��T �i,` � �
i�ij.�
,.:k�,...:i ..
a
^e
.. ��Km��zT� . . 'i_. - .
t 4 ��b A
. '�• ,'k} : .� • 1 w
r+�^` . k� {�}� > '��.�M4'���
�
� r �,Sa._i: d`
. .� �' . � E �� _
r;t:'� ��,� � . � � t . .
#' ( �
� s�"���, '�'�" ^,�` "'s,
;�^,� '� ;m,w'Z
t �
fm�
� ' �f��.����� � � �`�' � .�a' '�
� �� x � � � �
`A ,;,,�;� '�'" �. *�,.�'s��� b�� ��
ra ,#, �„��� � ... � �� � ��: � � t
; � ` `
=t
� :� ,: �� . �� ,i,��`�, f`.�3 ���-� ��
;,� ,� ta �— . ;-. �.�_; ., •. � �
� � � "�����;� ��
� _ �� ..� «:, ��
. r
� •
, ���, , ti � �m �
�;� '
,�a �„ �� � � �`,�•� � . �. � �,
'��' ' � �.: � � '�
�� �'� �,� $I f, -:��� , � +�a
� k ' $ f.. . "bt ��y ,T , � � 'rc .
{b; �.j �S �� �� � �;i. � L;� �R
� �'� �.f� �T � � .
,- 4,°:: �� � � � .. '� «s ., �
�� � r ��, �
,:���� ` �
, � � ��x� �.
, - r�} 4 ,r 1s�� .
� �� �e� � ��" , �
�
,
.�. � 'r m ''��'" �"i
�� :,.x:��s .. . ,� F�'� � �4i"� .,
, -
� � ,. + k,�
� . ��: � :.�,
., �� :...�. '�a.�.�' ,`;.:.o�• , .., . -.. R. ��,,-� �Fi
Brookview Community Center Building Assessment Page 14
HGA Commission Number 2065-004-00 )uly 1,2014
IMAGES
Guardrails
Does not meet MSBC Chapter 10 requirements for guardrail at open side of stair an on Upper Level
■ Dimension between pickets cannot exceed 4"
�'�"��°` �' �`'�:�r
���,� ��,.
-�,�;� �, � �.r,
���, {� �
�� s i � .:;�
; » �n
�iM't: � ��
,.
.���I!# V�'=FI . w }gq� s, �E � ��
4 ,55 • y�
` . ,. � . '�j"i°Y�� �� ��� ' � s��9�fi �,d� �y��v}.{�� �A
� �� . � &
� �
_._
, . ,��
���,� . , � �
"' ��,,�.� �. , � �w. �
.. � i r
�---._�.a..�,�,�_ .. .. � t M,' - �.�, . '^r.-.�
� ` , 'E`�pµ}! ' ( ' " �. ��"'tM^� .
�'�- .s i ` j „-� •
�
# �
} N
�}r . ... �... '' .� .
..�... �4 � .
h
- ��— ....__..,,,,—... � . , y�� P�,. �,.
�,_._,., d'� , En� �
•.,,�,"
r .��3 u �i
„ ��� �� �� ��.,, � � �`�� •
,-i�•���� , �,a �, "'..".�. ,�
a
� `
� ` ! � ,,�,�'� s �{� �'�� �w X .�,�
� y� � t `r ��� e „ i � �� & '�
� �p (( � :�' '�;, i�i.�.cr' � r 1��. .lE.�,� 'a s � ��i
� 4 9
� , ; � t ! ��, �t ��'� �'hu',� a � �4 i h .��: " ��,. `�� �',���� �` e4 � '���
� ��, f � �� .$� #� ' I i Y4 :� ���� ';�� =� ,...:..��'j �F a
'��t' �s� x�:' �Fa �� �'�;� � � � .�q' [ ::fl; p �. �..
� R�{e 5 ' .. � � $}:� R,«� �tfi�gX�� '^^'1"e..�.
� � �'..#d33� �� � ` '�.Y ` '�f✓�,��/�"'•.
� � �N .. � .•, � `'
r
. : '� a^, �.,� . ,�: �y s ,,xr
�
�Y.. , . .� , . .
�
.. . ' . � . ,. � �'� ;. .. ��� �- . . rc '7.;a r � ,.,�. .. r...
� �' � � �^._ .�_ . ��� , . � x� _
,
i
aumN ,��.�r �s. . .• p " x . .
� °b
� t
��,�� ,
n+�M'9 •���u t:, �� ,iy,a..,�.id.� �*3R
� . .�.� ����� . A4.�.. .
�= �f� � ur„
> �'ta+�
. � �j� �� , ,t
� " ���. ,a,. � " . . � �,�:�.N �
�� � -
�`_'",,'� ��.� � � "��ax� ��
j:.�,��� �
�....�.-•:<, .. � .. ; .
Brookview Community Center Building Assessment Page 15
EICA Commission Number 2065-00�00 Ju1y 1,2014
IMAGES
Roof
■ Ponding water due to inadequate slope to Yoof scuppers at perimeteY wall.
■ Water damage observed to areas below.
� � � r,{� �* � �� �1#'
a ' 4���t, �
�`���� t� �` � €tl {�y. �s:, rx,��:�" ��r �d .
.,�.., F• ; Li i:°� 1 � g .�� �r 3 I .i`j y� , . .. .
��,r i ,
�� ,. �. ' " r � "-1 �� . .
� : $,fii1 ' :. u1t j�^",�+gM �� �. . �4•,.,.
"f � �` �y� , �k
$# M! . ��,{ �y �.'Y � �fj"t,j 1 } �x �."`'�. ......
���',^�, �b§I"ieM. �°` f i: �� ��Y���� � i � � {'��#� ; , .. . .
��. - � '� � � ��� � � � �{��! �.��` ����{ .
. i,�. . *� � ` �' • ,�� � 4 � '� �f��s
' �y � (t 'r� � �� �� ! � # � _. n_ ,�_
���,�s „� �� r
� ,m �« � � � . �'��
g ' ��`*��+���_- r
� : �
a�r ._
�� s„
cb. i�r�aii����. ���',� ,.� yra� ne�s�.+$i �a� p � ��,� "�P
� �' ' �`� +����� t ��-.... ¢�,�-� � .��,��������ld�i�� ...._. .,.. ..
r`°. z fF�F ��;.�a,. � � � ��;� ��� a 5�r��F� . . ..
�
�"►'.�yry�, g R ��� '�',.`�'� " � z,`. .:�$,.a.����,�`
""`x.,;. ; q�;.
p�' "� � s d�+,�' `*� �a' � A ��� �'j S "��'� �t��,s<�`c�� l�:'� �� �"� ,„*�
�t �� , 'v�a �� � �
�" -.�.� � � � = �` ;", r�,ti,�'�q'�.`�` ,.�'� �. 'y�., t�
k� } r . ; _ ��'�,��r�x����,y� i �
����i �� m„�; �^� � � ..
�{,, � 's �. ,� . .
-' 6='E�y%; a,�: -� ` �*''t «x �:ir ! i� ?�ryf;� �
� � ��,�
�� � ;� � �
� h `'� #i�� � �� �' � �
� �� �, �,� ``� _ ,�i�: t � _.�s �
� �
�� �` � � �_ �e^�` � `i� atr '� � i . .
k¢ � a`� � �'�a � # ����N�i �^p*�t '�a'�5�.., �� " ..� ,.. �.
� �- �� ;�y ri ar .r . :���.��';���:�'
r' �,�'N^' y , Fzta ?����� ;1 d .p r.�S'� 4��a�'��� s�:m�amvaw,. �
�'" �"� �� � . ,�� J� ./ . .. [ '�`.�' w�� @t� mw<z
• �,'. K'- // � t � ;.� �te � � � r,
� # .��M � �" t � r�� 1 ' k f�:�..,.,��� :�zk
.£� � 'i . �� . � t
���� �:�� r����� . � � � � � � �� �� � � l_ � ��� �_���:
Brookview Community Center Building Assessment Yage 16
HGA Commission Number 2065-004-00 July 1,2014
IMAGES
Guardrail
■ Rot at required guardrail.
■ Guardrail a hazard;can move 6" either direction.
a� `� '' �, " � ' �°;: �
�,��, ��` �� �s �
t�� , � ��� �
���Y'�''"�`•� °� & 1� : f t�rv� '* � .. �
.. � s, ;3*' S' t 3 �� � � � ..
% �
��s a�. , {r i �;•�, ��' `� . .. . . .
Ir��: a� �«�� ' `
{+ �� � ���� ' � � �
� �
. �;y � �, ; � � ��� �
�. : �
,'
„ � ,,
� , � �
'� �� �
4�'lN $�� ;#i ,� at �a� � �
.F af.
;,,
� 3, .
, � e tk
� � �r � �� � ,� . �
��� ����. � �
� k � ` _ �� � �
- ".s, r ; � r
�, z �
� . ��a.�'. �... �
�,: rz r
y�'i$. � . `t 3��.
ef�re } '
�: �.� , � � i��.. . -
• �� ' s'� :�� , � '
^ 2
',�,r s
�;Y g �,' �`+��� Pt�i ���p, . . y
x�, r
� � 7,� ` . �_�.
'�a ksr �k ��� . � _ _
'��° . s`�` t� - . . . t _ �
.�'+i� ,p,: f � = ��d �� 5�; � ' . .
b
'�i' r � �
�; �Y`�� � i � . � ^ ..
4.�.:r + .`:� � � .
��* �,u y$4 t
4' #�;.:b fi���`.� i .
} .
.� . � � � ,d....�..._ _ . ... :A� .
�w._...,,r� . . .
'',. ' .... .._,._ —Tm ; ..
, � m...a,.'h.., k . .,_.u.�... �� �, .N�,�:. .u...� .':.az. �� ...,� . �`'�"WW.�� .n....."�'�
Brookview Community Center Building Assessment Pagc 17
I�IGA Commission Number 2065-004-00 Ju1y 1,2014
m;x
�`�"���s��� ' ,,
";�,�d�7 ��'Q P
,x,
Brookview Community Center
Feasibility Study
Summary Report
12/31/14
HGA COMMISSION NUMBER 2065-004-00
� .
-�if�`�7 x�a '�,
r�����'���
, . '�,a
1. Executive Summary
The City of Golden Valley desired HGA Architects to work with the City-appointed Task Force in
site evaluation and planning for a new community center facility to be located in Golden Valley,
Minnesota.The Task Force considered three sites and five options and foregrounded two options
for further study. Ultimately, the Task Force recommended a preferred design option on the
existing Brookview Community Center and Golf Course site.
The information in this summary is a resource to help the Golden Valley City Council and staff
guide the future direction for the replacement of Brookview Community Center.The team began
by defining a building program that reflects the needs and desires of the community. Once the
desired spaces were identified, site designs were tested. Lastly, the Task Force identified a
preferred site configuration and HGA prepared a design option and cost estimate to reflect the
Task Force vision. Our findings are documented in this report.
1.1 Project Stakeholders and Design Team
The Feasibility Study process was informed and guided by a Task Force appointed by the City of
Golden Valley.The Task Force was comprised of a diverse group of stakeholders representing
multiple constituents from across the city. Each individual involved graciously provided time and
expertise to ensure the completion of a comprehensive Feasibility Study and recommendation for
a community center that best meets the needs of the city.
The design team received guidance and direction from the City of Golden Valley Director of Parks
and Recreation, Parks and Recreation staff, and Brookview Golf staff. The team included design
professionals from HGA Architects (engineers and planners responsible for building programming,
site analysis, site fit planning, and construction cost estimating); professionals from Gill Design,
Inc, who provided analysis and planning of golf programs; and professionals from Ballard * King &
Associates LTC, who provided demographic summary, market review, and operation plan analysis.
Stakeholders and members of the design team include:
City of Golden Valley Staff
Carrie Anderson Recreation Supervisor
Rick Birno Director of Parks& Recreation
Ben Disch Golf Operations Manager
Brian Erickson Recreation Supervisor
Jeanne Fackler Recreation Supervisor
Chantell Knauss Assistant City Manager
Jeff Oliver City Engineer
Greg Spencer Golf Course Superintendent
Cheryl Weiler Communications Manager
Jason Zimmerman Planning Management
� Commission No.:2065-004- 'i?/3'ii14 �
��td�£rw� _
���� ����r.
,
Community Center Task Force
Brittany Blazar Teen Committee Representative
John Cornelius Open Space and Recreation Commission
Pat Dale Golden Valley Little League
Lynn Gitelis Environmental Commission
Brad Kadue Brookview Men's Golf Association
John Kluchka Planning Commission
Kelly Kuebelbeck Open Space and Recreation Commission
Dean Penk Environmental Commission
Karla Rose Golden Valley Girls Softball
Merton Suckerman Seniors Community
Mickie Weaver Brookview Women's Golf Association
Design/Consultant Team
Nancy Blankfard, AIA HGA- Project Manager
Garret Gill Gill Design, Inc- Golf Consultant
Kari Haug Gill Design, Inc- Golf Consultant
Jessica Horstkotte HGA- Design Intern
Jeff King Ballard*King- Operations Consultant
Victor Pechaty, AIA HGA- Design Principal
Joe Tarlizzo HGA- Cost Estimating
Glenn Waguespack, AIA HGA- Project Architect
2. Establishing Need
2.1 Project Visioning
Identifying a clear project vision was a necessary first step in refining program needs for the
Brookview Community Center. From this vision the Task Force formed guiding principles to ensure
that all future explorations of building space programs and design options grew out of Golden
Valley's unique character and goals for the future. These principles acknowledge that Brookview
Community Center will be a success if:
• it facilitates greater community engagement
o it is fun and welcoming
o it is accessible/easy to get in and out of
o it has enough parking
o it supports a variety of functions—from birthday parties to corporate events to club
meetings to community programs
o it meets needs and supports programs that attracts citizens of all ages
o it serves as a destination, a central hub
o it functions as a gathering place
o it is a place where parents are comfortable dropping off their kids
o it is the first place you'd want to go if you're bored!
o it functions as a storm shelter
o it is an enjoyable place to be
� Commissior� No.:2�65-OG4- i213�114 ;
lae� � �
�c���� y��
�
• it is a source of community pride
o it brings greater brand awareness of Golden Valley
o it is a "legacy" building
o it is architecturally significant
o it becomes a historic 100-year landmark
o it is compatible with the mid-century modern character in Golden Valley
o it gets 20,000 likes on Facebook
o it makes other cities jealous
o it has a beam that looks like a tree, a nod to the existing building
o it is a place to locate a community time capsule
• residents feel it is a good investment
o it operates efficiently
o it is revenue-generating
o it doesn't drain other programs
o it maximizes view/daylight and is energy efficient
These principles establish the standards against which all quantitative programming and design
studies would be evaluated throughout the Feasibility Study process. They are reflected in the
design options allowing the City to take the next steps toward a full realization of Brookview
Community Center.
3. Facility Programs
The City-appointed Task Force guided decisions regarding the programmatic needs for a new
Golden Valley Community Center.
3.1 Proposed Program
Golf Program
The proposed golf program would replace and improve upon the existing golf program at
Brookview Golf Course.
Golf Operations
The proposed spaces for golf operations include administrative offices and storage.The
designated space would allow the golf administrative team to continue to operate at its
current capacity.
Pro Shop
The pro shop capacity is consistent with the current space in the existing Brookview club
house.
Locker Rooms
New golf locker rooms reflect a slight increase in space, allowing for the ability to store golf
bags in lockers, thus eliminating the need for a bag room.
� Commission No.:2065-004- 12l31/14 �
iE�'.I�4 "'.
���� s ��
' ��.
Cart Storage
Currently, golf carts are stored remotely at Brookview and require significant staff resources
and time to stage the carts at the club house at the beginning and end of each day. Providing
on-site storage would eliminate the need for additional labor, making golf operations much
more efficient. Included in the cart storage space is enough capacity for 80 carts,
infrastructure for gas and electric vehicles, as well as a cart washing station.
Grill/Bistro
The Brookview golf course currently operates a grill with a seating capacity for 77 people.
With the recent acquisition of a liquor license, the grill currently serves beer and alcohol in
addition to a limited menu. The Task Force would like to see this amenity expanded and
enhanced to attract a broader customer base, drawing both from the increased traffic at the
new community center as well as the broader community.The new grill/bistro space includes
a larger kitchen and increased storage as well as a servery and seating area to accommodate
up to 125 patrons.
Parks and Recreation
The City of Golden Valley's Parks and Recreation Department will continue to operate out of the
community center.
Parks and Recreation Operations
A designated space, including administrative offices and storage, would allow the Parks and
Recreation administrative team to continue to operate at its current capacity.
Kids Play
An indoor kids play area would continue to encourage multi-generational use of the
community center as well as draw in revenue for the facility.The kids play facility would
include an indoor play structure, an open play area with sports flooring,two birthday party
rooms, and a parent waiting area.
Building Support
In addition to the necessary restrooms,janitors closets, shipping/receiving, trash/recycling,
mechanical, and electrical spaces, the Task Force expressed a desire for wide hallways to allow for
art gallery space, an organics disposal space, ample coat closets, and a lobby that allows for
gathering.
Lobby
Particular importance was placed on making the lobby an open and welcoming space for the
building.The Task Force wanted it to be a place of gathering as well as a place of entry, with
amenities such as WiFi and charging stations, a fireplace, vending, and a reception desk to
welcome guests.
� Commissio�� No.:2065-OG4- !21�1114 �
������
�����
Community Gathering
A key priority identified by the Task Force was to develop a
community center that functions as a central hub for community '�
gathering. This is reflected in the variety of program spaces that �
encourage residents of all ages to use the building. , �
� � � �
-. . _ -
Banquet Facilities .
The Task Force expressed a strong desire for increasing the &,�.
building's capacity to host large events such as weddings and '" � �� �` 'g � 4� ���
�,„ � �, �,,.: � ;
y� � k � ��1=� `
conferences.The proposed banquet facility more than doubles , ���. � ��. ' �',
the existing banquet space, with the capacity to seat 350 � ��� � ����
people at tables.This space could be subdivided when not ;� ' ; , _,, , �
being used at its maximum capacity. Support spaces for this
facility include beverage stations, a catering kitchen, ��� �'� 't
e ui ment stora e, and a air of reen rooms. � '��'� �
q P g p g ,�"",�,�_.�:
,� �
Multiuse Performance �- �
� ��
The multiuse performance space is large enough to hold a 50- � ,
��r � s�;, r
person orchestra and seat 100 people in the audience. .� �
=f,�.�, , ��
However, this flexible space could also be used for dance and �.��� ����;� ��� �
drama performances in addition to music. Also, the room �� ���`���� � ��� " = w , � '
������`� � *�; � � ���� `t
could be configured to host lectures or other presentations. ��� ;� t r`, .
The technical requirements of the room would allow for � - �
performance lighting and audio. Supporting spaces include an k��
AV control room and general storage space as well as storage �
for instrument, drama, and dance programs. �rc �.� � li� �� �•
e� � �
��. ��' �w „ x
Multipurpose Classrooms � , � � ��
�, �,�,, ,
Three classrooms of varying sizes include two adjacent ,?� ,�„;: �;:„ " +�
classrooms (1,000 square feet and 1,500 square feet) with �Y=%� , ,��,:
appropriate flooring and storage spaces to support healthy living x ��� k`�x#.£. � �- �._ -
activities such as yoga and pilates.The third classroom would be � .�.Y,.,
equipped for art, with easy to clean surfaces as well as necessary ' �
� � a
plumbing and drainage. ` s� _� .-�� 4 " *�
Seniors Gathering "�'� ;�
An expanded seniors space provides Golden Valley seniors �
with welcoming place to spend time throughout the week. �; �� �� ��• � �
This dedicated area includes a meeting room large enough for ��� �
50-60 seniors to be seated at four-top tables; a gathering area � ;,��" � � .,#
with a fireplace, comfortable seating, and residential kitchen; �m � ,�. �,y. 4��'��r�*�`� ,
separate classroom space; and adequate storage. ����,"�"�' �Y� LL '�c i
� �m_..� .
�___
� � �:
Tenant Offices -
..
Tenant offices would be available for community organizations
to rent at affordable rates.
� Commissicr� Nc.:2C65-u04- 92/31/'I�1 �
�
ci �t�`
�.>���������°�
{ � ".::�
�
Site Amenities
The Task Force identified a number of site related programs and
improvements to ensure the golf course is operated at a comparable �� ��; �
level to a new facility as well as to capitalize on the unique location of �; $ 4� :�
a new community center. .����� � � r `�
�.w� �, '=��
��� ��� ��
�� ;� �
�.� ,��� r°���� i - � L�
Lawn Bowling ; �, m
�x , .
Due to the immediate success of the new lawn bowling rink at the i •; , �A�.�� � y
current community center site, adding a second rink was ` " ��� � ��' `�,-
s""��� �: � �,r�.�
identified as a priority. Rotating between the rinks would allow ; � � � � ��'�t ��; ,yx
�� � -� .ti R
one to regrow while the other is in use. Additionally, it would ;��'*k ��� �`���„w�;���;�`,�-y
allow for increased capacity for tournaments on a limited basis. ��,,,�"�' � �-''�
'- -
Outdoor Event Space �.r � � ,. �
An outdoor event space adjacent to the banquet facilities would ��' �t ��� �, ' �!f
� b�� � � � ��,µ:_ ,, „
provide a protected area for weddings, parties, or other
� . '
gatherings. With the backdrop of the golf course, this space �,�- � §�
capitalizes on the unique pairing of community center and golf 'µ4}� � �' �f •�
clubhouse. ��� ��
, ���`� � � ��
Golf Cart Staging '�_ � � ��.�'�
A paved area near the first tee is necessary to stage golf carts at "��"�`� ' �
the beginning and end of each day, as well as for large golf events. �, �-
� _
�-
� r� � �
� �
Garden Space ,�, �,:� � � �x��ri�'�b '
�
A designated garden space would create an ideal backdrop for �#��`� '`
�,
wedding photography as well as provide the opportunity for � �x �� � "�h��
community members to tend the garden. ,�� � _ , �'^ � �
Patio Dining ���'����g �'� � '�''� *��;
�t w ����
5 �£ �""YiM e ".Y � �'e'�".
Patio dining would serve as an outdoor extension to the grill/bistro �'��'. y � �_� n �� �
�,� , ,�. ,'�":"-�:�<,- �s, � `<
and provide diners with views and access to the golf course and ,�;.�„' ,,__ �,� s '#
4"�"' � :� $'��, : :
lawn bowling as well as food service to these outdoor programs. �.� ,� � ,'
�`,� - .
Mini Golf � � �
i
Mini golf would be an addition to the existing golf program to $ r �
attract patrons of all ages. ��''� �
����� �
Putting Green " r �� �
s� , �'. �
To better serve golf patrons, the size of the existing putting green ��� �� '
should be increased.
,1 y ;
� 1
r
Driving Range Improvements .,�� ." �.
To increase the appeal of Brookview Golf Course, improvements
should be made to the existing driving range to allow for a full �
range of clubs to be used. --� �=�� '
�. Commi�sicnf���.:��;i6�-L'v4- �i?;;�;/�::, �
ku �b.ba.� m : �'
�'�����t .
��1��
3.2 Program Summary
. � . -
Golf Operations 2,070
Pro Shop 1,300
Locker Rooms 1,900
Cart Storage 7,700
Grill/Bistro 3,900
Ban uet Facilities 6,710
Multiuse Performance 3,220
Multipurpose Classrooms 3,960
Seniors Gathering 3,400
enant Offices 1,280
Parks and Rec Operations 3,620
Kids Play 4,730
Lobb 2,050
Building Support 6,648
ubtotal (net square feet) 52,488
Non-assign able (net to gross 28,263
multiplier 1.54)
otal Area (gross square feet) 80,751
Site Amenities
• Existing Golf Course
� Lawn Bowling Expansion
• Outdoor Event Space
• Golf Cart Staging
• Garden Spaces
• Patio Dining
• Putting Green
• Driving Range Improvements
� Commission No.:2065-004- 12/31/i4 �
{��������� �
}
4. Preferred Option
Following the presentation of the five building options, two were identified as potential for
further study—Option 2 and Option 3.The Task Force went through a prioritization exercise to
distill the project scope to something in between these two options. Materials from this exercise,
including a cost breakdown by program element, can be found in the addenda.The preferred
option reflects the same programmatic elements as Option 3 as recommended by the Task Force.
The following building development, cost, and operations estimates detail the preferred option.
4.1 Concept Design Site Plan
Pond Future Expansion ExistingGolf
Maintenance
Building-
` ;�; '= . � Images 4.1 reflect the development of the site
immediately surrounding the proposed
New building. Notable elements include:
nnini Golf New Pond . two lawn bowling rinks to the
course Parking south of the building
�ot � � ` . ample garden space surrounding
, ���,�,.
�� '� � the building
�
� � ��� � • reconfiguring the starting and
Pond
'� �" "� finishing holes of the golf course
� � ~� • covered drop-off at building entry
���. °° � ;x'
¥' +� • new surface parking lot to north
� ���°`"�� � of building
���,x � �` New Putting �, � �s
Green ::� • new mini golf course
� �' ` • new and expanded putting green
Pond �� � �'�� �
• expanded golf cart staging area
Hole 1Tee � t � • Brookview Parkway S re-
� ; .� established as a road separate
� `,�, from parking
9th Green �W� � � ��
Bowling �'
Courts ��
��+� . '^�. .��:. ..�, ,.�
� �,�
igi• �;'
18th Green � � �
E�.
�
�
� � #'
�e�,� � ,� �,; .���,.... ��.�,�a� �� ��
�. ; y:
,x f�:�����;
Hole lOTee
N Driving Range SITE PLAN
�. Commission r��.:'%�65-�G4- �2/3�/i� J
�����
�'��� ��
4.1 Concept Design Site Plan (continuedJ
�,�- , �
�}� �{ _
k�
�` �= Service Garde Main Entry
�� a,ccess �. �. ,�;�� Garden
�
," New Putting .�z; ;
Green
j � ��
� k ��
��
� � `� �'` �t" ��, �� New Covered
�; � �
�� , .�. . a�
�'� �` �` �� �ta Two—Story �roa
� �.
Buildinq
� '��'' Roof � � � ���
� �� Terrace ��
� � F
Golf
� +"-% • � ,'
{ �"
�� " Terrace�M' �*� Garde �
-
RPlnw .''�� ,
K£�..� �� � . .
��
�, . .��.v,. ,:,, .,. ,. ,, v.,,. _
Golf Cart F�"�'"`' �'"� ,�� i
Staqinp �
� �� �'
C
c.. Lawn Bowling � � x�-� �-�_�
Garde *��
� ��„�°
� ����fi �� ���� f� �� .
. � , e� ..f:�-#�`�k�� ,�'d`'t' , ..
#
�� � ...
..k . `4�a . .
�..,. . x � . .
a-
E �(
+.
h� `� �� ��� ;_ �+��� .. '
� �� �
k 3�&��'� ..{,,,{, .� a� . s ' � ,
; �C p t 9�� �`�, , t u r p �
;�.»'��"� ���*'�",� ��� ��.� ���r�� ��,� ��' i il�r' i �., �
��� r
� ��`',��.v, rb*'� 4 �'.;;` ��4 s�4�";e.. �'+', �:`'?4��is� +'�r� �``�*�,�.t. ,.,�: i°�C�
:�sa`„ . ` �,
� . , , . ,. �..
�. . . . . ._. �� .. . ` ; .
_ �� � � Lawn Bowling
z.r�; .� �� �.
������
.as:, ,e.i�.�'"�7, . ,.
r �����.` ' .
N � ENLARGED SITE PLAN
�
'k��.
� Commission No.:2G65-004- ;2/3�;/i�, ��
�;
����� .:�;��
4.2 Concept Design Building Plan
The lowest level of the proposed building plan is primarily underground, taking advantage of the
significant grade change at this site. Service access would be located on this level, with access
from the adjacent parking lot to the north.
.�.k . .
: � , ... ,
�����
� �_�
'1 ri�€� ,�ks,�'�� ��"a��i
� �, �''�jf i��..
�M .s ' �� � r .t
y � ,
5'@�VIC@ r�" '��'�� "�,� ��irk�i+„$t� � y i�F x fi ;
�F�� �� , $� ,��a;or5 `���s�.� {R��� ���' �
Access � �.� �� � � �� ��� �"� ��� .� �'�� `� ���.x
.
, _—._ :. ��� � ��'� �,,
, x �y„� �,�� � � ��� �
4l � , • �*t."�
i FttaF�; '� � � � � �
, ' !
' ��i+F%t•�7
� . ��aeniaa �
--� �kt�aak�r
�� � Van Parks� t�
storag Roe �;+f��N�� ���� ;�,� t�k ,_� , � � �„�h
� Stnr���
x"_ � ' � � �
c��t siora�e Area
� , �
Below
� �;�ar�a
!
�� �7",
Cart Storage nuax
� . �-!'vgN»
��� � ,�
; ��:€� �;'���
i'� �� � � � � � �
Fx.�� � � � � � . . � . .
�,,:
*�,�, I�� �!�� .
��$ . �„ �g
� } Y. 4 9 ',t:..n �;#i 1�,.
.r . .:.t .�� „y �, � . '
�., 4 .� „b. . .e. v,r �{t#4. y
. � �:.{a�J:r , ��:X�,
N LOWER LEVEL
� Commissionf�lo.:2065-0�34- �!`L/:,�/1��1� ��
city a�f
������� 1��
,m.
4.2 Concept Design Building Plan (continued)
The main level is focused on community center and golf programs.Key adjacencies include kids
play,main lobby,and Parks & Recreation offices;seniors gathering space and gathering lobby;
grill/bistro,patio dining,and lawn bowling;pro shop and the first hole tee.
'���K� ,a.
Garden
Soaces '�
Secondary Entry
�
UP —_a_ . � � .
� $��p�� �
Tenan!oryice � ��,Q,r,� Mai�i Entry �
Garilen w/Trellis �„
� �h�;Ny�p
�' �" Klds P!a ��
�
� � �, Y ���,�:
: � ` , Gatner;n� Main
°
„. :, tsaniors) �J Entr�-=----
� _
� B;hYrr.�� i� ----------------.,,_i
�
� � �
1
Covered �
��r��;r +
ta4byYG�iher(ng �`�Of'� �
.�'.'-_-- Dro� �
"-a i
i � i
� �,_________�_____ �
t. __
Pf0 � pra -__`----_..
� Shap �
r ,� Parks 8 Rr�c
ShOD i m t Adm;n
�i 3.
�,.}.� � . . .,H
. ' � �'� � . ��'. :t�
{ ��
-�� E9�+pment � �
'��i ���+�gti '° GW1'I�dn7ln �
Golf r=� o�fic�s
�
Terrace 4,�1 _�� �� Garden ,r �
i HL Y�
i S C�assroam 1 SD8Ce5 �
��
' �*
j ,. 6isiro .; �tsh�n "
�.� Y�, to�age �� ,
� t �t� � �•�BSSf[7[7RIt�' +.� . y; •
i�� �J; ��+ p� �
.. ; t �� ..4..' :�iS . ,K'�Nx
f �� 5�mlrtt�f � �
� ' ,J,
`-----------------
Dining Patio '" �
Secondary Entry
� ,�
��,
� ��, � � � � � � °�
;,
,=�f Garden
Lawn Bowling � Snaces � �
�
_y�
N MAIN LEVEL
#' �;
� Commission No.:2065-004- 12/3;i".-;• ,
,f ����r��
���
4.2 Concept Design Building Plan (continued)
The upper level consists of the primary event spaces.Taking advantage of surrounding
landscape,the outdoor event space has been incorporated onto a roof terrace above the main
level.
� ���� � ,
� �� ��"
x�-�` �t5*�hf� �e n�r � �°'e�,�§'td" }� � . . ..
r� : y „"+ t"°' ;.p x� '�'z t a; g},� : � . - �
�' �c .,�"�u,�"�' ��"�t Y" ���' .S�t #� �, .. ��' � 4 � �,:. i.
�:.p'EY �'�+�''ii`��1d�s:��'��a� "� , w.,��;3����,�€�,# }xv'� �e +z.i # k. ',"' r ,,:� .
��:+�.������� ����r �4�'��a��.,ti�w ���`� 4.�.,�.� �` ws� a��..�c�; �,� .
. . . .. . . . .. s"� � �t.��'. �"p��� ,.
C7 � - -kzm � .
v� m 1 � `..
m
m � � .. ��'��
u[a 4 '�' N{s� � . ...
iC � ._.� I w^.... . '.: . .
� �! � P�4:C"ls7n�.t:ti � . � �.
����:7� . .-, ... � ..
r-`3,`,��_ � . � � •� .
� Mulii use �_. l �
�
y Performance �r�r��ts' � �
M#��� �j
e'�,�s��� _ � I i .
`�'}R.� f'ip .. ,ti
l
� f31'11111 � � � �� � \ �-s'�
; �� � ""�,,,�\ _ 'fi�,��.�.
r � � �"� ' `` ':�--`'
iQ �—--t—� .�'�� k_-` `,��y
L�bb � ----�--�-.._ � `� ` ��..
P y x�`
� �•-- , :�..
lierrac �
i �.
i �
r
�
Events '� Banqu��
Terrace w/ ,
� ' -
Trellis , ' �'�. � --' -- -----
� i
A L....� tL � � �
tf ' '
7 � +� : � �,�( �`u ` .
�
� � ... ,. . , "
'
�
I t3C98
�
� �Ciill S . � . _
� —
7 KI[Cd7@R (A
... , . I � � , O
� j ��,:,� �
�_ _ , _ �
�
•Exterior
Stair
� KK` ,,
"� � T >.
��, �� �� =�
� � ��
�x �
��< ��, ' ,�- �"�
(v UPPER LEVEL
� Commission i�lo.:2�65-0G4- 12/31/'I�� ;�
�El�j+Lf ,:%•��
�'������.��'
,
4.3 Cost Estimate
Below is a summary of the cost estimate for the preferred building option.
Building Vision Estimate $33,557,555
• Demolition of existing building
• New 80,751-square-foot building($320/sf)
• Project soft costs (30%construction cost)
Site Vision Estimate $4,823,819
• Parking/site work
• Golf improvements
• Outdoor program amenities
• Project soft costs (15%construction cost)
Total Investment $38,381,374
Clarification Notes
Specific LEED strategies evaluated during next design phase. Alternative funding methods for
sustainability initiatives may be available.
LEED Silver(standard industry building practice) included
LEED Gold 5%+/-
LEED Platinum 15%+/-
Escalation in construction costs based on start date
• If construction starts in Q12016 included
• If construction starts in Q12017 4%+/-
• If construction starts in Q12018 8%+/-
� Commissic� Na.:�065-004- ';2/3'i/a�+ ��;.
�����
�����
4.4 Operations Analysis
Summary for the preferred building option
Expenditure—Revenue Comparison
Cate or Facilit Bud et
Expen itures 825,367
Revenue 494,640
Di erence 330,727
Recovery percentage 60%
*Golf Revenue is not factored into operational model.
Demand estimates are conservative and do not acknowledge premium for view/location,etc.
Five-Year Revenue Expense Comparison
Years Recover %
2016 60%
2017 61%
2018 62%
2019 63%
2020 63%
Maximizing Revenue-Generating Programs
• Grill/bistro
• Lawn bowling expansion
• Banquet facility sized to market demand
• Play area with party rooms
� Tenant office space
• Miniature golf course
• Views to the golf course and new design will increase demand
• Appeal to people of all ages
• Capturing lost opportunities for revenue
�,�
��1;,
ks�i r+ici�YIUv.
� Commission No.:2C�65-004- �Z/3�/��� -3�
Proposed 20,000 Square Foot (SF)
Community Center
Outlined below is the concept for the replacement of Brookview Community Center using a
$12,000,000 budget for a 20,000 SF building.
Assumptions
• Additional parking will need to be added. The only location available to add parking at
Brookview would be on the Par 3 Course utilizing holes 2 & 3.
• The new community center should be located in close proximity to the new parking area. Staff
is recommending the new community center be located on the current lawn bowling green
with the length of the building running north to south.
• When parking is added on the Par 3 Course it will no longer be available for public use. A 4 to
6-hole chip & putt will be constructed on the remaining appropriate golf holes. It should be
noted the new chip & putt concept would be constructed by in-house staff at the same time
the new community center would be under construction. It should also be noted a chip & putt
is not likely to produce revenues similar to the current Par 3 revenues.
• Parks & Recreation Services and Golf Services would continue to operate in the current
Brookview Community Center until the completion of the new building. The goal is to maintain
current operation revenues with the exception of the Par 3 golf course during construction.
The lawn bowling green would be relocated temporarily to a fairway on the Par 3 golf course.
This temporary lawn bowling green would be utilized until the current Brookview Community
Center is demolished, allowing the permanent lawn bowling green to be constructed an that
location.
• Staff estimates that 25% (approximately 5,000 SF) of the lower level of Brookview
Community Center is poorly utilized storage space not available for public use. None of the
equipment stored in this area needs to remain onsite in the new facility. Staff's
recommendation, as part of this reconstruction process, is to include the construction of a
storage addition to the current driving range building or golf maintenance building. This would
allow equipment to be moved offsite, providing more available public use space in the new
building. The expense for this proposed storage addition is included in the $12,000,000
budget.
• The HVAC system would be located on the roof to provide more available public use space
within the new community center.
• Garbage and recycling enclosed area would be moved from the building and relocated in the
new community center parking lot in an unobtrusive location.
• Parking improvements would include separating the road and parking area in the current
Brookview Community Center parking lot. The new community center would be 20,000 s.f.,
which is the same square footage of the current community center.
• The new community center would be constructed at a LEED Silver building standard.
• Based on our consultant's estimates, each year the project is delayed is likely to result in an
additional 5% increase in construction costs.
Proposed 20,000 Square Foot (SF)
Community Center
• The new community center will require staffing to increase by .5 FTE for the front
desk/reception area and 1.0 FTE for the building/custodial support.
• An expense recovery rate is not available at this time and would need to be estimated once a
conceptual design is complete.
°' �����,, _ :� ��� �a � , � ,, ,, ��� . . �
� � � ,x ��
���m� tiP,�e� �� ,�
Lobby 200 400
Stairs/Elevator 0 TBD
Bathrooms 400 600
Parks& Recreation Fron#Desk, Reception, Storage 1,000' 1,000
Public Area Conference Room 400 400
Health Screening/Music iesson Rooms(2) 0 400
Seniors Gathering Room/Kitchen Area* 1,200 1,400
Seniors Class/Program Room" 0 900
Golf Administration/Storage 780 800
Golf Pro Shop 632 800
Golf Operations Storage'"* 2,400 1,400
Grill/Kitchen 338 500
Grill/Prep/Serving Area 200 400
Grill/Storage/Freezer/Cold/Dry 800 800
Golf Locker Rooms/Bathrooms 1,600 1,400
HVAC/Storage/lnefficient Space 5,350 0
* Senior Rooms will be multi-use community rooms on weeknight evenings and weekends, as
well as weekdays when available. The Seniors Gathering Room Kitchen area will also be
designed to be an evening and weekend cooking class/demonstration area.
**A percentage of the golf operations storage needs will be moved to the planned storage
addition at the driving range building or the golf maintenance building.
��'�� �� � � �+� ��
,z:'h°I�'���'��.������-s��ew;,�iw Ie��`9�;,�". - - -�-�'.-
Parks & Recreation Admin Offices/Conference/Break Room 1,500 2,000
Proposed 20,000 Square Foot (SF)
Communit Center
�" aU a 7sY'7 �� '�'1 Vi g "> - .
s,x
a ": ��'�c. ur w §:
., , � � ��. ,_.- '�
. � �tii. i ����°
-�S,_ t .a..,,,,R,*`'`' p _
Banquet Room/Beverage Room*** 3,000 4,000
Caterers Kitchen/Servery 200 600
Bathrooms 0 800
Multi-Use Classroom/Meeting Room 0 1,400
*** Banquet Room will be used as a multi-purpose room when not in use for banquets or golf
events.
� f�� },� �
�������1���� ����= � �, ��,- -�;
���7�dB� *t'�"��r�.�r�I ���ti�r����; r �' � � ��' �`w � u
�,-�
Deck/Terrance 3,000 3,500
Patio/Cart Staging Area 3,800 4,000
Patio Overhang N/A TBD
Lawn Bowling Reconstruction Relocate New Location
Front Entrance Patio 0 1,000
Fire Pit Relocation Relocate New Location
Replace Failing Keystone Wall - Replace
Sidewalks and Landscaping - included
Outdoor Trash & Recycling Relocate New Location
Storage Addition (range- maintenance building?) 0 3,000
Outdoor Skating Rink N/A Added to parking
Winter Multi-Use Trails In place Continue
Estimated Construction Budqet
Proposed 20,000 SF Community Center $9,700,000.
Storage Area Addition $400,000.
Parkinq and Outdoor Amenities $1,900,000.
Total $12,000,000.
Option#1
Brookview Community Center $38,381,374
Operations* $825,367
Option#2
Brookview Community Center $12,000,000
Operations* $225,110
Option#3
Renovate Existing Building $6,652,750
*operation costs follow rule of thumb
$100,000 impacts median home$8 in taxes
Lease Pu�chase Agreement
HRA would sell the bonds and lease the building to the City.
An annual appropriation would be made from the City to the HRA to make payments on the bonds.
Public Hearing-HRA and City
Reverse referundum
HF 782
HF 1671
Bond Referendum
August 21-Last day for cities to notify State/County of financial related ballot questions
August 5&18-Council Meetings in August.
City of Golden Valley, Minnesota
Estimated Tax Impact-Based on Net Tax Capacity
2015 Community Center Referendum Tax Impact-Current Interest Rates+100 bps 8/27/2014
Par $10,000,000 $12,000,000 $20,000,000 $30,000,000 $40,000,000
1stYearLevy $756,202 $905,386 $1,512,415 $2,263,519 $3,019,721
Less Existing Levy
Taxable Increase $756,202 $905,386 $1,512,415 $2,263,519 $3,019,721
Market Value Net Tax Pay 2014 TNTC $33,726,142 $33,726,142 $33,726,142 $33,726,142 $33,726,142
a Ca aci Tax Rate Increase(b): 2.242°/a 2.685% 4.484°/a 6.711% 8.954%
Homestead Residential
$50,000 $300 $7 $8 $13 $20 $27
70,000 420 9 11 19 28 38
85,000 554 12 15 25 37 50
100,000 718 16 19 32 48 64
125,000 990 22 27 44 66 89
150,000 1,263 28 34 57 85 113
200,000 1,808 41 49 81 121 162
225,000 2,080 47 56 93 140 186
252,� 2,3$t3 53 64 107 16� 213
302,500 2,925 66 79 131 196 262
352,500 3,470 78 93 156 233 311
402,500 4,015 90 108 180 269 359
452,500 4,525 101 121 203 304 405
502,500 5,031 113 135 226 338 450
552,500 5,656 127 152 254 380 506
602,500 6,281 141 169 282 422 562
652,500 6,906 155 185 310 464 618
702,500 7,531 169 202 338 505 674
752,500 8,156 183 219 366 547 730
802,500 8,781 197 236 394 589 786
852,500 9,406 211 253 422 631 842
902,500 10,031 225 269 450 673 898
952,500 10,656 239 286 478 715 954
1,002,500 11,281 253 303 506 757 1,010
Commercial/Industrial
$100,000 $1,500 $34 $40 $67 $101 $134
150,000 2,250 50 60 101 151 201
250,000 4,250 95 114 191 285 381
500,000 9,250 207 248 415 621 828
_ ,�= Spr'sngsted
City of Golden Valley,Minnesota
Estimated Tax Impact-Based on Net Tax Capacity
2015 Community Center Referendum Tax Impact-Current lnterest Rates+100 bps 8/27/2014
Par $10,000,000 $12,000,000 $20,000,000 $30,000,000 $40,000,000
1st Year Levy $756,202 $905,386 $1,512,415 $2,263,519 $3,019,721
Less Existing Levy
Taxable Increase $756,202 $905,386 $1,512,415 $2,263,519 $3,019,721
Market Value Net Tax Pay 2014 TNTC $33,726,142 $33,726,142 $33,726,142 $33,726,142 $33,726,142
a Ca aci Tax Rate Increase(b): 2.242% 2.685% 4.484% 6.711% 8.954%
1,000,000 19,250 432 517 863 1,292 1,724
3,000,000 59,250 1,328 1,591 2,657 3,977 5,305
5,000,000 99,250 2,225 2,664 4,451 6,661 8,886
7,000,000 139,250 3,122 3,738 6,245 9,346 12,468
10,000,000 199,250 4,468 5,349 8,935 13,373 17,840
Apartments(4 or More Units)
$ 50,000 $ 625 $14 $17 $28 $42 $56
75,000 938 21 25 42 63 84
100,000 1,250 28 34 56 84 112
200,000 2,500 56 67 112 168 224
500,000 6,250 140 168 280 419 560
1,000,000 12,500 280 336 561 839 1,119
3,000,000 37,500 841 1,007 1,682 2,517 3,358
5,000,000 62,500 1,401 1,678 2,803 4,195 5,596
7,000,000 87,500 1,962 2,349 3,924 5,873 7,834
10,000,000 125,000 2,803 3,356 5,605 8,389 11,192
� �E Sprir�gsted
H �USE RESEARCH
Bill Summary
FILE NUMBER: H.F. 782 DATE: March 16, 2015
Version: As introduced
Authors: Runbeck and others
Subject: Local government finance; reverse referendum for certain leases
Analyst: Deborah A. Dyson
This publication can be made available in alternative formats upon request. Please call 651-296-6753
(voice); or the Minnesota State Relay Service at 1-800-627-3529(TTY)for assistance. Summaries are
also available on our website at: www.house.mn/hrd/.
Provides for a reverse referendum on whether a city (excluding first class cities), county, or urban town
may enter into a lease of three or more years for real property with a housing and redevelopment
authority (HRA), port authority, economic development authority (EDA), or other entity established by
special law with powers similar to those authorities, when the real property was acquired or improved
with obligations (bonds or other debt instruments) issued by the authority.
Generally, when a local government acquires or improves real property financed by general obligation
bonds of the local government, the debt must first be approved by the voters. A local government may
enter into lease agreements without a referendum. When the local government's lease payments are the
source of money to pay off the HRA, port authority, or EDA debt, the bonds can be sold as revenue
bonds, which are not subject to an election. In addition, under current law HRA and port authority bonds
are not subject to an election. Minn. Stat. §§ 469.034, subd. 2, and 469.060, subd. 1. Bonds issued by an
EDA must be approved by two-thirds majority vote of its city's council and issuance is otherwise
governed by Minnesota Statutes, chapter 475. Minn. Stat. § 469.102, subd. 1.
Research Department Minnesota House of Representatives 600 State Office Building
R:\HRD_Summ\2015\0782 Runbeck.dd.docx Last printed 3/17/2015 9:52:00 AM
HOUSE RESEARCH
Bill Summary
FILE NUMBER: H.F. 1671 DATE: April 6, 2015
Version: As introduced
Authors: Drazkowski and McDonald
Subject: Property Tax Payers' Empowerment Act
Analyst: Pat Dalton
This publication can be made available in alternative formats upon request. Please ca11651-296-6753
(voice); or the Minnesota State Relay Service at 1-800-627-3529(TTY)for assistance. Summaries are
also available on our website at: www.house.mn/hrd/.
Overview
The Property Tax Payers' Empowerment Act provides that if a county or city
increases its property tax levy in any year, the citizens may, through a reverse
referendum, petition to vote on the ]evy increase for the following year at the
general election.
Section
1 Notice of proposed property taxes. Requires the Truth in Taxation notices mailed to
taxpayers to include a statement at the top infortning taxpayers that if the final levy is greater
than last year's levy they have the right to petition for a referendum on the next year's levy.
Effective beginning with taxes payable in 2016.
2 Certification of levy. Provides for the maximum levy amount depending on the outcome of
a referendum required under section 3. If the referendum on the proposed truth in taxation
levy passes the maximum levy is the proposed levy amount. If it fails,the maximum allowed
levy is the maximum alternative levy (equal to the county's nondebt levy from two years
earlier plus its current proposed debt levy).
3 Levy increase; reverse referendum authorized. Provides for a future reverse referendum
if a county or city increases its property tax levy.
Subd. 1. Citation. Names this section the Property Tax Payers' Empowerment
Act.
Subd. 2. Definitions. Defines the local governments subject to this provision to be
counties and all home rule charter and statutory cities. Also defines the maximum
Research Department Minnesota House of Representatives 600 State Office Building
R:�HRD_Summ�2015\1671 Drazkowski.pd.docx Last printed 4/6/2015 1:01:00 PM
H.F. 1671 April 6,2015
Version: As introduced Page 2
Section
alternative levy allowed if a referendum fails to be the local government's nondebt
levy from two years ago plus its proposed debt levy for the coming year.
Subd. 3. Levy increase; reverse referendum authority. Allows a reverse
referendum if a city or county increases its levy over the previous year. The
referendum occurs if a petition for referendum, signed by 10 percent of the voters in
the last general election is filed with the county auditor by June 30t". The referendum
must be held at the general election or at a special election on the first Tuesday after
the first Monday in November.
Subd. 4. Prohibition against new debt before the election. Prohibits a local
government from issuing new debt from the time a petition is filed until after the
referendum is held
Subd. 5. Ballot question; consequence of the vote. Lays out the format for the
referendum question on the ballot; including the maximum levy if the referendum
fails.
Effective beginning with taxes payable in 2016.
4 Auditor to publish rates. Requires that the newspaper notice of tax rates include notice if a
city or county raised its general property tax levy and is therefore subject to a reverse
referendum on its next proposed levy. Effective beginning with taxes payable in 2016.
5 Contents of tax statements, Requires that the current tax statements include notice if a city
or county raised its general property tax levy and is therefore subject to a reverse referendum
on its next proposed levy. Effective beginning with taxes payable in 2016.
Research Department Minnesota House of Representatives 600 State Office Building
R:�HRD_Summ\2015\1671 Drazkowski.pd.docx Last printed 4/6/2015 1:01:00 PM
x,,-e ,��.�-� � 4, Mx
, �..� ,�. ,. . �..2, F_::n. ,�,.a,. ,. .�:�.,,�...��.�__
��.:��;�, �.F�a _. - LL
RELEVANT LINKS:
D. Reverse referenda or elections to revoke
council action
Appendix D:Council action In narrowly applicable situations, eligible voters may petition for a special
subject to reversal by voters.
election to reverse a particular council action. Referenda are votes of the
electorate on a particular subject. Because voters petition for the chance to
reverse a council action, this type of special election is commonly known
as a reverse referendum.
se�c�o„N:Perruons. The particular statute allowing a petition to reverse the council governs
these special elections. State rules governs the form of petitions. Typically,
voters have only a certain number of days to submit a petition calling for a
vote to reverse a previous council action. Reverse referenda are unusual;
consult the city attorney for specific legal advice.
E. Recall or removal from office
Section N: Unauthorized
Local voters often ask if the city can hold a vote to remove a particular
ere�aonsonq�sao»s. local official from office in a special election. As discussed previously,
M;n�, sca�.§3s�r?c>>. voters in statutory cities have only those powers delegated to them by the
Minn.Stat.§A1020.
M;nn.c�,,,t.art v���,§�,. state legislature. Currently, voters in statutory cities have no authority to
✓u���n.senY.:��a�er,Zss petition for, or vote on, removing an elected official from the city council.
Minn.300,96 N.W.2d 569
��9s9>. In some situations, councilmembers lose office by operation of law, for
example if a person is convicted of a felony; but there is no authority to
remove officers by a vote.
M;"° stA�.§3''.°i. Charter cities may have limited authority in the charter to remove elected
Minn.Const.art.Vlll,§5.
M;nn.s�ac.�a�o.�o. officials. Recall elections in charter cities are limited by the Minnesota
State ex rel.Martin v. COI1St1tUt1011. The charter may allow for a recall election to remove an
Burnqurst, 141 Minn.308,
»orr.w.2o��M;�,,,. �9�a�. elected official due to malfeasance or nonfeasance in the performance of
srate ex rei.K,,,serra v. his or her duties. To constitute malfeasance or nonfeasance the conduct
Eberhart, 1 I6 Minn.313,
�33 N.w.ss��M��,,,. �9>>�. must affect the person's performance of official duties rather than conduct
that affects their personal character as a private individual. All of this is a
fact specific determination so charter cities must consult the city attorney
before seeking an election to recall or remove a city official from office.
VI. Petitions
M�nn.stati.§zoa�.o��. In statutory cities, petitions submitted by voters requesting an election on a
legally authorized question must comply with state law and rules. State
M;,,n.sta�.§zo�.�o,s«na.z. rules set by the Minnesota secretary of state govern the form, circulation,
signing, filing and inspection of petitions. If a city charter specifically
addresses petitions, the charter provisions may prevail over state law and
rules.
League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 3/17/2014
City Special Elections Page 8
t"1��� �3�y ��.,�r x=; ��_$�
�4 .3r•�.���' `#
� H'�e_ `y..=•. ��'*. '�`"� z
� °� �-- � q �
�' i ��' �I "^"��`�" �;� f�s�. .�.��`� ��... ,�
Ph sical T}+�velo m+�nt Ue artment
Y �' �"
?63-593-8tf3o 1763-593-3988{fax)
Executive Summary
Golden Valley Council/Manager Meeting
April 14, 2015
Agenda Item
3. Right-of-Way Management Ordinance and CenturyLink
Prepared By
Marc Nevinski, Physical Development Director
Summary
In 2014, Centurylink proposed to install approximately three to four miles of fiber optic cable in
Golden Valley on existing overhead poles, with the eventual removal of the existing caoper
overhead lines. However, in 2001, the City adopted an ordinance which required all new,
replacement, relocated or reconstructed facilities in excess of 300 feet to be placed underground
(Golden Valley City Code 7.28: Undergrounding). Centurylink and other companies have placed
nearly 17 miles of facilities underground in the past three years, as required by ordinance.
CenturyLink has asked if their currently proposed installation could be granted a variance or
exemption from the ordinance. However, as currently written, the ordinance does not allow for
any variance or exemption. Staff raised this issue with Council in November 2014, and Council
concluded it did not wish to modify or relax the undergrounding requirement. Centurylink has
since asked to meet with the Council to discuss their plans, the new fiber optic technology, and
the impact of the ordinance on their project.
Attachments
• November 12, 2014 Executive Summary (5 pages)
• November 12, 2014 Council/Manager Meeting Minutes (1 page)
����' C�� �,E
� r,.. �. :� �� ; .
� :� � .. �
Public Works De artment
��.. p
763-593-8030/763-593-3988(fax)
, .:, � �� ,.a�u�g��:������„�����u�e��������..����.�; ._ . � -� �
du. . �. � .� m. � . _ ... � . < �
Executive Summary
Golden Valley Council/Manager Meeting
November 12, 2014
Agenda Item
2. Right-of-Way Management Ordinance
Prepared By
Marc Nevinski, Physical Development Director
Jeff Oliver, PE, City Engineer
Summary
Staff recently received an inquiry from Centurylink regarding permitting requirements for the
installation of approximately three to four miles of fiber-optics within the City. This proposed
installation is in the beginning of its implementation and detailed design is not yet available.
However, staff from CenturyLink indicated that the project would consist of installing the new
fiber optic lines on overhead poles, with the eventual removal of the existing overhead copper
lines.
The City adopted its original Right-of-Way Management Ordinance (Chapter 7, Golden Valley City
Code) in 2001. This ordinance was based upon a model ordinance developed by the League of
Minnesota Cities in response to the deregulation of the telecommunications industry, and the
resulting number of companies wishing to install facilities within publicly-owned right-of-ways,
which often resulted in significant damage to streets and highways, sidewalks, lawns and
landscaping, and City-owned utility systems. The 2001 ordinance adopted by Golden Valley
included provisions that all new, replacement, relocated or reconstructed facilities must be
placed underground if the installation exceeded 300 feet in length (Golden Valley City Code,
Section 7.28: Undergrounding). These requirements are still within the current code, a copy of
which is attached for reference.
Based upon the requirements of the Right-of-Way Management Ordinance, staff notified
CenturyLink that the replacement facilities proposed to be installed must be placed underground.
CenturyLink has requested consideration of a variance of the Right-of-Way Management
Ordinance to allow them to place the fiber optic cables overhead on the existing Xcel Energy
power poles. The primary reason cited by CenturyLink for this request is that requiring
underground installation would place their company at a competitive disadvantage to other
telecommunication companies.
In the past three years, there have been 12 different telecommunication companies that have
installed underground facilities within the City as outlined in City Code. These installations totaled
16.7 miles in length. In addition, City records indicate the CenturyLink obtained 29 permits for
underground installation of facilities, This infarmation indicates that the undergrounding
requirement in City Code has been fairly and uniformly enforced.
Staff referred this issue to its legal counsel for right-of-way management and private utility
issues, lames Strommen of Kennedy and Graven. Mr. Strommen's attorney-client privileged
communication dated November 5, 2014 outlining his findings will be distributed at the meeting.
In summary, based upon the Centurylink plans as they are known, and the content of the City
Code, there is no latitude provided to City staff, or the City Council, to vary from the ordinance
and allow overhead installation of the proposed fiber optic facilities. Furthermore, Mr. Strommen
recommends that the City may wish to consider revising its code to allow for exceptions to the
undergrounding requirements.
Staff wishes to discuss this right-of-way management issue with the City Council to determine if
revisions to the City Code should be pursued.
Attachments
• Golden Valley City Code, Section 7.28: Undergrounding. (3 pages)
§ 7.28
Section �.28: Undergrounding
Subdivision 1. Generally
Facilities placed in the right-of-way must be located, relocated and maintained
underground pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Code and in accordance
with applicable construction standards. This Section is intended to be enforced
consistently with state and federal law regulating right-of-way user, specifically
including but not limited to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 161.45, 237.162,
237.163, 300.03, 222.37, 238.084, and 216B.36 and the Telecommunications Act
of 1996, Title 47, USC Section 253.
Subdivision 2. New Extended Facilities
A new Facility or a permanent extension of Facilities must be installed and
maintained underground when supplied to:
A. new installation of buildings, signs, streetlights or other structures;
B. new subdivision of land; or
C. a new development or industrial park containing new commercial or
industrial buildings.
Subdivision 3. Undergrounding of Permanent Replacement,
Relocated or Reconstructed Facilities
A permanent replacement, relocation or reconstruction of a facility of more than
three hundred (300) feet must be located, and maintained underground, with due
regard for seasonal working conditions. For purposes of this Section, reconstruction
means any substantial repair of or any improvement to existing Facilities.
Undergrounding is required whether a replacement, relocation or reconstruction is
initiated by the right-of-way user owning or operating the Facilities, or by the City
in connection with A) the present or future use by the City or other local
government unit of the righfi-of-way for a public project, B) the public health or
safety, or C) the safety and convenience of travel over the right-of-way.
Subdivision 4. Retirement of Overhead Facilities
The City may determine whether it is in the public interest that all Facilities within
the City, or within certain districts designated by the City, be permanently placed
and maintained underground by a certain or target date, independently of
undergrounding required pursuant to this Chapter. The decision to underground
must be preceded by a public hearing, after published notice and written notice to
the utilities affected. At the hearing the City Council must consider items (A)-(D) in
Section 7.28, Subdivision 6 and make findings. Undergrounding may not take place
until City Council has, after hearing and notice, adopted a plan containing items
(A)-(F) of Section 7.28, Subdivision 7.
Golden Valley City Code Page 1 of 3
§ �.2s
Subdivision 5. Public Hearings
A hearing must be open to the public and may be continued from time to time. At
each hearing any person interested must be given an opportunity to be heard. The
subject of the public hearings shall be the issue of whether Facilities in the right-of-
way in the City, or located within a certain district, shall all be located underground
by a date certain. Hearings are not necessary for the undergrounding required
under Section 7.28, Subdivisions 2 and 3.
Subdivision 6. Public Hearing Issues
The issues to be addressed at the public hearings include but are not limited to:
A. The costs and benefits to the public of requiring the undergrounding of all
Facilities in the right-of-way.
B. The feasibility and cost of undergrounding all Facilities by a date certain as
determined by the City and the affected utilities.
C. The tariff requirements, procedures and rate design for recovery or intended
recovery of incremental costs for the undergrounding by the utilities from
ratepayers within the City.
D. Alternative financing options available if the City deems it in the public
interest to require undergrounding by a date certain and deems it �
appropriate to participate in the cost otherwise borne by the taxpayers.
Upon completion of the hearing or hearings, the City Council must make written
findings on whether it is in the public interest to establish a plan under which all
Facilities will be underground, either citywide or within districts designated by the
City.
Subdivision 7. Undergrounding Plan
If the City Council finds that it is in the public interest to underground all or
substantially all Facilities in the public right-of-way, the City Council must establish
a plan for such undergrounding. The plan for undergrounding must include at least
the following items:
A. Timetable for undergrounding.
B. Designation of districts for the undergrounding unless, undergrounding plan
is citywide.
C. Exceptions to the undergrounding requirement and procedures for
establishing such exceptions.
D. Procedures for the undergrounding process, including but not limited to
coordination with City projects and provisions to ensure compliance with non-
discrimination requirements under the law.
Golden Valley City Code Page 2 of 3
§ �.2s
E. A financing plan for funding of the incremental costs if the City determines
that it will finance some of the undergrounding costs, and a determination
and verification of the claimed additional costs to underground incurred by
the utility.
F, Penalties or other remedies for failure to comply with the undergrounding.
Source: Ordinance No. 239, 2nd Series
Effiective Date: 3-15-01
Golden Valley City Code Page 3 of 3
Council/Manager Meeting Minutes
November 12, 2014
Right-of- Way Management Ordinance
Burt stated that staff met recently with GenturyLink to discuss their request to request a
variance of the City Code to place fiber optic cables overhead on existing Excel Energy
power poles. The City Code requirements are that any replacements must be placed
underground.
Oliver stated the current City Code does not allow for any variations to the regulations. He
also stated that some other cities have adopted some exceptions to the Right-of-Way
Model ordinance.
After discussion the Council consensus was to not proceed with making any amendments
to the City Code at this time.
cityof
�lc�en � EMo � ANauM
� .
�a. E„'.� CityAdministration/Council
763-593-8003/763-593-8109(fax)
z �. � . , �
n��. > ��� �� F�:t"����x�v.. �: r.�.�� <r� r n�;��. �-��,_r�_ � ���� �'."�_�_���
Executive Summary
Golden Valley Council/Manager Meeting
April 14, 2015
Agenda Item
4. City Manager Search Timeline and Process
Prepared By
Thomas D. Burt, City Manager
Summary
The City has contracted with Springsted, Inc. to conduct the City Manager executive recruitment.
Springsted, Inc. Senior Vice President, Dave Unmacht will be in attendance to receive input from
the Council on the recruitment timeline and process.
����r �� ���
y��
'd��.f%y.'4
- .. . �.� �� '^'s�� �.. . �
City Adrninistration/Council
763-593-80Q3/763-593-81Q9(fax)
:�-= �aait�'r.".�s:,`.�,`,.��'�e���.,..,.�.�:� �:` . ^"�5's'h..�"�uRtiSi�U'°"��I'�I�s"i�'Ri�r6tl`hfl(li6i`n`in � ..,,: . `f� P,�,.�hi1kG(�;St�-tm.»..<;�.�;, '. "-:. .. . '-.-" .��+!,p!.,ryp�ra`a�.r�����I��i�IGiFM1pqu���=.�:' .
Executive Summary
Golden Valley Council/Manager Meeting
April 14, 2015
Agenda Item
5. Duluth Street Bicycle Lane
Prepared By
Thomas Burt, City Manager
Summary
Council Member Fonnest requested this item be placed on the agenda.
Attachments
• Email from Billy Binder dated March 18, 2015 (2 pages)
• Email from Eric Eckman dated March 30, 2015 (2 pages)
From: billyb
Date: March 18, 2015 at 10:35:10 AM CDT
To: <eeckmanCcC��goldenvalleymn.qov>, <joliver(c'�qaidenvalieymn.qov>
Cc: <sharris .goldenvalleymn.gov>, <�clausenCa7qoldenvallevmn.gov>,
<Ifonnest _goldenvaily.gov>, <sschmidgal��goldenvalley.gov>,
<asnopeCa�goldenvalleymn.gov>, <kelley.yemen@�hennepin.us>,
<kqrissman(a�threeriversparkdistrict.org>, <tina.sanz�co.hennepin.mn.us>
Subject: Hennepin County is paving Duluth Street this year and there are
opportunities for Golden Valley!
Hi Erik and Jeff:
I was told my Kelley Yemen, Hennepin County's Bike and Pedestrian Coordinator, on
Monday that Hennepin County is contracting for a mill and overlay project on Duluth
Street from Adair to Xerxes Avenue North this year.
I asked Ms. Yemen if Hennepin County could include bike lanes when they stripe the
brand new pavement on Duluth Street. Kelley said "maybe--there are challenges" and
that Three Rivers Parks has also asked for striped bike lanes as a part of this year's
project on Duluth Street.
The Golden Valley Public Works Department is in a strong position to join Three Rivers
Parks to advocate for the inclusion of bike lanes in this repaving project.
The most obvious advantage for Golden Valley residents is that adding striped bike
lanes on new pavement comes with very little or no additional cost. The best way to get
new lane markings to adhere to pavement is to paint the markings on brand new
pavement.
Of course bike lanes stencils on the pavement and bike lane signs on the right of way
would be a nice addition with additianal cost, and Duluth Street is prominent on the
Hennepin County bike plan and should be included in the project by Hennepin County,
itself, in my opinion, but add-ons like stencils and signs are typically done in full
reconstruction projects and not budgeted in mill and overlay projects. Here is where
Golden Valley staff could maybe negotiate or do something.
This bike lane project could be the beginning of the new partnership with Hennepin
County to make Duluth Street a "transportation corridor" to provide bike, pedestrian and
transit access to our future Bottineau Light Rail station as Council Member Steve
Schmidgall so often suggests and as a very visible effort with Hennepin County to gain
popularity and acceptance of the LRT project,
Bike lanes on Duluth Street will be a east/west spine of a future Golden Valley Bike and
Pedestrian Plan envisioned by Council Member Andy Snope, like the I 394 frontage
road bike lanes could be though Tyrol Hills.
We can begin to stimulate robust bike riding and safer pedestrian access on Duluth
Street in advance of Three Rivers dedicated bike and pedestrian project in the future
park and Hennepin County roadway reconstruction project that will make Duluth Street
the 21st Century roadway in function and appearance that we deserve in Golden
Valley.
Possibly the very most important advantage is that this project could encourage the fas#
and more experienced bike riders to separate themselves from pedestrians on the
narrow, cracked, uneven sidewalks especally on the Courage center side of the street
and ride in the brand new bike lanes on smooth new pavement.
This paving project presents us with multiple opportunities to build up the numbers of
future transit and park users, with accommodating today's bike and pedestrian needs,
an efficiency in city and county investment at very little additional cost. This is an
opportunity with Hennepin County that we should embrace. Tomorrow is now, but time
is the essence!
Please let me know anything that I can do to assist you.
Sincerely,
Billy Binder
2700 Major Ave North
Golden Valley 55422
From: Eckman, Eric
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 3:58 PM
To: Burt, Tom; Nevinski, Marc
Cc: Oliver, Jeff
Subject: FW: Duluth St/Golden Valley Rd repaving
Here is the email from Hennepin County staff to our elected officials regarding this
summer's mill and averlay project on CSAH 66. It is very similar to aurs.
Eric Eckman � Public Works Specialist � City of Golden Valley
7800 Golden Valley Road � Golden Valley, MN 55427 � 763-593-8084
,; P a ,P
{direct) � 763-593-3988 (Fax) � 763-593-3568 (TTY) � � � ,� ���:�r�
eeckmanCc�qaldenvalleymn.gov
From: Kelley R Yemen [mailto:Kellev.Yemen(cr7.hennepin.us]
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 3:16 PM
To: Harris, Shep
Cc: Clausen, Joanie; Fonnest, Larry; Schmidgall, Steve; Snope, Andy; Kelley R Yemen;
Tina L Sanz; Eckman, Eric; Oliver, Jeff; kqrissman(c�threeriversparkdistrict.orq;
dvdurham�a.mac.com; Andrew G Gillett; Robert H. Byers; Jason Staebell; Debra R Brisk
Subject: Duluth St/Golden Valley Rd repaving
Golden Valley Mayor and City Council Members,
Recently you may have been contacted by a concerned citizen looking to incorporate
bicycle lanes as a part of the county's mill and overlay project along CSAH 66/Duluth
St/Golden Valley Rd. I would like to offer the fallowing informatian to clarify what is
happening along Duluth SUGolden Valley Rd this summer from the county.
The county will be conducting a contracted mill and overlay, not by in-house crews, and
the bids for that work have already gone out. The road is in poor condition and must be
overlaid this year. The current bikeable shoulders will be restriped as part of the mill and
overlay. County transportation staff are looking in to ensuring the contractor uses 11
foot travel lanes which could allow a little widening to the bikeable shoulders.
County staff has also recently met with Three Rivers, Metro Transit, MPRB, and the City
of Golden Valley to see if any trail improvements, as outlined in the recently completed
Bassett Creek Regional Trail feasibility study, could be incorporated in to the mill and
overlay project. At that meeting, it was determined that any trail improvements would
not be able to be incorporated and that the county would maintain its existing bikeable
shoulders to allow for greater flexibility when the trail is built. We may not be able to
maintain both an on-road and an off-road facilities due to space constraints.
The group of agencies agreed that the Duluth St/Golden Valley Rd (CSAH 66) corridor
(from Douglas to Xerxes) deserves to be have an overall vision and layout developed to
continue the work from the feasibility study. This vision would guide all the individual
projects that are slated for the corridor in the next several years. However, no agency
felt it had the resources or authority to lead the effort at this time.
Please let me know if you have any questions,
Kelley
Kelley Yemen, AICP
Bicycle and Pedestrian Coordinator
Hennepin County
701 Fourth Avenue South, Suite 400
Minneapolis, MN 55415
Office: 612.543.1963 Mobile: 612.220.3312
kelley.yemen(c�henne�n.us
iw B��� V�� -_�:;:��;. 9
. . ��. �': ���.. ���
^ : ��. �� .. .., .
Administrative Services Departrnent
763-593-8013 I 763-593-3969(fax)
u M�!�"'.�'-��A+a�Y%lUlhi�'��-. ., .. .�='=�3-..�����!UIIIIN4�6W�.:�`sye:,� ,..». , ... `'"'.'W':: ."h, �!��:yw��., m.. ... . .. �"�.'!�H�I�ibn7�`�fl�ha''��'kN�I�iliPlr�ia�5�,:.�..,cu,ti�a I5�a,.�a:-z�:_..» . ,'�'�kreh
Executive Summary
Golden Valley Council/Manager Meeting
April 14, 2015
Agenda Item
6. General Fund Budget Transfer
Prepared By
Sue Virnig, Finance Director
Summary
The monthly financial report provides a progress report of the following funds:
General Fund Operations
Per General Fund Balance Policy, 60% of expenditures are reserved. In 2015, expenditures are
16,902,135. Fund Balance should be at $10,141,281. Staff recommends moving $690,000 to the
Building Improvement Fund. Remodeling the lower level in City Hall, Brookview Community
Center financing and the Fire Department Study will be upcoming needs. A resolution authorizing
the transfer will be considered at the next City Council meeting.
Attachments
• December 2014 General Fund Financia) Reports (2 pages)
• General Fund Balance Analysis (1 page)
• Resolution Authorizing the Transfer of$692,000 from the General Fund to the Building
Improvement Fund (1 page)
City of Golden Valley
Monthly Budget Report-General Fund Expenditures
December 2014(unaudited)
Over %
2014 December YTD (Under) Of Budget
Division Budqet Actual Actual Budget Expend.
00� Council $296,340 40,435 265,270 ($31,070) 89.52% (1)
003 City Manager 774,980 54,388 694,285 (80,695) 89.59% (2)
ooa Transfers Out 294,710 0 294,710 0 100.00%
005 Admin. Services 1,692,280 142,610 1,682,785 (9,495) 99.44% (3)
oos Legal 135,000 24,214 134,296 (704) 99.48%
oo� Risk Management 300,000 (33,540) 240,917 (59,Q83) 80.31°/o (4)
o�� General Gov't. Bldgs. 556,990 100,897 613,628 56,638 110.17% (5)
016 Planning 346,195 23,712 302,542 (43,653) 87.39°/o (6)
0�8 Inspections 661,545 73,971 677,757 16,212 102.45% (7)
oz2 Police 5,202,175 486,476 5,074,608 (127,567) 97.55% (8)
023 Fire 1,200,190 79,712 1,034,704 (165,486) 86.21% (9)
os5 Physical Dev Admin 344,315 25,578 356,927 12,612 103.66% (10)
o3s Engineering 691,880 91,472 559,173 (132,707) 80.82% (11)
os� Streets 1,444,410 120,331 1,501,652 57,242 103.96% (12)
os5 Community Center 74,100 15,768 67,096 (7,004) 90.55%
oss Park&Rec.Admin. 679,345 55,764 658,065 (21,280) 96.87% (13)
os� Park Maintenance 1,071,490 84,301 1,039,527 (31,963) 97.02% (14)
oss Recreation Programs 502 830 39 839 303,646 (199,184) 60.39% (15)
TOTAL Expenditures $16,268 775 $1 425 928 $15 501,588 ($767,187) 95.28%
(1) Civil Service, HRC,OSRC, BZA and Envision Commission were under budget.
(2) City Clerk was not hired until April. HR Sevices were not needed.
(3)Additional hours for special network services from LOGIS were not needed.
(4) LMCIT Dvidend was$38,340.
(5) Electric and Gas Service was higner than budgeted.
(6) Staffing changes and no car allowance made after July.
(7) Market adjustments on salaries and additional temporary staff needs.
(8) Staffing changes made and vacancies
(9) Delay in hiring process for Deputy Fire Chief plus lower hours for fire calls.
(10) Department changes were made.
(11) More hours charged to poejcts along with lower electrical costs than budgeted.
(12) Market adjustments to salaries and vehicle maintenance charges were higher than budgeted.
(13) Llower supplies and services compared to budget.
(14) Less wages for seasonal help compared to budget.
(15)Various programs were under budget amount: softball, summer park, hockey, soccer, broomball, and tennis.
Gity of Golden Valley
Monthly Budget Report-General Fund Revenues
December, 2014
Percentage Of Year Completed 100.00%
Over %
2014 November YTD (Under) of Budget
Type Budget Actual Actual Budget Received
Ad Valorem Taxes $12,358,005 6,004,304 12,431,386 $73,381 100.59% (1)
Licenses 210,785 8,475 268,671 $57,886 127.46% (2)
Permits 809,500 54,196 1,210,632 $401,132 149.55% (3)
Federal Grants 0 5,691 31,589 $31,589
StateAid 255,390 111,250 252,909 ($2,481) 99.03%
Hennepin County Aid 31,205 0 31,758 $553
Charges For Services:
General Government 45,050 409 49,787 $4,737 110.51%
Public Safety 163,870 14,792 166,032 $2,162 101.32%
Public Works 141,000 25,611 168,169 $27,169 119.27% (4)
Park& Rec 525,270 25,706 382,520 ($142,750) 72.82% (5)
Other Funds 981,500 63,088 903,459 ($78,041) 92.05%
Fines & Forfeitures 320,000 44,904 310,318 ($9,682) 96.97%
Interest On Investments 100,000 67,758 67,758 ($32,242) 67.76%
Miscellaneous Revenue 227,200 66,610 251,977 $24,777 110.91%
Transfers In 100,000 8,333 100,000 $0 100.00%
TOTAL Revenue $16,268,775 $6,501,127 $16,626,965 $358,190 102.20%
Notes:
(1) Delinquent Tax payment were made.
(2)Apratment Licenses increase due to Arcata Building.
(3) Permits increased due to many development projects.
(4)Tennis progam was changed after budget was approved.
(5)Tennis lesson revenue is contractual versus lesson revenue.
CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY
GENERALFUND
FUND BALANCE ANALYSIS
Fund Balance @ 01/01/14 $9,707,985
Actual Revenue-2014 $16,626,965
Actual Expenditures-2014 15,501,588
Excess of Revenue Over(Under) Expenditures 1,125,377
Estimated Fund Balance @ 12/31/14 10,833,362
Per Fund Balance Policy
Expenditures -2015 16,902,135
Excess of Revenue Over(Under) Expenditures 10,141,281
Amount of Transfer in 2013 $692,os�
Building Fund - Remodeling Lower Level City Hall; Fire Station Study; 692,000
Brookview Community Center
TOTAL TRANSFER $692,000
Resolution 15- April 21, 2015
Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE TRANSFER OF $692,000 FROM THE
GENERAL FUND TO THE BUILDING IMPROVEMENT FUND
WHEREAS, the General Fund Reserves meets 60% of 2015 expenditures; and
WHEREAS, the transfer of $692,000 to the Building Improvement Fund would fund
costs associated with remodeling the lower level of City Hall for ease of use for customers,
future needs with the Brookview Community Genter, and Fire Study to review locations of
current fire stations, response time and number of available firefighters for response; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Golden
Valley to authorize the transfer of $692,000 from the General Fund to the Building
Improvement Fund.
Shepard Harris, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kristine A Luedke, City Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Member
and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the Mayor
and his signature attested by the City Clerk.
t�M��� (��� � ��.,.:
��
� . r , X^�. g'S � � �'� �4 � �.G'�. �� ��
x^ „ �1 Hrs b �i "� � '�_'"
I ,�� :� �a.,:-.`.� � x ;��" a �y �
,� � �:. , .:� '� 'k'� � ,�,7.,'.. '1f` �4�"
Administrative Services Departrnent
763-593-8013/763-593-3969(fax)
. .:.: �� .....���'�SI�''��(I���.������'<--.s,.. '� ��i�:�il�Na���iPN"��''7�R�pi�dtlid��,U�e�?��'-.�.,.�-- .;: ` .: ...,,�i i6 .�t
Executive Summary
Golden Valley Council/Manager Meeting
April 14, 2015
Agenda Item
7. Council Salaries Review
Prepared By
Susan Virnig, Finance Director/Deputy City Clerk
Summary
As per City Code, Council salaries are reviewed every two years preceding the city election.
Previous reviews were made in 2007, 2009, 2011 and 2013 but did not result in any salary
increase for the Council and Mayor positions. The last increase was approved in July, 2003 and
became effective in 2004.
Below is the salary or wage increase for City non-unian employees for the previous two years.
2015 2.5%
2014 2.5%
Current Salarv New Salary
Mayor $11,619 $12,2q7
Council Members $ 8,696 $ 9,136
Attachments
• City Code Section 2.19: Salaries of Mayors and Council Members (1 page)
• Sample Ordinance - Amending Salaries of Mayor and Council Members (1 pagej
§ 2.19
.
Section 2.19:
Salaries of Mayors and Council Members
Subdivision 1
The annual salary of the Mayor shall be $11,619.00.
Subdivision 2
The annual salary of each Council Member shall be $8,696.00.
Source: Ordinance No. 281, 2"d Series
Effective Date: 7-18-03
Subdivision 3. Approved Additional Meetings
In addition to their salaries, the Mayor and Council shall be paid $50.00 for each
meeting they are directed or designated to attend, up to a maximum of $150.00
per month. The method for appraval of ineetings shall be outlined by resolution of
the Council.
Source: Ordinance No. 63, 2nd Series
Effective Date: 4-25-91
Subdivision 4
The salaries provided for herein shall be effective January 1, 2004.
Source: Ordinance No. 281, 2"d Series
Effective Date: 7-18-03
Subdivision 5
In April of each odd numbered year, the City's staff shall provide to the Council the
percentage representing the average salary or wage increase for City non-union
employees for fihe previous two years so that the Council may consider appropriate
increases in its salaries.
Source: Ordinance No. 63, 2nd Series
Effective Date: 4-25-91
Golden Valley City Code Page 1 of 1
ORDINANCE NO. , 2ND SERIES
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE
Amending Salaries of Mayor and Council Members
The City Council for the City of Golden Valley hereby ordains:
Section 1. City Code Section 2.19, Subd. 1., 2. and 4. are hereby amended to
read:
Subd. 1. The annual salary of the Mayor shall be $�-�-�. $12,207
Subd. 2. The annual salary of each Council Member shall be $�6. $9,136
Subd. 4. The salaries provided for herein shall be effective January 1, �A94
2016.
Section 2. City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions and Definitions
Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" is hereby adopted in
its entirety, by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein.
Section 3. This ordinance shall take effect from and after its passage and
publication as required by law.
/s/Shepard M Harris
Shepard M Harris, Mayor
ATTEST:
/s/Kristine A Luedke
Kristine A. Luedke, City Clerk
d:1�`� C)�
�
,
� ;
� , � 5��,
City Adrninistration/Council
763-593-80Q3/763-593-81 Q9(fax)
�����,� �����_ b � n � , � ; ��:ti: �, :_.�. ;
� m .... � _ �_. � ...._. ... �. . ��..� .� �.v . ,
Executive Summary
Golden Valley Council/Manager Meeting
April 14, 2015
Agenda Item
8. Security Update
Prepared By
Thomas Burt, City Manager
Summary
City Manager Burt will provide an update at the meeting.
�.~���� ���M �r•,
� � 4 ;�.
.F. a� � &Y� . .
City Administratian/Council
763-593-8003/763-593-8109(fax)
dyi�nm{U€�°�a���tfl'GW'`w-*�..,��"3k-� . ..._._........... 'z.,�.z�a-ri. �w:nlh�� �� � ' ' '
. . ,b-. ��.1� �����.�,».��i'��1�'w�i'K����S.a,..�.....-;.. : . . . . . . . .. .
Executive Summary
Golden Valley Council/Manager Meeting
April 14, 2015
Agenda Item
9. Board/Commission Recognition Dinner
Prepared By
Thomas Burt, City Manager
Summary
The Council should decide from the list below when the Board/Commission Recognition Dinner
should be held. The available dates are as follow:
May 6 (Wednesday)
May 20 (Wednesday)
May 27 (Wednesday)
June 10 (Wednesday)
June 24 (Wednesdayj