02-02-16 CC Agenda Packet (entire)AGENDA
Regular Meeting
of the
City Council
Golden Valley City Hall
7800 Golden Valley Road
Council Chamber
February 2, 2016
6:30 pm
The Council may consider item numbers 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6
prior to the public hearings scheduled at 7 pm
1.CALL TO ORDER PAGES
A.Roll Call
B.Pledge of Allegiance
C.Presentation - Proclamation recognizing General Mills 150 Year Anniversary 3
D.2015 Police Department Annual Report 4
2.ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS TO AGENDA
3.CONSENT AGENDA
Approval of Consent Agenda - All items listed under this heading are considered to be
routine by the City Council and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no
discussion of these items unless a Council Member or citizen so requests in which
event the item will be removed from the general order of business and considered in its
normal sequence on the agenda.
A.Approval of Minutes
1. Council/Manager Meeting - January 12, 2016 5-6
2. City Council Meeting - January 20, 2016 7-10
B.Approval of City Check Register
1. City 11
2. Housing and Redevelopment Authority 12
C.Licenses:
1. Gambling License Exemption and Waiver of Notice Requirement - Good
Shepherd Church
13-15
D.Minutes of Boards and Commissions:
1. Planning Commission - December 28, 2015 16-22
2. Human Rights Commission - December 22, 2015 23-25
3. Environmental Commission - October 26, 2015 26-27
4. Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission - December 17, 2015 28-36
E.Bids and Quotes:
1. Authorize Purchase Ford Transit Connect Van 37
2. Authorize Purchase One Elgin Pelican Street Sweeper 38-39
3. Authorize Purchase One Toro Groundsmaster 5910 Mower 40-41
4. Authorize Purchase Three Pickup Trucks 42-43
5. Authorize Purchase Thermal Imaging Cameras 44
F.Letters, Emails and/or Petitions:
1. Letter from Benjamin Peterson Regarding Resignation from Civil Service
Commission
45
G.Second Consideration - Ordinance #589 - Amending Section 4.20: Sign Permit and
Regulations regarding Temporary Signs, Banners and Inflatables
46-53
3. CONSENT AGENDA - continued
H.Second Consideration - Ordinance #590 - Amend 2016 Master Fee Schedule for
Temporary Signage
54-55
I.Annual Elections for the 2016 Insurance Policy 16-05 56-57
J.Authorize Extension with Tim’s Tree Service, Inc. for 2016 Spring Brush Pickup
Program
58-59
K.Authorize Contract for Professional Services with Prairie Restoration 60-71
L.Open to Business Initiative 16-06 72-82
4.PUBLIC HEARINGS 7 PM
A.Public Hearing - Preliminary Design Plans of the METRO Blue Line Extension
(Bottineau) Light Rail Transit Project
83-102
5. OLD BUSINESS
6.NEW BUSINESS
A.Announcements of Meetings
1. Future Draft Agendas: Council/Manager February 9, 2016, City Council
February 16 and March 2, 2016
103-105
B.Mayor and Council Communications
7.ADJOURNMENT
CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY
PROCLAMATION FOR THE
150TH ANNIVERSARY OF GENERAL MILLS
WHEREAS, 150 years ago in 1866, Cadwallader Washburn built his first flour
mill on the banks of the Mississippi River, harnessing the power of the St. Anthony
Falls; and
WHEREAS, the success of the first mill led to many more, which led to the
beginnings of the Washburn Crosby Company; and
WHEREAS, in 1880, Washburn Crosby entered its flour in the Millers'
International Exhibition and won the gold medal, inspiring the name of Gold Medal flour,
the company's oldest brand; and
WHEREAS, Washburn led milling innovation that he shared freely with
competitors to improve quality and, thanks in part to this innovation, Minneapolis
produced more flour than anywhere else in the world for the next 50 years and became
known as the "Mill City"; and
WHEREAS, in 1928, after years of expansion, James Ford Bell consolidated
Washburn Crosby and four other milling companies under one new public company and
General Mills was born; and
WHEREAS, today General Mills is one of the world's leading food companies,
marketing its brands in over 100 countries; and
WHEREAS, Golden Valley has been the proud home of the General Mills World
Headquarters for more than 50 years, as well as other critical business operations in the
city; and
WHEREAS, General Mills has been a proud part of the Golden Valley
community, contributing to area causes and donating countless employee volunteer
hours.
NOW, THEREFORE, let it be known, that the Mayor and City Council of the City
of Golden Valley hereby recognize the 150th Anniversary of General Mills and ask all to
join in celebrating this commemorative occasion and urge all citizens to express
appreciation for its contributions to Golden Valley and the greater community.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the great
seal of the City of Golden Valley to be affixed this 2nd day of February, 2016.
Shepard M. Harris, Mayor
city 0
golden MEMORANDUM
valley Police Department
763-593-8079/763-593-8098(fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
February 2, 2016
Agenda Item
1. D. 2015 Police Department Annual Report
Prepared By
Jason Sturgis, Chief of Police
Summary
Chief Sturgis will present an overview of police department operations during 2015. Crime rates,
community outreach, and productivity will be outlined.
Council/Manager Meeting Minutes
January 12, 2016
Present: Mayor Harris and Council Members, Clausen, Fonnest, Schmidgall and Snope, City
Manager Tim Cruikshank, Assistant City Manager Chantell Knauss, Director of Parks and
Recreation Rick Birno, Communications Manager Cheryl Weiler, Physical Development Director
Marc Nevinski, Planning Manager Jason Zimmerman, Golf Operations Manager Ben Disch,
Associate Planner/Grant Writer Emily Goellner and Administrative Assistant Judy Nally.
The meeting began at 6:50 pm in the Council Conference Room.
Discover St. Louis Park -Convention and Visitors Bureau Presentation
President & CEO Becky Bakken, and Board Member Doug McIntyre, from Discover St. Louis Park
presented a PowerPoint presentation outlining their organization. Rick Birno and Cheryl Weiler
outlined the meetings held with Discover St. Louis Park and City of St. Louis Park staff.
The Council discussed how the partnership with Discover St. Louis Park would function, if Golden
Valley would have any representatives on the board, if discussions have been held with the hotels
within the City, budget, if Golden Valley could collect the lodging tax and build up the program,
Golden Valley promotion, the goal in establishing this partnership, and what the partnership would
be called.
The Council requested that staff meet with Discover St. Louis Park and City of St. Louis Park staff
to discuss how the partnership will work and report back to the Council at a future
Council/Manager meeting.
City Code Amendment - Section 8.11: Special Events
Tim Cruikshank and Cheryl Weiler outlined the proposed draft changes to City Code Section 8.11.
Some of the changes include: re-naming Section 8.11 to Special Events, defining categories of
city-hosted, city cooperative, city-supported special events and private events, adding mobile food
vendor definition, adding a general provisions subdivision, adding an exemptions subdivision,
creating a special event policy, further defining purpose, and removing the appeal to Council
subdivision.
The Council discussed how exemptions for organizations are determined, possible appeals to the
Manager, defining block party, determining requirements when serving food at a block party,
creating a policy for communications requests for the newsletter and electronic billboard, and
creating a fair and consistent policy.
Staff will bring back the amended Special Events ordinance and policy to a future
Council/Manager meeting.
METRO Blue Line Extension Project- Process -Transit Priorities Letter - Recommendations
for Consideration of Use of Sochacki Park
Jason Zimmerman outlined the Municipal Consent process stating that the City will hold a public
hearing on February 2, 2016. There will be an open house prior at 6 pm on February 2, 2016. The
item will be continued to the Council meeting of February 16, 2016, at which time the Council will
vote on the Municipal Consent plans. Zimmerman also stated that additional consideration could
be held at the Council meeting of March 2, 2016, if needed. Emily Goellner reviewed the Municipal
Consent communications schedule. Zimmerman reviewed the draft Transit Priorities Letter and
recommendations for consideration of the use of Sochack Park.
The Council had questions about the communications process, guidelines for conducting the
public hearing, the timeframe for naming the stations, when the unresolved issues will be
considered and brought back for discussion and action, and station construction and staging
areas.
The Council requested that information be provided to the Cable 16 scroll which outlines the dates
for Municipal Consent by the Council.
Council/Manager Meeting Minutes
January 16, 2016 — Page 2
The Council will consider approval of the transit priorities letter at the January 20, 2016 City
Council meeting. The recommendations for consideration of the use of Sochacki Park will be
considered at a future Council meeting.
Comprehensive Plan Update Process
Jason Zimmerman outlined the comprehensive plan update process which includes background
and preparation, setting of goals and work scope, developing content, feedback and revisions and
submittal. Emily Goellner, reviewed the Community Engagement Plan, which includes goals and
intent, collaboration with community members, communications line, engaging diverse groups,
communication of technical information, and monitoring outcomes and potential challenges.
The Council discussed the components of the plan, including adding a Metro Blue Line
component, setting a possible theme, looking beyond a 10 year plan, and addition other diverse
groups.
The Council was requested to let staff know of any contacts for additional groups for any
Comprehensive Plan in a Box events. Staff will provide updates at future Council/Manager
meetings and through the Weekly Report.
Remote Meeting Attendance by Elected Officials and Board/Commission Members
Chantell Knauss
Assistant City Manager Chantell Knauss reviewed the costs for remotely attending televised and
non-televised meetings held by the Council. The costs for the council conference room is
approximately $150. The cost to upgrade the Council Chambers is approximately $286,150.
The Council consensus was to proceed with configuring the council conference room to conduct
remote Council/Manager meetings. The Council consensus was not to proceed with any
configurations of the Council Chambers at this time. Staff was also requested to prepare a policy
for consideration at a future Council/Manager meeting, noting that attendance by the Council is
preferred.
Brookview Community Center Replacement - Design Check-in
Rick Birno and Glenn Waguespack from Hammel, Green and Abrahamson (HGA) presented a
PowerPoint presentation of conceptual designs and reviewed the design team visions, and
concepts of new floor plans, site plans, and massing studies.
The Council discussed the play areas, gathering locations, landscape design, mid-century modern
architecture, incorporating curves and architectural amenities, public input dates, plan for detailed
plans, phasing, possible electric vehicle plug-in stations, and signage and branding.
Staff will provide an update at the February Council/Manager meeting. The first open house will be
held on February 23, 2016.
Appointment to Highway 169 Mobility Study Policy Advisory Committee
Tim Cruikshank stated that MnDOT is requesting the Council appoint elected officials as a
delegate and alternate to the Highway 169 Mobility Study Policy Advisory Committee.
The Council will appoint Council Member Schmidgall as the delegate and Joanie Clausen as the
alternate at the next City Council meeting.
The meeting adjourned at 9:40 pm.
Judy Nally
Administrative Assistant
City of V, UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
eoWn CITY COUNCIL MEETING
vall, p GOLDEN VALLEY, MINNESOTA
January 20, 2016
1. CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Harris called the meeting to order at 6:30 pm.
1A. Roll Call
Present: Mayor Harris, Council Members Joanie Clausen, Larry Fonnest, Steve Schmidgall
and Andy Snope. Also present were: City Manager Cruikshank, City Attorney Garry and City
Clerk Luedke.
1 B. Pledge of Allegiance
2. ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS TO AGENDA
MOTION made by Council Member Snope, seconded by Council Member Schmidgall to
approve the agenda of January 20, 2016, as submitted and the motion carried.
3. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA
MOTION made by Council Member Snope, seconded by Council Member Clausen to approve
the consent agenda of January 20, 2016, as revised: removal of 3C1-Accept for filing the
Environmental Commission Minutes of September 28, 2015, and the motion carried.
3A. Approve Minutes of City Council Meeting - January 20, 2016.
313. Approve City Check Register and authorize the payments of the bills as submitted.
3C. Accept for filing the Minutes of Boards and Commissions as follows:
1 En\/Irnnm inn pt her 'x015
-��rrvTvrrrrr .sn�rr^ eprel��ucr� Iry
2. Open Space & Recreation Commission - October 26, 2015
3. Human Services Fund - November 9, 2015
4. Teen Committee - May 18, 2015
3D. Adopt Resolution 16-04 for Approval of Plat for Globus Golden Valley Addition PUD
No. 112 and to authorize the Mayor and City Manager to sign the PUD Permit and
Development Agreement for Globus Golden Valley Addition PUD No. 112.
3E. Approve appointments to the Highway 169 Mobility Study Policy Advisory Committee.
Council Member Schmidgall as Delegate and Council Member Clausen as Alternate
Delegate.
3. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA
3C1. Accept for filing Minutes of the Environmental Commission of September 28,
2015
Physical Development Director Nevinski answered questions from Council regarding
composting and organics recycling.
MOTION made by Council Member Snope, seconded by Council Member Fonnest to accept
for filing the Minutes of the Environmental Commission of September 28, 2015, and the
motion carried.
Unofficial City Council Minutes -2- January 20, 2016
4. PUBLIC HEARING
4A. Public Hearing - Approval of Conditional Use Permit 143 - 9000 10th Avenue North
- Motors Management Corp., Applicant
Planning Manager Zimmerman presented the staff report and answered questions from
Council.
Ms. Linda McGinty, Luther Companies, answered questions from Council regarding the
operation at the proposed location and explained how the unloading of the transport trucks
would work.
Mayor Harris opened the public hearing. No one came forward. Mayor Harris closed the public
hearing.
There was Council discussion regarding the Conditional Use Permit for Motors Management
Corporation located at 9000 10th Avenue North.
MOTION made by Council Member Snope, seconded by Council Member Clausen to add an
additional condition to the Conditional Use Permit stating "Bicycle racks or similar facilities for
the parking/storage of bicycles shall be provided" and the motion carried.
MOTION made by Council Member Schmidgall, seconded by Council Member Clausen to
adopt Ordinance #588, approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 143, 9000 10th Avenue North,
Motors Management Corp., Applicant as amended upon a vote being taken the following
voted in favor of: Harris, Clausen, Fonnest, Schmidgall and Snope the following voted against:
none and the motion carried.
6. NEW BUSINESS
6A. First Consideration - Amend Section 4.20: Sign Permits and Regulations
regarding Temporary Signs, Banners and Inflatables
Planning Manager Zimmerman presented the staff report and answered questions from
Council. City Attorney Garry, Physical Development Director Nevinski and City Manager
Cruikshank answered questions from Council.
There was Council discussion regarding the proposed amendments to Section 4.20 Sign
Permits which included reviewing the proposed language regarding the lot size requirement
for the special temporary signs.
MOTION made by Council Member Clausen, seconded by Council Member Schmidgall to
adopt first consideration Ordinance #589, amending Section 4.20: Sign Permits and
Regulations regarding Temporary Signs, Banners and Inflatables upon a vote being taken the
following voted in favor of: Harris, Schmidgall, Snope, Fonnest and Clausen the following
voted against: none and the motion carried.
6B. First Consideration - Amend the 2016 Master Fee Schedule for Temporary
Signs, Banners and Inflatables
Finance Director Virnig presented the staff report and answered questions from Council.
Planning Manager Zimmerman answered questions from Council.
Unofficial City Council Minutes -3- January 20, 2016
6B. First Consideration - Amend the 2016 Master Fee Schedule - continued
There was Council discussion regarding the proposed temporary sign fees. Council directed
staff to include additional background information for the second consideration.
MOTION made by Council Member Fonnest, seconded by Council Member Clausen to adopt
first consideration Ordinance #590, amending the 2016 Master Fee Schedule for Temporary
Signs, Banners and Inflatables upon a vote being taken the following voted in favor of: Harris,
Schmidgall, Clausen, Fonnest and Snope the following voted against: none and the motion
carried.
6C. METRO Blue Line Extension Update
Planning Manager Zimmerman presented the staff report and answered questions from
Council. City Manager Cruikshank answered questions from Council.
There was much Council discussion regarding the METRO Blue Line Extension update and
the process of the upcoming Municipal Consent Public Hearing.
MOTION made by Council Member Schmidgall, seconded by Council Member Fonnest to
receive and file the METRO Blue Line Extension Update and the motioned carried.
MOTION made by Council Member Fonnest, seconded by Council Member Schmidgall to
approve the Transit Priorities Letter and to direct staff to submit the letter to officials at the
Metropolitan Council, Metro Transit, MnDOT, and Hennepin County and the motioned carried.
MOTION made by Council Member Fonnest, seconded by Council Member Clausen to support
the Sochacki Park JPA Partnership Governance Board's proposed actions regarding Policies
and Recommended Actions for Equitable Use of Sochacki Park and the motion carried.
6D. Announcements of Meetings
Some Council Members may attend the Winter Family Festival on January 22, 2016, from 6 to
8 pm at Wesley Park.
Some Council Members may attend the 2016 Leadership Conference for Experienced
Officials on January 22 and 23, 2016, starting at 1 pm at the Earle Brown Heritage Center.
A Council Goal Setting Workshop will be held on January 25, 2016, from 5:30 to 7:30 pm at
Brookview Grill.
Some Council Members may attend the Golden Valley Business Council on January 28,
2016, from 7:30 to 9 am at Second Harvest Heartland.
Some Council Members may attend the Legislative Breakfast on January 30, 2016, starting at
9:30 am at the Crystal City Hall.
A LRT Municipal Consent Open House will be held on February 2, 2016, from 6 to 7 pm at the
Golden Valley City Hall.
The next City Council Meeting will be held on February 2, 2016, at 6:30 pm.
Unofficial City Council Minutes -4- January 20, 2016
6D. Announcements of Meetings - continued
The LRT Municipal Consent Public Hearing will be held on February 2, 2016, at 7 pm in the
Council Chambers.
6E. Mayor and Council Communication
Mayor Harris stated he enjoyed attending the MILK Holiday Breakfast event and thanked the
Human Rights Commission for purchasing two tables at the event so Golden Valley residents
could attend. He also updated Council on the second annual sweet potato pie event at
Calvary Church.
Council Member Fonnest thanked Ms. Rose McGee for her leadership in the sweet potato pie
endeavor and for reaching out to other communities to share in the message of peace.
Council discussed the future draft Council meeting agendas including the LRT Municipal
Consent Public Hearing and Open House, and the second consideration of the temporary
sign permit and fee ordinances.
7. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION made by Council Member Schmidgall, seconded by Council Member Clausen and
the motion carried unanimously to adjourn the meeting at 8:06 pm.
Shepard M. Harris, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kristine A. Luedke, City Clerk
city 0
gotacn -.4.. � MEMORANDUM
valley Administrative Services Deartment
r
763-593-8013/763-593-3969(fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
February 2, 2016
Agenda Item
3. B. 1. Approval of City Check Register
Prepared By
Sue Virnig, Finance Director
Summary
Approval of the check register for various vendor claims against the City of Golden Valley.
Attachments
• Document sent via email
Recommended Action
Motion to authorize the payment of the bills as submitted.
city j
golde
ll MEMORANDUM
valley AdministrativerviDepartment
Sc ccs
763-593-8013/763-593-3969(fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
February 2, 2016
Agenda Item
3. B. 2. Approval of Housing and Redevelopment Authority Check Register
Prepared By
Sue Virnig, Finance Director
Summary
Approval of the check register for various vendor claims against the Housing and Redevelopment
Authority.
Attachments
• Document sent via email
Recommended Action
Motion to authorize the payment of the bills as submitted.
cher of
!
go 1 d C'
MEMORANDUM
valley City Administration/Council
763-593-3991 /763-593-8109(fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
February 2, 2016
Agenda Item
3. C. 1. Gambling License Exemption and Waiver of Notice Requirement - Good Shepherd Church
Prepared By
Judy Nally, Administrative Assistant
Summary
As per State Statute organizations that conduct gambling within the City limits have to submit an
application for a lawful gambling permit to the State after the permit has been approved or
denied by the City. Depending upon the timing of the permit the applicants may request the City
to waive the 30-day waiting period.
Attachments
• Application for Exempt Permit (2 pages)
Recommended Action
Motion to receive and file the gambling license exemption and approve the waiver of notice
requirement for the Good Shepherd Church.
MINNESOTA LAWFUL GAMBLING 5/15
LG220 Application for Exempt Permit Page 1 of 2
An exempt permit may be issued to a nonprofit Application Fee (non-refundable)
organization that: Applications are processed in the order received. If the application
• conducts lawful;gambling on five or fewer days, and is postmarked or received 30 days or more before the event,the
• awards less than$50,000 in prizes during a calendar application fee is$100; otherwise the fee is$150.
year.
If total raffle prize value for the calendar year will be Due to the high volume of exempt applications, payment of
$1,500 or less, contact the Licensing Specialist assigned to additional fees prior to 30 days before your event will not expedite
your county by calling 651-539-1900. service, nor are telephone requests for expedited service accepted.
ORGANIZATION:INrORMAT30N
Organization I Previous Gambling
Name: vaod Shepherd Chw(-ck Permit Number: g
Minnesota Tax ID Federal Employer ID
Number, if any: dd Number(FEIN), if any:
Mailing
Address: q J_ \/(�
City: lden `la l6 state: lN Zip: 554G 0 County: _ i°.r1nClJI(1
Name of Chief Executive Officer(CEO): tl.l�e 1" 1 ua1_8
Daytime Phone: -7h&59 4N Vo X b19 Email: -'net r d h d ori
NONPROFIT STATUS. .
Type of Nonprofit Organization (check one):
Fraternal ® Religious Veterans Other Nonprofit Organization
Attach a copy of one of the following showing proof of nonprofit status:
(DO NOT attach a sales tax exempt status or federal employer ID number, as they are not proof of nonprofit status.)
A current calendar year Certificate of Good Standing
Don't have a copy? Obtain this certificate from:
MN Secretary of State, Business Services Division Secretary of State website,phone numbers:
60 Empire Drive,Suite 100 www.sos.state.mn.us
St. Paul, MN 55103 651-296-2803, or toll free 1-877-551-6767
IRS income tax exemption (501(c))letter in your organization's name
Don't have a copy? To obtain a copy of your federal income tax exempt letter, have an organization officer contact the
IRS toll free at 1-877-829-5500.
IRS-Affiliate of national,statewide,or international parent nonprofit organization (charter)
If your organization falls under a parent organization,attach copies of both of the following:
1. IRS letter showing your parent organization is a nonprofit 501(c) organization with a group ruling,and
2. the charter or letter from your parent organization recognizing your organization as a subordinate.
GAMBLING INFOttMATIflN
Name of premises where the gambling event will be conducted ��GI1
(for raffles, list the site where the drawing will take place): C
Address (do not use P.O. box): l LAS )a �Sy AQ S
�
City ort\( C h
Township: GoiAeny0meke Zip: VCounty: �neNin
Date(s)of activity (for raffles, ao I
indicate the date of the drawing): 1 11
Check each type of gambling activity that your organization will conduct:
❑Bingo* ❑Paddlewheels* ❑Pull-Tabs* ❑Tipboards*
®Raffle (total value of raffle prizes awarded for the calendar year:$ )
* Gambling equipment for bingo paper, paddlewheels, pull-tabs, and tipboards must be obtained from a distributor licensed by
the Minnesota Gambling Control Board. EXCEPTION: Bingo hard cards and bingo number selection devices may be borrowed
from another organization authorized to conduct bingo. To find a licensed distributor,go to www.mn.gov/gcb and click on
Distributors under List of Licensees, or call 651-539-1900.
5/15
LG220 Application for Exempt Permit Page 2 of 2
LOCAL UNIT OF GOVERNMENT ACKNOWLEDGMENT (required before submitting application to
the Minnesota Gambling Control Board)
CITY APPROVAL COUNTY APPROVAL
for a gambling premises for a gambling premises
located within city limits located in a township
/. The application is acknowledged with no waiting period. The application is acknowledged with no waiting period.
The application is acknowledged with a 30-day waiting The application is acknowledged with a 30-day waiting
period,and allows the Board to issue a permit after 30 days period, and allows the Board to issue a permit after
(60 days for a 1st class city). 30 days.
The applications is denied. The application is denied.
Print City Name: `�"� �11,11 Ua l l eve Print County Name:
Signa re of City Perso�nn^el:, w Signature of County Personnel:
tt
Title: l� � Date: r Title: Date:
TOWNSHIP (if required by the county)
On behalf of the township,I acknowledge that the organization
is applying for exempted gambling activity within the township
The city or county must sign before limits. (A township has no statutory authority to approve or
submitting application to the deny an application, per Minn. Statutes,section 349.213.)
Gambling Control Board. Print Township Name:
Signature of Township Officer:
Title: Date:
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER'S SIGNATURE (.required)
The information provided in this application is complete and accurate to the best of my knowledge. I acknowledge that the financial
report will be completed and returned to the within 30 days of the ev te.
Chief Executive Officer's Signature: Date: J s J. JtI Zc�l 6
(Signat O' gnature; i nee may not sign)
Print Name: . Lt.-.Re. Mm
q,aAfl6�-
REQUIREMENTS MAIL APPLICATION,AND:ATTACHMENTS
Complete a separate application for: Mail application with:
• all gambling conducted on two or more consecutive days,or a copy of your proof of nonprofit status, and
• all gambling conducted on one day.
application fee(non-refundable). If the application is
Only one application is required if one or more raffle drawings are postmarked or received 30 days or more before the event,
conducted on the same day. the application fee is$100; otherwise the fee is$150.
Financial report to be completed within 30 days after the Make check payable to State of Minnesota.
gambling activity is done: To: Minnesota Gambling Control Board
A financial report form will be mailed with your permit. Complete 1711 West County Road B,Suite 300 South
and return the financial report form to the Gambling Control Roseville, MN 55113
Board.
Questions?
Your organization must keep all exempt records and reports for Call the Licensing Section of the Gambling Control Board at
3-1/2 years(Minn. Statutes,section 349.166,subd. 2(f)). 651-539-1900.
Data privacy notice: The information requested application. Your organization's name and ment of Public Safety;Attorney General;
on this form(and any attachments)will be used address will be public information when received Commissioners of Administration,Minnesota
by the Gambling Control Board(Board)to by the Board. All other information provided will Management&Budget,and Revenue;Legislative
determine your organization's qualifications to be private data about your organization until the Auditor,national and international gambling
be involved in lawful gambling activities in Board issues the permit. When the Board issues regulatory agencies; anyone pursuant to court
Minnesota. Your organization has the right to the permit,all information provided will become order;other individuals and agencies specifically
refuse to supply the information; however,if public. If the Board does not issue a permit,all authorized by state or federal law to have access
your organization refuses to supply this information provided remains private,with the to the information; individuals and agencies for
information,the Board may not be able to exception of your organization's name and which law or legal order authorizes a new use or
determine your organization's qualifications and, address which will remain public. Private data sharing of information after this notice was
as a consequence, may refuse to issue a permit. about your organization are available to Board given;and anyone with your written consent.
If your organization supplies the information members,Board staff whose work requires
requested,the Board will be able to process the access to the information; Minnesota's Depart-
This form will be made available in alternative format (i.e. large print, braille) upon request.
An Equal Opportunity Employer
Regular Meeting of the
Golden Valley Planning Commission
December 28, 2015
A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall,
Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota, on Monday,
December 28, 2015. Chair Segelbaum called the meeting to order at 7 pm.
Those present were Planning Commissioners Baker, Blum, Johnson, Segelbaum, and
Waldhauser. Also present was Planning Manager Jason Zimmerman, and
Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. Commissioners Cera and Kluchka were absent.
1. Approval of Minutes
November 23, 2015, Regular Planning Commission Meeting
Waldhauser referred to the eighth paragraph on page 10 and asked that the language
regarding the CUP meeting the Zoning Code requirements be clarified to state that the
CUP is meeting the setbacks, height and size requirements.
MOVED by Blum, seconded by Johnson and motion carried unanimously to approve the
November 23, 2015, minutes with the above noted clarification.
2. Informal Public Hearing — Conditional Use Permit— 9000 10th Avenue North —
Motors Management Corp. — CU-143
Applicant: Motors Management Corp.
Addresses: 9000 10th Avenue North
Purpose: To allow for an auto repair use in the Industrial Zoning District.
Zimmerman explained the applicant's request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow
automobile repair in the Industrial Zoning District at 9000 10th Avenue North (former Gopher
News property). He stated that the applicant is also proposing to have a call center, their IT
department, a conference center, and inventory storage, however those uses are permitted
and do not require Planning Commission or City Council review.
Zimmerman discussed the existing site conditions and stated that the building footprint is
approximately 93,000 square feet in size and the applicant is estimating that the auto repair
use will occupy approximately 20,000 square feet. He stated that there are 12 service bay
doors on the west side of the building with 9 existing service bays and the potential to add 7
more service bays in the future. He noted that the applicant also owns the 4.25 acre vacant
parcel to the west and added that the proposed auto repair/installation use is internal to the
company only with no retail component and no customers visiting the site. Cars will be
brought to this location for installation of equipment or reconditioning and then brought to
their retail location for sale.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
December 28, 2015
Page 2
Zimmerman discussed parking on the site and stated that there are currently 70 parking
spaces and the applicant is proposing to restripe the existing parking lot to add 90 additional
parking spaces in order to meet the minimum requirement of 156 spaces for all of the
proposed uses.
Zimmerman stated that based on review of the application materials and evaluation of the
factors of suitability, staff is recommending approval of the requested Conditional Use
Permit with the conditions listed in the staff report and the following additional condition: An
additional 7 service bays may be constructed, for a total of 16, as shown on the plans dated
November 25, 2015. In the event these are added, 28 additional parking spaces must be
made available for employees.
Waldhauser asked if the vacant lot to the west is zoned the same as the subject
property. Zimmerman said yes, they are both zoned Industrial.
Baker asked if the existing service bays are designed for auto repair. Zimmerman said
the applicant will need to do some additional work to the building to allow for auto repair.
Baker asked about the previous use of the building. Zimmerman said the previous use
was more shipping and distribution related.
Baker asked if both internal and external inventory storage is allowed. Zimmerman said
yes and explained that the internal storage of cars will require some building
improvements and the outdoor storage will require screening and possibly storm water
review depending on the applicant's proposal.
Baker asked if there are and lighting or fencing plans. Zimmerman said there will be
some lighting added for security and that the screening will be reviewed by staff before
it is installed.
Waldhauser asked if the site is currently close to the minimum number of required
parking spaces. Zimmerman stated that if the applicant re-stripes the lot they will have
an excess of four parking spaces. If they add more service bays they will use their
internal parking spaces and will then need an additional 28 spaces.
Baker asked if the parking requirements are based on the number of employees or if
they are based on the size of the building. Zimmerman stated the parking requirements
are based on the use and size of the building.
Segelbaum questioned if additional parking spaces are needed if they would be normal
sized stalls. Zimmerman said the indoor parking spaces could be smaller, but the
outside spaces would be the required size.
Segelbaum asked if the parking requirement for office space of 1 space per 250 square
feet was modified as part of the recently amended parking language in the Zoning
Code. Zimmerman said no.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
December 28, 2015
Page 3
Segelbaum asked if there are any concerns about internal circulation or with vehicles
delivering cars to this site. Zimmerman stated that staff is comfortable with the internal
circulation. He added that large trucks will deliver vehicles, but the individual vehicles
will then be driven to the retail lot.
Blum referred to the existing service bays on the west side of the building and said that
is where deliveries would most likely occur and questioned if additional parking would
be added to the north and east sides of the property. Zimmerman said generally the
additional parking would be behind the building and more to the west. He said the
applicant won't need to pave any additional areas, they would just need to re-stripe the
existing lot.
Waldhauser asked if the Police Department will be reviewing the proposed plans for
adequate safety because there could be issues with the vehicles sitting outside.
Zimmerman said he would review the plans with the Police Department before this item
goes to the City Council for review.
Segelbaum asked if the site will have to be brought into compliance with the lighting
requirements or if the lighting is grandfathered in. Zimmerman said it depends on the
proposed lighting plan and how much of the lighting is proposed to be changed.
Johnson asked Zimmerman if he anticipates any new findings during the permitting
process. Zimmerman said there won't be any new findings related to zoning. He added
that the permitting process will address issues with the building and construction.
Linda McGinty, Vice President of Real Estate, Luther Automotive, said they own Rudy
Luther Toyota on 1-394 which is a very busy site and is creating the need for expansion
to another site. She stated that the proposed new site will work well with the multiple
uses they need and at some point they will probably expand on the vacant property to
the west. She referred to a raised dock area along the west side of the building and said
they aren't ready to take that out yet, but there are trench drains they will have to re-
work and they will be addressing the make-up air system and bringing it up to code. She
discussed the exterior lighting for the site and said it is different than a retail property,
but they will probably redo the exterior lights and upgrade them to more efficient
lighting.
Baker questioned if the area isn't lit, how they will deal with security. McGinty said their
long range plan is to expand parking and storage to the west and that they will add
fencing, a gate, and lighting at that time.
Baker asked if this location will serve all of the Luther businesses or just the Rudy
Luther Toyota business. McGinty said it will serve just the Rudy Luther Toyota location.
Segelbaum asked if existing employees will be relocated to this location of if they will be
hiring new employees. McGinty said there will be a combination of both existing and
new employees.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
December 28, 2015
Page 4
Segelbaum asked for more details regarding the proposed conference center. McGinty
said they have a training center at their St. Louis Park office and they are close to
needing a larger conference center/training space. Segelbaum asked if the IT
Department and call center are currently located in St. Louis Park. McGinty said yes.
Blum asked how many new jobs will be created. McGinty said she doesn't know yet.
She stated that they currently have eight marketing employees and they are expecting
to have 15 to 20 and the call center currently employs 40 and they hope to expand that
in the future as well. She added that they might also use the vacant parcel to the west to
accommodate additional employee parking.
Waldhauser asked if the rail line to the north could be used for deliveries. McGinty said
no and stated that the manufacturer has very specific requirements for deliveries that
they can't change. She stated that currently all the transport trucks come to the store
and that they would now come to this proposed location.
Segelbaum asked if any enhancements or amenities are being added. McGinty said the
current building is predominately warehouse and they will be creating some Class A
office space. She said they haven't decided on the landscaping plans yet but they are
currently working with designers and architects on enhancements to the property.
Johnson asked for more information regarding the service bay doors and the partition
between the service area and the parking area. McGinty said there is a wall that
separates the docks and the parking area and there won't be any cross traffic. She said
they will also be segregating the separate areas. She explained that originally they were
considering using the entire space for servicing vehicles but they have decided to leave
the dock and service bay area for now, but replace the old service bay doors.
Segelbaum asked about the typical truck traffic coming in and out of the site. McGinty
said there isn't a typical day. Some days there are three transports dropping off vehicles
and some days there are none. It is based on inventory and the manufacturer timing.
Baker asked how the vehicles would be transported from this location to the store.
McGinty said they would be driven individually by employees.
Waldhauser asked McGinty if she would have any issues with an added condition
stating that the site will only service the dealer's vehicles. McGinty stated that this site
will not be used for retail and they are not setting it up for that type of environment.
Segelbaum opened the public hearing.
Steve Legatt, 9100 10th Avenue North, said he has no objections to the proposed use,
but he is curious about the plans for the vacant lot to the west.
Baker asked Legatt the nature of his business. Legatt said he owns a painting business
and leases space to a granite business. He asked if there would be overflow parking on
the vacant lot because he operates a paint booth so he is concerned about fumes or
overspray and the impact that might have on cars parked nearby.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
December 28, 2015
Page 5
Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Segelbaum closed the public
hearing.
Baker said he would be interesting in knowing if there will be an impact on cars parked
near paint and fumes. Segelbaum questioned if other industrial uses could occur on the
vacant lot. Zimmerman said yes, there could be outdoor storage or anything else
allowed in the Industrial Zoning District. McGinty said she doesn't think there will be any
issues regarding the use of a paint booth at the business next door.
Segelbaum referred to Zimmerman's proposed additional condition regarding parking
and to Waldhauser's suggested condition regarding limiting service to a non-retail use
and asked the Commissioners if they had any thoughts about them.
Johnson referred to the second finding regarding the increase in jobs and the tax base
and suggested that the information be quantified or removed. Blum stated that the
applicant has suggested that the marketing and call center functions will be expanded
so he thinks the finding regarding the increase in jobs and the tax base is appropriate.
Zimmerman agreed that they are adding the opportunity for growth, even though they
don't know the exact number of new jobs at this point.
Segelbaum asked if there are MPCA air quality requirements. Zimmerman said the
building permit process would address issues like that.
Blum said he is in favor of the proposal and of the two additional conditions. He
highlighted that the planned lighting, if expanded, will be more efficient and he thinks it
is positive that there will be no additional impervious surface and that the upgrading of
their existing drainage infrastructure is also another positive aspect of this proposal.
Segelbaum agreed.
Waldhauser clarified that her suggested condition would be to add that approval is
subject to only dealer-owned vehicles being serviced at this location. Segelbaum said
he thought the concern was about generating retail sales traffic. Waldhauser agreed
and said she views this proposal as a service center and not a retail service center. She
noted that if a facility is for the general public there are concerns about getting people in
and out safely, sidewalks, striping, etc. She asked the applicant to clarify their intent.
McGinty said their intent is to not make this an environment that customers come to in
order to purchase services. She said it may become an outlet where customer's
vehicles are brought to this location to be serviced and then brought back to the store,
so she would not like limitations regarding servicing only dealer-owned vehicles and she
would like flexibility to be able to bring customer-owned vehicles to this location for
service. Baker said he doesn't feel like this location needs to be restricted and that it is
reasonable to process new vehicles or service customer vehicles as long as it is not a
retail sales location. He added that if the use results in retail traffic then he thinks the
Conditional Use Permit would need to be amended. Zimmerman agreed that if the plans
regarding the use of the property change the applicant would have to come back to the
City to amend their Conditional Use Permit.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
December 28, 2015
Page 6
MOVED by Baker, seconded by Blum and motion carried unanimously to recommend
approval of a Conditional Use Permit at 9000 10th Avenue North to allow for an auto
repair use in the Industrial Zoning District subject to the following findings and
conditions:
Findings:
1. Demonstrated Need for the Proposed Use: Moving the company's internal new
vehicle prep and pre-owned vehicle reconditioning operations to this location would
free up space at Luther's current facility. It would also eliminate the need for large
transport vehicles to drop off at the main store.
2. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan: The automobile repair use, in
conjunction with the other uses being proposed, is consistent with the goal of
locating redevelopment along major corridors and increasing the job and tax base
within the community. The property is designated for Industrial use on the General
Land Use Plan Map.
3. Effect on Property Values: Staff anticipates the new use would have no impact on
the surrounding property values and is isolated from any residential neighborhoods.
4. Effect on Traffic: The number of trips associated with the proposed use is minimal,
as the automobile repair being proposed is not a retail use but for internal company
use only. Staff does not expect any negative traffic impacts to the surrounding areas.
5. Effect of Increases in Population and Density: The proposed uses may generate
a minor increase in the number of employees at the location compared to the current
uses, but will likely be fewer than the previous use of Gopher News operations.
6. Increase in Noise Levels: The proposed use is not anticipated to cause a
significant increase in noise levels. Automobile repair will take place during normal
work hours and on the west side of the building, which faces a vacant lot.
7. Impact of Dust, Odor, or Vibration: The proposed use is not anticipated to cause
an increase in dust or odor. Minimal vibrations may be associated with the use but
should not impact any adjacent uses.
8. Impact of Pests: The proposed use is not anticipated to attract pests.
9. Visual Impact: Five windows will be added to the building. Staff does not anticipate
a change in the visual quality of the property from the automobile repair use.
10.Other Impacts to the City and Residents: Staff does not anticipate any other
negative effects of the proposed use. The location is an industrial property with
adequate parking.
Conditions:
1. The plans by submitted by the applicant on November 25, 2015, shall become a part
of this approval.
2. All vehicle deliveries shall take place on-site and shall not take place on the street.
3. All signage must meet the requirements of the City's Sign Code (Section 4.20).
4. This approval is subject to all other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations,
or laws with authority over this development.
5. An additional 7 service bays may be constructed, for a total of 16, as shown on the plans
dated November 25, 2015. In the event these are added, 28 additional parking spaces
must be made available for employees.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
December 28, 2015
Page 7
6. The approved use does not include a retail customer component. Retail servicing
of vehicles may occur on-site, but all retail customer transactions—including drop-
off and pick-up—shall occur off-site.
--Short Recess--
3. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City
Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings
Zimmerman gave an update on the following projects: Liberty Crossing, Cornerstone
Creek, hello. Apartments, Laurel Ponds, and the 3.9.4 Apartments.
Waldhauser referred to the Douglas Drive reconstruction project and asked why there is
still one property for sale. Zimmerman stated that there was only slight taking on that
property so it could still be used for a single family residential home.
Waldhauser stated that an issue that comes up repeatedly is having contiguous sidewalks
in the 1-394 Corridor since there are retail and restaurants in the area it should be
walkable. Zimmerman stated that there is a sidewalk plan and a sidewalk committee and
that there will be a group of students reviewing the City's sidewalk plan.
Segelbaum asked about Comprehensive Plan training. Zimmerman stated that WSB will
be attending a Planning Commission meeting in February to discuss the upcoming
Comprehensive Plan amendment process. He added that the Open Space and
Recreation Commission and the Environmental Commission will also be invited to attend.
Baker stated that he sent staff information on a workshop regarding planning for climate
change that someone should attend.
Baker said he has heard complaints about a subdivision on Ardmore Drive and asked if
there was a subdivision approved. Zimmerman explained that a home is being torn down
and re-built and that there was no subdivision applied for or approved.
4. Other Business
0 Council Liaison Report
No report was given.
5. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 8:22 pm.
John Kluchka, Secretary Lisa Wittman, Administrative Assistant
MINUTES
Human Rights Commission (HRC)
Golden Valley City Hall
7800 Golden Valley Road
Golden Valley, Minnesota 55427
December 22, 2015
Commissioners present: Carla Johnson, Chair
Jonathan Burris, Vice Chair
Adam Buttress
Michael Pristash
Teresa Martin
Nabil Pruscini
Andrew Ramlet
Commissioners absent: Susan Phelps
Guest: Peter Knaeble
Staff: Chantell Knauss, Assistant City Manager
The meeting was convened at 6:35 pm by Chair Johnson.
APPROVAL OF NOVEMBER 24, 2015, REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
Motion by Commissioner Pristash, second by Commissioner Burris to approve the
November 24, 2015 minutes with the following revisions: Motion by Commissioner Ram/et,
second by Commissioner Burris to adjourn the meeting at 8:07 pm. Motion carried 5-0.
Motion carried 7-0.
OLD BUSINESS
Martin Luther King Jr. Day Event (January 18, 2016)
Knauss reported tickets will be available for residents beginning January 4, 2016 to be picked up in
person, one ticket per person on a first come, first served basis for the 26' Annual MILK Holiday
Breakfast held at the Minneapolis Convention Center.
Feed My Starving Children
Chair Johnson reported she had reached out to the contact of the event at Calvary Church and has
not received a response back yet. Commissioner Martin thought they are planning a packing event
sometime in January 2016. Calvary may be looking for volunteers for the event, but not to partner
with the HRC to sponsor the event. Any information received will be passed on the Commissioners.
Sweet Potato Comfort Pie Update
Commissioners Martin and Pruscini attended the December 10, 2015 luncheon. There were
approximately 40 people in attendance. The event in celebration of Martin Luther King, Jr. will be
held on Sunday, January 17, 2016 from 2 — 5 pm at Calvary Church. The pies will actually be baked
at Calvary Church on Saturday, January 16, 2016. The Church has been donating their commercial
kitchen and parish hall space for this event. The goal of this event is to bridge communities with
opportunities for dialogue, building relationships, sharing backgrounds and interests and creating a
day of service and volunteerism.
Human Rights Commission December 22,2015
Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 3
A Bush Grants totaling $20,000 have been awarded to fund another event to be held in May 2016.
The May event is being planned as an all-day event, geared toward kids.
Golden Valley Gay Pride Day Update
Resident Peter Knaeble explained that the planning committee will be meeting on January 7, 2016
at 7 pm in the Hearthside Room at Byerly's. The committee asked for a liaison from the HRC to sit
on the committee. Commissioner Burris volunteered to serve as the liaison and bring back an
update at the January 2016 meeting. Mr. Knaeble explained that they have selected a tentative
date of Saturday, June 11, 2016, which is two weeks prior to the Twin Cities Gay Pride Festival.
Council Member Fonnest and Mr. Knaeble met with the Twin Cities Gay Pride Committee and they
are very supportive of the local Gay Pride Day activities. Mr. Knaeble explained they are hoping to
plan a family-friendly event at Brookview Park. He stated this may be the first Gay Pride Day event
outside of a major metropolitan city. The committee will also be contacting the Golden Valley
Foundation for fundraising.
HRC Business Cards
Knauss explained due to a staff family emergency, the cards are not completed, but will be
available at the January 2016 meeting. She also explained the cards will have Human Rights
Commission with the name and contact of the staff liaison, rather than individual Commissioners'
names.
State Demographer's Office Presentation Update
Knauss reminded everyone a representative from the Minnesota State Demographer's Office will
attend the HRC's February 23, 2016 regular meeting and present demographic information on
Golden Valley compared to the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area and the State of Minnesota. It was the
consensus of the Commission that Commissioners draft questions they would like the State
Demographer's Office to address during their presentation and Knauss will forward those questions
so they can prepare.
NEW BUSINESS
Next Meeting
The next HRC meeting will be held on Thursday, January 28, 2016. Commissioners requested a
discussion on the state of international refugees.
ADJOURN
Motion by Commissioner Martin, second by Commissioner Ramlet to adjourn the meeting at
7:25 pm. Motion carried 7-0.
Follow-up Items:
• Commissioner Burris will bring back an update from the Gay Pride Day planning committee.
• Commissioners will bring draft questions they would like the State Demographer's Office to
address during their presentation and Knauss will forward those questions so they can
prepare.
• Knauss will work with Communications staff on a business card and bring to the next
meeting.
• Knauss will work with Communications staff to include the City of Golden Valley logo with
the word cloud and bring back a mock-up and costs for Commissioners to discuss at a
future meeting.
Signature page follows.
Human Rights Commission December 22,2015
Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 3
Carla Johnson, Chair
ATTEST:
Chantell Knauss, Staff Liaison
Approved by HRC: , 2016
Human Rights Commission December 22,2015
Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 3
GOLDEN VALLEY ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
Regular Meeting
Minutes
October 26, 2015
Present: Commissioners: Tracy Anderson, Lynn Gitelis, Dawn Hill, Larry Johnson, and
Jim Stremel; Eric Eckman, Public Works Specialist; Council Member Larry
Fonnest and Claire Huisman, Administrative Assistant
Absent: Commissioners Debra Yahle and Tonia Galonska
Call to Order
Lynn Gitelis called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm.
Approval of Regular Commission Meeting Minutes of September 28, 2015
MOVED by Stremel, seconded by Johnson, and the motion carried unanimously to approve
the minutes of the September 28, 2015 regular meeting.
Updating Tree and Landscape Requirements
After reviewing the proposed changes to the City's Tree code, Commission members
offered some revision suggestions which included:
1. Encourage tree replacement with trees larger than 4 inches.
2. Under "Prioritizing Mitigation Options", consider removing option #4 pay cash in-lieu
of planting, or identify the fund that will hold the money until such time when the City
can plant the trees on City property.
3. Under Subdivision 2 Definitions, the definition for "coniferous tree" was removed but
should remain. (Standard dictionary definitions are being removed from city
ordinances, and therefore coniferous tree was removed.)
4. Better clarification of Hardwoods and Softwoods
5. Change verbiage on Subdivision 3 Permitting Process, Sec B,3
6. Consider adding the Table from the Executive Summary to the Code as an easy
reference to the tree code.
7. Under Subdivision 6 Landscaping Requirements, Sec C-Calculations, add new item
to allow for larger masses of native "prairie type" plantings and consider reduction of
tree and landscape requirements to accommodate these areas.
Natural Resources Education/Communication Plan
The list of natural resource based educational topics from the last meeting were reviewed
and discussion ensued on ways to educate the public on these topics. Ideas revolved
around holding workshops (preferably during Earth Days), inviting guest speakers and
hosting a booth at the Home Remodeling Fair (held in spring). Larry Johnson offered his
expertise on Buckthorn removal during any of the proposed events.
Composting and Organics Recycling
Eric Eckman stated that he spoke with Republic Services regarding Organic Recycling and
they said that they are not ready to offer a subscription service for Organics Recycling to
the public at this time. The method of collection and transfer has not been refined to the
point where it is feasible. He noted that the City's current contract with Republic Services
goes through 2018.
Minutes of the Environmental Commission
October 26, 2015
Page 2 of 2
Program/Pro"ect Updates
The complete program/project summary is on file. Eckman provided additional verbal
updates on the DeCola Ponds and Liberty Crossing Projects.
Commission Member Council Reports
None
Other Business
Council member Fonnest gave a brief update on the Metro Blue Line Extension Project.
Larry Johnson attended the Green Partners Networking Meeting regarding Organics
Recycling in Minneapolis and handed out pamphlets from that meeting.
Adwourn
MOVED by Anderson, seconded by Stremel, and the motion carried to adjourn the meeting
at 8:43pm.
Claire Huisman
Administrative Assistant
Item 4A
BCWMC 1-21-16
Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission
Minutes of Regular Meeting
December 17,2015
Plymouth City Hall,8;30 a.m.
Commissioners and Staff Present:
Crystal Commissioner Guy Mueller, Vice Chair Plymouth Commissioner Ginny Black
Golden Valley Alternate Commissioner Jane McDonald Robbinsdale Commissioner Wayne Sicora
Black
Medicine Lake Alternate Commissioner Gary Holter St. Louis Park Commissioner Jim de Lambert,Chair
Minneapolis Commissioner Michael Welch Administrator Laura Jester
Minnetonka Commissioner Jacob Millner, Secretary Attorney Troy Gilchrist,Kennedy&Graven
New Hope Alternate Commissioner Pat Crough Engineer Karen Chandler and Dan Fetter, Barr
Engineering
Recorder Amy Herbert
Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)Members/Other Attendees Present:
Derek Asche and Ben Scharenbroich,TAC, City of Mark Ray,TAC,City of Crystal
Plymouth
Erick Francis,TAC,City of St. Louis Park Pete Willenbring, WSB &Associates
Chris Long, , TAC, City of New Hope Yolanda Burckhardt,Metropolitan Council
Richard McCoy, TAC, City of Robbinsdale Michael Scanlan, Alternate Commissioner, City of
Robbinsdale
Jeff Oliver, TAC, City of Golden Valley David Tobelmann,Alternate Commissioner, City of
Plymouth
Liz Stout, TAC, City of Minneapolis Becky Rice, Metro Blooms
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
On Thursday, December 17, 2015, at 8:34 a.m. in the Medicine Lake Room at Plymouth City Hall,3400
Plymouth Boulevard,Chair de Lambert called to order the meeting of the Bassett Creek Watershed Management
Commission(BCWMC)and asked for roll call to be taken [City of Minneapolis absent from roll call].
2. CITIZEN FORUM ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
No issues raised.
3. AGENDA
1
BCWMC December 17, 2015, Meeting Minutes
Chair de Lambert requested a reordering of the agenda to move 5C—Phase II Environmental Site Assessment
Work Plan for 2017CR-M: Bassett Creek Main Stem Erosion Repair Project—ahead to immediately follow 5A
and to move item 5F—Consider Approval of Request from Metro Blooms to Act as Fiscal Agent for Metropolitan
Council Grant—to immediately follow 5C. He clarified that the new Business Agenda order would be: 5A, 5C,
5F, 513, 5D, 5E.
Commissioner Black moved to approve the agenda as amended. Alternate Commissioner McDonald Black
seconded the motion. Upon a vote,the motion carried 8-0 [City of Minneapolis absent from vote.]
4.CONSENT AGENDA
Commissioner Mueller moved to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Alternate Commissioner McDonald
Black seconded the motion. Upon a vote,the motion carried 8-0 [City of Minneapolis absent from vote].
[The following items were approved as part of the Consent Agenda: the November 18, 2015,Commission
Meeting Minutes,the December 2015 financial report,the payment of invoices, Setting the January 7, 2016,TAC
meeting, Authorizing the Commission Engineer to Submit Flood Control Project Inspection Report to Cities,
MDNR, ACOE, and Approval of Contract with Wenck Associates for Operation of WOMP Station in 2016.]
The general and construction account balances reported in the Fiscal Year 2015 Financial Report prepared for the
December 17, 2015,meeting are as follows:
Checking Account Balance $542,963.77
TOTAL GENERAL FUND BALANCE $542,963.77
TOTAL CASH & INVESTMENTS ON-HAND $3,648,531.25
(12/09/15)
CIP Projects Levied—Budget Remaining ($3,361,594.08)
Closed Projects Remaining Balance $286,937.17
2012-2014 Anticipated Tax Levy Revenue $7,123.77
2015 Anticipated Tax Levy Revenue $5,157.95
Anticipated Closed Project Balance $299,218.89
5. BUSINESS
A. Consider Approval of Douglas Drive Project, Golden Valley
Engineer Chandler reminded the Commission that this project is reconstruction of Douglas Drive from
Highway 55 to Medicine Lake Road. She said that the project also includes replacement of a box culvert that
carries Bassett Creek under Douglas Drive and includes an underground infiltration system in addition to
other work. Engineer Chandler also reminded the Commission that this project is being done in conjunction
with the Commission's Honeywell Pond Expansion project. She noted that almost 33 acres will be graded as
2
BCWMC December 17, 2015, Meeting Minutes
part of these two projects and there will be an increase in impervious surface of 2.26 acres. Engineer Chandler
stated that the Commission discussed this project at its November meeting and decided that the project should
be reviewed under the Commission's new Requirements document, using the MIDS flow chart to discern how
the project would or would not meet the new development standards.
Engineer Chandler reported that the project does meet the MIDS development standards through the flow
chart's flexible treatment option No. 2. She explained that this outcome relies on giving the City of Golden
Valley credit for its share of the treatment being provided by the Honeywell Pond. She said that by going
through the flow chart,the City needed to be able to show that the City is removing 60%of the phosphorous
coming off of the project. Engineer Chandler explained that the City can show this through claiming credit for
the City's share of the phosphorous removal from the Honeywell Pond project.
Engineer Chandler pointed out that the City's contribution to the Honeywell Pond project is$795,000 of the
total estimated project cost of$1.6 million, meaning that the City is contributing 49.5%of the Honeywell
Pond project cost.
She pointed out that the project's new crossing does not increase the flood elevation and the Commission
Engineer does not see any flood plain issues with the project. Engineer Chandler noted that the Commission
Engineer has only minimal comments on this project and recommended approval of the project with the
comments on page 4 of the memo. She summarized those Commission Engineer comments.
Commissioner Black commented that it feels like the Commission is losing storm water treatment in
Honeywell Pond by allowing the City to take some treatment credit and that precedence is being set.
Engineer Chandler responded that the amount of treatment in the Pond is the same, but she understands
Commissioner Black's comment. She said that if the Commission was providing all of the funding for the
Honeywell Pond project,then the treatment being provided by the Honeywell Pond project should not be
available to be taken into account as part of the MIDS review for the Douglas Drive project. Engineer
Chandler said that because the City of Golden Valley is putting in a significant share of the cost of the
Honeywell Pond project,the Commission Engineer believes that the City should be able to take credit for that
portion of the treatment being provided by the Pond.
Commissioner Black asked if the Commission has a policy about this regarding the ability for a city to claim
part of the treatment for a project. Engineer Chandler responded no. Commissioner Black commented that the
Commission would be setting a precedent with the decision on this project. There was discussion.
Administrator Jester agreed that this decision would set a precedent and acknowledged that the Commission
has not"shared the cost"of a CIP project with a city in the past. She remarked that the Commission should
follow the same procedure for the Northwood Lake project in New Hope because New Hope is putting
funding into that project as well. She added that she believes it is an appropriate practice for the Commission
to collaborate with cities on CIP projects because it can result in larger,more significant projects and
ultimately improved water quality.
There was more discussion. Mr. Asche clarified that the Douglas Drive project enhances the Honeywell Pond
project. Mr. Oliver agreed and noted that without the City of Golden Valley's contribution to the Honeywell
Pond project,there would not be a project. Mr. Asche said that from his standpoint as a city staff person,this
approach seems positive because it is taking advantage of the projects and practices going on now and
enhancing them. He said that with the Douglas Drive project,the Honeywell Pond project is enhanced and the
result is an improved system along with the street reconstruction project and in his view this is positive.
Commissioner Black commented that it seems that the Commission set precedent by adopting MIDS, which
has flexible treatment options. She said that by default,the Commission adopted more flexibility.
3
BCWMC December 17, 2015, Meeting Minutes
[Commissioner Welch, City of Minneapolis, arrived].
Commissioner Black moved to approve staff's recommendation on this project [approval of the project with
the comments on page 4 of the memo]. Alternate Commissioner Jane McDonald Black seconded the motion.
Upon a vote,the motion carried 8-0 [City of Minneapolis abstained from the vote.]
C. Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Work Plan for 2016CR-M: Bassett Creek Main Stem
Erosion Repair Project
i. Consider Authorizing Submittal of Work Plan to MPCA
Engineer Chandler reminded the Commission that it requested to see the work plan for review and
approval prior to it being sent to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency(MPCA)for its review and
approval. She said that the work plan is in the meeting packet. Engineer Chandler reported that the work
plan was based on the completed Phase I assessment. She noted that once the MPCA reviews and
approves the Phase II work plan,and assuming that all of the access agreements will be in place,the soil
sampling work can start.
Engineer Chandler summarized the work plan and noted it includes maps showing the location of the
proposed sample sites. She added that a preliminary draft of the work plan went out to Administrator
Jester, Commissioner Welch, Alternate Commissioner Goddard,and City of Minneapolis staff for their
review. Engineer Chandler explained that their comments are included in this work plan.
Engineer Chandler asked the Commission to authorize the submittal of this work plan to the MPCA and
noted that Dan Fetter of Barr Engineering is here is answer any questions about Phase II studies.
Chair de Lambert clarified that the work plan as provided reflects the additional work anticipated for the
Phase II assessment, which is the topic of the next agenda item. Engineer Chandler confirmed that the
work plan includes the additional work.
Commissioner Black asked what the$9,000 cost increase for the Phase II covers. Engineer Chandler
responded that at the time the feasibility study was prepared, it wasn't known what would need to be done
for a Phase II,since that work was dependent on the results of the Phase I assessment. She explained that
the original estimate for the Phase II was a best estimate based on what was known at that time. She
continued, saying that the Phase I assessment has been completed and staff determined where samples
will need to be collected. She added that the proposed sample sites include some private property sites.
Engineer Chandler stated that the Phase II budget now includes scope for greater stakeholder
involvement, including budget for a public meeting.
Administrator Jester pointed out that the Commission previously approved the feasibility study budget
and scope, which stated that the scope and cost of the Phase II assessment was dependent on the Phase I
results.
Mr. Fetter reported on results of the Phase I assessment and went into detail about the Phase II work plan.
He reminded the Commission that the work plan should be reviewed through the MPCA Brownfield
Program. Mr. Fetter and Engineer Chandler responded to questions. Mr. Fetter went into more detail
about the MPCA's technical review of the work plan. He went through the timeline,noting that if the
Commission approves the submittal of the work plan today, it could be submitted this week and typically
the review takes about 30 days. Mr. Fetter anticipated field work starting in late January.
Commissioner Black moved to approve submitting the work plan. Commissioner Welch seconded the
motion. Upon a vote,the motion carried 9-0.
4
BCWMC December 17, 2015, Meeting Minutes
Engineer Chandler asked for clarification that the Commission is agrees that staff can start the process of
getting access agreements in place, even before the MPCA completes its review of the work plan.
Commissioner Welch moved to authorize the Administrator to work with the Commission Engineer,
Legal Counsel, and the City of Minneapolis to begin negotiating access and use agreements with property
owners before the MPCA completes its review of the Phase lI work plan. Commissioner Black seconded
the motion. Upon a vote,the motion carried 9-0.
ii. Consider Approval of Increase to Phase I1 Budget
Commissioner Welch moved to approve the addition of$9,300 for the Phase II work plan budget for the
Bassett Creek Main Stem Erosion Repair Project, Commissioner Black seconded the motion. Upon a
vote, the motion carried 9-0.
F. Consider Approval of Request from Metro Blooms to Act as Fiscal Agent for Metropolitan
Council Grant
Deferred to later in the meeting because the presenter had not yet arrived.
B. Consider Approval of Revised Channel Maintenance Fund Policy
Administrator Jester said that the Commission started discussing the revisions to the Channel Maintenance
Fund policy at its November meeting, but then it became apparent that more information was needed. She
said that she prepared the information in the memo in this month's meeting packet. She reminded the
Commission that the TAC discussed proposed changes to the policy at two TAC meetings.
Administrator Jester walked the Commission through the memo and went into detail about the current way
the Channel Maintenance funds are used. She talked in detail about the column labeled Unallocated Funds
Remaining and defined these funds as the accumulated funds minus any funds that have been reimbursed and
minus any funds that were requested and approved but not yet spent and reimbursed. She noted that staff will
continue refining the data in the table.
Administrator Jester described the proposed changes to the Channel Maintenance Fund Policy, pointed out
that the proposed revised policy No. 15 under"Strategies to Implement Policy,"addresses the Commission's
request that the Channel Maintenance Fund balance will be reviewed by the Commission. She read aloud
strategy No. 15, "The balance of unallocated funds for each city will be reviewed by the Commission once
every three years to ensure that total funding accumulated is not unreasonably high."
There was discussion about the policy and the proposed revisions.
Commissioner Black moved to approve the policy as presented. Commissioner Mueller seconded the motion.
Commissioner Welch commented that he doesn't think this policy reflects the way the Commission should
operate this fund because it divorces the Commission from spending the money. He added that with that being
said, he supports the motion but would like to amend the motion. Upon Attorney Gilchrist's recommendation
that the Commission take action to amend the motion,Commissioner Welch moved to amend the motion that
the allocation as described in No. 15 in the policy returns to the Commission next year at its December
meeting. Alternate Commissioner Scanlan seconded the motion to amend. Upon a vote to amend the motion,
the motion carried 9-0 [Alternate Commissioner Scanlan voted on behalf of the City of Robbinsdale].
Commissioner Black requested the addition of the word"accumulated"after the word"unallocated" in No.
15. There were no objections to Commissioner Black's request. Upon a vote to the amended original motion,
the motion carried 9-0. [Commissioner Sicora voted on behalf of the City of Robbinsdale].
D. Receive Preview of New BCWMC Website
5
BCWMC December 17, 2015, Meeting Minutes
Administrator Jester displayed the new website on the conference room's screen,and she walked the
Commission through various pages in the site. She responded to questions and comments. Administrator
Jester reported that staff recommends launching the new site on February 1. The Commission indicated
consent. Administrator Jester said that staff plans to create a communications plan about the new site launch.
The Commission requested that Administrator Jester add the plan into her Administrator's report for the
January BCWMC meeting. Commissioners requested the ability to gain a username and password to further
review the site prior to its official launch. Administrator Jester said that was probably possible but noted that
they wouldn't be able to change the site's functionality but could make changes to content over time.
F. Consider Approval of Request from Metro Blooms to Act as Fiscal Agent for Metropolitan
Council Grant
Administrator Jester explained that Metro Blooms is working with the Metropolitan Council and the Harrison
Neighborhood Association to pursue a partnership to engage neighborhood youth and residents and to install
best management practices(BMPs),particularly in the alleyways of the Harrison neighborhood. She said the
installed BMPs would directly benefit the runoff to Bassett Creek from that area. Administrator Jester said
that beyond the water quality benefits,there are community engagement,youth involvement,and education
components to the project.
Administrator Jester reported that multiple sources of grant funds are being sought. She explained that one
source of grant funds is from Metropolitan Council Environmental Services; however those funds cannot be
granted to non-profits, so Metro Blooms has requested that the BCWMC be the fiscal agent for these funds in
2016. Administrator Jester pointed out that the project also is applying for a YouthPrise grant,which requires
matching funds and the Met Council grant is a promising source of those matching funds. She added that the
application deadline for the YouthPrise grant is January 8,2016.
Administrator Jester introduced Becky Rice from Metro Blooms to talk more about the proposed project in
the Harrison neighborhood and the Metro Bloom's request to the BCWMC. Ms. Rice spoke about the
proposed project and reminded the Commission that it has participated in the past with Metro Blooms through
the rain garden workshop program. She described the Blooming Alleys program and showed examples of
project designs and talked about other projects currently underway.
Commissioner Black asked for more information on what would be involved for the Commission to act as the
fiscal manager. Administrator Jester said that she envisions that the BCWMC would be the grantee of the
Metropolitan Council funds and the BCWMC would, in turn, have an agreement with Metro Blooms,
Commissioner Black asked what action is being asked of the Commission today.Administrator Jester
responded that her request is for the Commission to authorize her to continue working with the Metropolitan
Council, Metro Blooms, and the BCWMC's Legal Counsel to develop the grant application to the
Metropolitan Council and subsequent agreement with Metro Blooms. She anticipated bringing the draft grant
application and agreement with Metro Blooms to the January Commission meeting. Administrator Jester
stated that the Commission needs to approve acting as the fiscal agent for the grant.
Various Commissioners offered comments and support for the project and the Commission's involvement
because this area is underserved and would benefit greatly from the community engagement and youth work
aspects of the project. Alternate Commissioner McDonald Black encouraged the Commission to consider
being a funding partner on this project.
Commissioner Mueller moved to approve that the BCWMC serve as the fiscal agent for the Metropolitan
Council Grant. Alternate Commissioner Scanlan seconded the motion.
6
BCWMC December 17, 2015, Meeting Minutes
Commissioner Welch asked for more information on the funding table included in the Commission's meeting
packet. Administrator Jester explained that the table is a preliminary look at how the funding could be put
together. She stated that for 2016 the BCWMC has$3,000 earmarked for Metro Blooms within the
Commission's education budget. Administrator Jester pointed out that the table in the meeting packet does not
include costs for her time spent administering this project, which would be a cost incurred by the
Commission. She estimated that the work would not take more than 10 hours of her time.
Commissioner Welch encouraged Administrator Jester and Ms. Rice to talk to the Commission Engineer
about the hydrology of the proposed project area and whether the location is a good one for this project
because the Commission would want to feel confident that the proposed project would not increase the
migration of soil contaminants to Bassett Creek. There was discussion. The motion carried 9-0 [Alternate
Commissioner Scanlan voted on behalf of the City of Robbinsdale].
E. Receive Updates on Feasibility Studies for 2017: Plymouth Creek Restoration Project and
Main Stem Erosion Repair Project
Administrator Jester announced that she gave a presentation regarding the Main Stem Erosion Repair Project,
with help from the City of Minneapolis and the BCWMC Commissioners from Minneapolis,to the Bryn
Mawr and Harrison neighborhood associations. She stated that both meetings were well attended and had very
engaged community members present.Administrator Jester reported that feedback from both meetings
included the request that the BCWMC consider the navigability of the creek and to keep in mind that the rock
vanes in the creek do not provide for very good navigability. She said that in general there was a lot of
support for the project.Administrator Jester announced that she might be presenting to the Redevelopment
Oversight Committee in January but the details have not been confirmed.
Administrator Jester communicated that the feasibility study for the Plymouth Creek Restoration Project will
be submitted to the City of Plymouth staff this month and should come to the Commission for approval at its
January meeting. She reminded the Commission of the public meeting it held on this project and that the
residents attending had no large concerns. Administrator Jester explained that the original plan had been to
share the draft feasibility study at a second public meeting, but she said she is reconsidering the plan. She
stated that instead, it might be more beneficial if the Commission seeks public input early in the design phase.
The Commission discussed the fact that at the first public meeting the Commission announced that it would
provide the public with the opportunity to comment on the draft feasibility study. The Commission directed
Administrator Jester to bring the draft feasibility study to the Commission at its January meeting,to let the
residents know where the Commission is in the process, and to seek resident feedback early in the design
process if Mr. Asche agrees with that approach as he was absent from the meeting during this discussion.
6. COMMUNICATIONS
A. Administrator:
i. Administrator Jester reported that the BCWMC has been awarded$400,000 in Clean Water Fund
grant money for the Northwood Lake project in New Hope. She said that staff will be developing
a work plan,which should be ready for the Commission's February meeting.Administrator Jester
said that the grant agreement will come to the Commission at its March meeting
ii. Administrator Jester updated the Commission on the Minnesota Association of Watershed
Districts(MAWD)conference that she attended.
iii. Administrator Jester announced a change in recorder services effective February 1.She said that
7
BCWMC December 17, 2015, Meeting Minutes
the meetings will still be recorded, and she proposes that in the short term she prepare the meeting
minutes. Administrator Jester suggested that the Administrative Services Committee set up a
meeting for early in 2016 to consider options. She said that the current recorder has offered to
continue other services to the BCWMC at a new rate effective February 1. Administrator Jester
stated that these changes would require a contract change. Administrator Jester said that she will
send out a Doodle poll to set up the Administrative Services meeting and an Education
Committee meeting as well.
B. Chair:
i. Chair de Lambert reminded the Commission that it will select officers at its February meeting.
C. Commissioners:
i. Commissioner Mueller raised the topic of conducting the Administrator performance review and
suggested that it be postponed. Chair de Lambert suggested that the Administrative Services
Committee discuss this.
ii. Commissioner Welch brought up the new buffer law and said that perhaps Administrator Jester or
Attorney Gilchrist could present on the new law and its implications to the BCWMC at the
Commission's January or February meeting.
D. TAC Members: No TAC Communications
E. Committees: No Committee Communications
F. Legal Counsel: No Legal Communications
G. Engineer:
i. Engineer Chandler announced that the Schaper Pond Diversion project construction is complete
and the baffle has been deployed. She said there will be a little restoration work occurring in
spring 2016.
ii. Engineer Chandler reported that Barr Engineering has moved to a new office location at: 4300
MarketPointe Drive, Suite 200, Minneapolis, MN 55435.
iii. Engineer Chandler commended Commissioner Welch on his presentation on Data Practices at the
MAWD meeting on behalf of Smith Partners.
7. INFORMATION ONLY(Available at http://www.bassettereekwmo.org/Meetings/2015/2015
December/2015DecemberMeetingPacket.htm)
A. CIP Project Update Chart
B. Grant Tracking Summary and Spreadsheet
C. Letter of Support for Metro Blooms Project
D. New West Metro Water Alliance Website: www.westmetroalliance.ora
8. ADJOURNMENT'
Chair de Lambert adjourned the meeting at 11:11 a.m.
8
BCWMC December 17, 2015, Meeting Minutes
Signature/Title Date
Signature/Title Date
9
City 0
)f 1!4-t1r,
goldenll,y MEMORANDUM
va Physical Development Department
763-593-8030/763-593-3988(fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
February 2, 2016
Agenda Item
3. E. 1. Purchase Ford Transit Connect Van
Prepared By
Bert Tracy, Public Works Maintenance Manager
Steve Loomis, Vehicle Maintenance Foreman
Joe Hansen, Utility Maintenance Supervisor
Summary
The 2016-2020 Water and Sewer Capital Improvement Program includes $25,000 for the
purchase of one cargo van (W&SS-073, page 99). The cargo van is utilized as the utility inspector
vehicle. This vehicle will be equipped with shelving to house the lateral inspection camera
equipment and the Fat, Oils, and Grease (FOG) program inspection equipment.
The cargo van scheduled for replacement meets replacement criteria set forth in the City's
Vehicle Replacement Policy and Vehicle Condition Index (VCI). The VCI is a tool utilized to assess
all vehicles and equipment scheduled for replacement. Any vehicle/equipment scoring 23-27
points meets the category of"Qualifies for Replacement". Any vehicle scoring 28 points and
above meets the category of"Needs Immediate Consideration". Unit 606, the 2001 Chevrolet
Astro Van scheduled for replacement has a VCI score of 30 points.
The purchase of the Ford Transit Connect Van will be made under the State of Minnesota
Materials Management Division Contract Pricing; contract number 72045, Nelson Auto Center in
Fergus Falls, Minnesota.
Contract# Item Vendor Amount
72045 2016 Ford Transit Connect Nelson Auto $22,255.43
Van Center
Recommended Action
Motion to approve purchase of the Ford Transit Van from Nelson Auto Center for a total
purchase price of$22,255.43.
. > )
golden MEMORANDUM
valley Physical Development Department
763-593-803+0/763-593-.3988(fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
February 2, 2016
Agenda Item
3. E. 2. Purchase One Elgin Pelican Street Sweeper
Prepared By
Bert Tracy, Public Works Maintenance Manager
Steve Loomis, Vehicle Maintenance Foreman
Tim Kieffer, Park Maintenance Supervisor
Summary
The 2016-2020 Capital Improvement Program Storm Sewer includes $230,000 for one Street
Sweeper (SS-04, page 84). The Elgin Pelican replaces a 2006 Elgin Pelican street sweeper. Staff
will utilize the street sweeper for spring and fall annual street sweeping, as needed for street and
parking lot sweeping due to heavy winds depositing leaves and tree debris, and sweeping after
watermain breaks etc. The Elgin Pelican is a three-wheel, 74-horse-power diesel engine street
sweeper with a pickup broom and gutter brooms.
The Elgin Pelican meets replacement criteria set forth in the City's Vehicle Replacement Policy
and Vehicle Condition Index (VCI). The VCI is a tool utilized to assess all vehicles and equipment
scheduled for replacement. Any vehicle/equipment scoring 23-27 points meets the category of
"Qualifies for Replacement" and any vehicle/equipment scoring 28 points and above meets the
category of"needs immediate consideration". The 2006 Elgin Pelican due for replacement scored
34 points.
The Minnesota Materials Management Division Contract Pricing has awarded the following
contract:
Contract# Item Vendor Amount
S-843(5) Elgin Pelican NP, 3-wheel MacQueen $216,653.00
street sweeper Equipment
Total before Trade-in $216,653.00
Less Trade in ($18,750.00)
Purchase After Trade-in $197,903.00
Recommended Action
Motion to approve purchase of one Elgin Pelican Street Sweeper from MacQueen Equipment in
the amount of$197,903.00 after trade-in.
901den
valley Physical Development Department
763-593-8030/763-593-3988(fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
February 2, 2016
Agenda Item
3. E. 3. Purchase One Toro Groundsmaster 5910 Mower
Prepared By
Bert Tracy, Public Works Maintenance Manager
Steve Loomis, Vehicle Maintenance Foreman
Al Lundstrom, Park Maintenance Supervisor
Summary
The 2016-2020 Capital Improvement Program includes $98,000 for one rotary mower (V&E-
030, page 27). The Toro Groundsmaster 5910 Mower replaces a 2008 Toro Groundsmaster
580D Mower. Staff will utilize the Groundsmaster for mowing City parks. The Groundsmaster is
a four-wheel drive, 99-horse-power diesel engine mower with a 16-foot triple deck rotary
mower.
The Groundsmaster meets replacement criteria set forth in the City's Vehicle Replacement
Policy and Vehicle Condition Index (VCI). The VCI is a tool utilized to assess all vehicles and
equipment scheduled for replacement and any vehicle/equipment scoring 28 points and above
meets the category of"needs immediate consideration". The 2008 Groundsmaster due for
replacement scored 28 points.
Below is Contract Pricing through National Intergovernmental Purchasing Alliance Company
(National IPA) and State of Minnesota Materials Management Division Contract Pricing.
National IPA Contract and Item Vendor Amount
Release No.
80760 Toro Groundsmaster MTI Distributing $100,522.27
5910D
Less Trade in 2008 Toro Groundsmaster 580 ($10,000.00)
TOTAL PURCHASE $90,552.27
Minnesota State Contract Item Vendor Amount
Pricing
#M-448(5) Toro Groundsmaster MTI Distributing $102,866.75
5910D
Less Trade in 2008 Toro Groundsmaster 580 ($10,000.00)
TOTAL PURCHASE $92,866.75
Purchasing the Toro 5910 from MTI Distributing utilizing National IPA will save the city
$2,314.48.
Recommended Action
Motion to approve purchase of one Toro 5910 Groundsmaster Mower from MTI Distributing
through National IPA in the amount of$90,552.27 after trade-in.
citY o
gold.en', V' MEMORANDUM
va ley Physical Development Department
763-593-8030/763-593-3988(fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
February 2, 2016
Agenda Item
3. E. 4. Purchase Three Pickup Trucks
Prepared By
Bert Tracy, Public Works Maintenance Manager
Steve Loomis, Vehicle Maintenance Foreman
Summary
The 2016-2020 Capital Improvement Program includes:
1. $35,000 for the purchase of one Street Division pickup truck (V&E-016, page 25)to
replace Unit#777, 2008 Ford F250 pickup truck.
2. $30,000 for the purchase of one Engineering Division pickup truck (V&E-072, page 33) to
replace Unit#231, 2004 Ford F150 pickup truck.
3. $40,000 for the purchase of one Police Department truck (V&E-122, page 42)to replace
Unit #811, 2009 Ford Explorer.
All of the vehicles scheduled for replacement meet replacement criteria set forth in the City's
Vehicle Replacement Policy and Vehicle Condition Index (VCI). The VCI is a tool utilized to assess
all vehicles and equipment scheduled for replacement. Any vehicle/equipment scoring 23-27
points meets the category of"Qualifies for Replacement" and any vehicle scoring 28 points and
above meets the category of"Needs Immediate Consideration". The following is a summary of
the VCI ratings for the three vehicles:
Division and Unit# Year/Make/Model VCI (Index)
Street Unit#777 2008 Ford Pickup Truck 25 points
Engineering Unit#231 2006 Ford Pickup Truck 29 points
Police Unit #811 2009 Ford Explorer 28 points
The purchase of the trucks will be made under the State of Minnesota Materials Management
Division Contract; Contract number 85051 from Midway Ford Commercial Fleet and Government
Sales for 2016 Ford trucks.
Contract Numbers Item Vendor Amount
85051 2016 Ford F150 Super Cab Midway Ford $28,587.24
Pickup Truck, 6.5' Box For Commercial Fleet and
Engineering Division. Government Sales
85051 2016 Ford F150 Crew Cab Midway Ford $34,896.24
Pickup Truck, 6.5' Box For Commercial Fleet and
Street Division. Government Sales
85051 2016 Ford F150 Crew Cab Midway Ford $34,148.24
Pickup Truck, 6.5' Box For Commercial Fleet and
Police Department. Government Sales
TOTAL PURCHASE $97,631.72
Recommended Action
Motion to approve purchase of three Ford trucks from Midway Ford Commercial Fleet and
Government Sales for total purchase price of$97,631.72.
city 0
goldenvi MEMORANDUM
valley Fire Department
763-593-8079/763-593-8098(fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
February 2, 2016
Agenda Item
3, E. 5. Purchase Thermal Imaging Cameras (TIC's)
Prepared By
John Crelly, Fire Chief
Summary
The 2016-2020 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) includes $70,000 for the purchase of seven
(7) Thermal Imaging Cameras (V & E-132, page 46).
Competitive prices quotes were received from two different vendors. The lowest responsible
quote was received from Municipal Emergency Services, Inc.
Recommended Action
Motion to authorize the purchase of seven (7) Thermal Imaging Cameras from Municipal
Emergency Services, Inc. for$54,089.
Benjamin B. Peterson
January 19, 2016
Mayor Shep Harris
City of Golden Valley
7800 Golden Valley Road
Golden Valley, MN 55427
RE: Resignation from the Golden Valley Police Civil Service Commission
Dear Mayor Harris:
Please accept this letter as formal notification of my resignation as Commissioner with the
Golden Valley Police Civil Service Commission effective February 2, 2016.
The reason for my resignation is due to honoring the residency requirement, as I will no longer
be a Golden Valley resident as of the above effective date.
I have enjoyed serving on the Commission since August 2009 and hope I was able to
meaningfully contribute to the Golden Valley Police Department as well as the city. I plan to
seek out new opportunities to serve in Golden Valley as this city is my hometown. I look
forward to seeing a new Commissioner appointed and hope this person will provide an insightful
perspective to maintain a solid Golden Valley Police Civil Service Commission.
If you have any questions please let me know.
Sincerely,
Benjamin B. Peterson
cc: Chief Jason Sturgis, Golden Valley Police Department
Lieutenant Steve Johnson, Golden Valley Police Department
Amanda Johnson, Administrative Assistant, Golden Valley Police Department
Judy Nally, Administrative Assistant, City of Golden Valley
city
goldenvv .4, � MEMORANDUM
valley Physical Development Department
763-593-8095 f 763-593-8109(fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
February 2, 2016
Agenda Item
3. G. Second Consideration -Amending Section 4.20: Sign Permits and Regulations regarding
Temporary Signs, Banners and Inflatables
Prepared By
Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager
Summary
Staff has drafted code language that, with some caveats, would allow special temporary signage
to be larger and/or displayed for longer than what is currently allowed by code. This would give
the City the flexibility to accommodate special events that are of significant interest or benefit to
the City, its history, or culture.
Certain criteria must be met for a special temporary sign permit to be granted:
1. The signage shall not be allowed in residential-zoned properties;
2. The signage shall be composed of durable and of high quality materials; and
3. The signage and its duration shall not adversely affect neighboring properties.
On January 20, 2016, the City Council approved the first consideration of the ordinance amending
the Sign Code (5-0). At that time, the Council asked staff to consider removing one of the
proposed criteria involving the size of the property. After further research, staff agreed and the
criteria has been removed for the second reading. In its place, staff is recommending inserting a
new criteria that requires that the signage be made of durable and high quality materials in order
to ensure signs remain in good condition throughout the duration of their display.
Staff has also modified the proposed code to remove the opportunity to have a continuous
"temporary" sign by limiting the duration to 365 days in any five year period.
If the Council adopts the ordinance amending the Sign Code on second consideration, it would
become effective upon publication.
Attachments
• Underlined-Overstruck Sign Code Language (3 pages)
• Ordinance#589, Amending Section 4.20: Sign Permits and Regulations regarding Temporary
Signs, Banners and Inflatables (2 pages)
• Summary Ordinance (1 page)
Recommended Action
Motion to adopt second consideration Ordinance#589, Amending Section 4.20: Sign Permits and
Regulations regarding Temporary Signs, Banners and Inflatables.
Motion to approve Summary of Ordinance#589, for Publication.
§ 4.20
R. Pylon Sign: A free standing sign which is not a monument sign.
Source: Ordinance No. 430, 2"d Series
Effective Date: 03-12-10
S. Real Estate Sign: A sign which advertises the development, sale, lease or
rental of land or buildings.
T. Search Light Sign: A temporary sign drawing attention to an event,
activity, or site by concentrating or focusing light rays or beacons to create a
brightly focused light that may rotate, flash, remain steady or some
combination of these.
Source: Ordinance No. 272, 2nd Series
Effective Date: 10-25-02
U. Shopping Centers: Any contiguous group of six (6) or more retail stores or
service establishments within the Commercial Zoning district comprising ten
thousand (10,000) or more square feet of floor area which provides off-street
parking utilized in common by patrons, where each tenant is provided direct
access to the parking area by means of an exterior door or exit at ground or
balcony level.
Source: Ordinance No. 323, 2nd Series
Effective Date: 3-25-05
V. Sign: A name, identification, description, display, or illustration, which is
affixed to or represented directly on a building structure, or a tract of land
and which directs attention to an object, product, place, activity, person,
institution, organization, or business located on the same premises. It does
not include any official court or other public notices or directional signs
placed by an authorized government agency, nor does it include the flag,
emblem, or insignia of a nation, political unit, school or religious or service or
fraternal group.
Source: Ordinance No. 272, 2"d Series
Effective Date: 10-25-02
W. Special Temporary Sign: A sign designed to be displayed for a limited
period of time that is not permanently fixed to the land or a structure which
may be larger and/or displayed for a longer duration than a Temporary Sign
if the criteria set forth in this Chapter are met.
W. X. Surface Area of Sign: The entire area within a single continuous perimeter
enclosing the extreme limits of actual sign surface. It does not include any
structural elements outside the limits of such sign and not forming an
integral part of the display. Only one (1) side of a double-faced or V-type
(one hundred thirty five (135) degree maximum) structure or pylon sign shall
be used in computing total surface area. If individual letters are mounted
directly on a wall or canopy without a frame, the sign area shall be the area in
square feet of the smallest rectangle enclosing the sign.
§ 4.20
Subdivision 10. Temporary Signs, Banners and Inflatables
A. The use of Ttemporary Ssigns such as banners, pennants, inflatables
(including balloons over eighteen (18) inches in diameter) for advertising
temporary sales, business openings, special events, similar activities or used
for other purposes are limited to the following:
1. Real Eestate Ssigns are subject to the following requirements: leasing
signs must be removed after initial leasing or within three hundred sixty
(360) days after a certificate of occupancy is issued if involving a new
building or a substantial remodeling. Leasing information integrated into
an approved permanent neighborhood identification sign or monument
sign and given the same architectural treatment using the same materials
and design given to the neighborhood identification or monument sign are
not subject to the removal provisions of this section. No Rfeal Eestate or
for sale Ssign shall remain on a property longer than one (1) year unless
approved by the City Manager or his/her designee.
2. The maximum duration shall not exceed a total of thiFty-(30)-days one 1
month in any one (1) calendar year. Each property is limited to three (3)
four 4 occurrences in one (1) calendar year.
B. In addition to the permits granted under paragraph A above for Temporary
Signs, a property owner or lessee may apply for a Special Temporary Sign
Permit in order to acknowledge an event of significant interest or benefit to
the City, its history, or culture. A Special Temporary Sign Permit shall be
subject to all the requirements of this Chapter regarding temporary signs
except:
1. The permit may have a duration longer than one (1) month but no longer
than three hundred and sixty-five (365) days in any five (5) year period;
and
2. The permit may authorize a sign size of no greater than one hundred and
fifty percent (150%) of the permanent sign area otherwise allowed under
this Chapter for the subject property.
C. The City Manager or his/her designee shall grant a Special Temporary Sign
Permit only if all of the following conditions are met:
1. The property owner or lessee submits an application to the City for a
Sspecial Temporary Sign Permit in the form prescribed by the Cit
Manager or his/her designee;
3. The signage shall not be allowed in R-1, R-2, R-3, or R-4 Zoning Districts;
§ 4.20
4. The signage shall be composed of durable, high-quality materials that are
designed to withstand three hundred and sixty-five (365) days of use
without replacement;
5. The signage and its duration shall not be determined to adversely affect
neighboring_properties; and
6. Conditions 3, 4, and 5 above must be satisfied at the time of application
and for the duration of the permit. To receive a Special Temporary Sign
Permit, the applicant shall pay both a fee for a Temporary Sign Permit
and a separate fee for the Special Temporary Sign Permit, as established
by the Council under Section 4.02.
D. An approved permit shall be obtained prior to display of a Ttemporary Ssign.
A Ttemporary Ssign displayed without a permit shall be removed and no new
Ttemporary Ssign shall be allowed nor shall a permit be approved within the
next twelve (12) months.
ORDINANCE NO. 589, 2ND SERIES
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE
Amending Section 4.20: Sign Permits and Regulations,
Regarding Temporary Signs, Banners and Inflatables
The City Council for the City of Golden Valley hereby ordains as follows:
Section 1. City Code Section 4.20, Subdivision 2. Definitions is amended by
adding a new definition W. Special Temporary Sign to read as follows, and re-lettering
the rest of the definitions accordingly:
W. Special Temporary Sign: A sign designed to be displayed for a limited period of
time that is not permanently fixed to the land or a structure which may be larger and/or
displayed for a longer duration than a Temporary Sign if the criteria set forth in this
Chapter are met.
Section 2. City Code Section 4.20, Subdivision 10. Temporary Signs, Banners
and Inflatables is deleted in its entirety and replaced as follows:
Subdivision 10. Temporary Signs, Banners and Inflatables
A. The use of Temporary Signs such as banners, pennants, inflatables (including
balloons over eighteen (18) inches in diameter) for advertising temporary sales,
business openings, special events, similar activities or used for other purposes
are limited to the following:
1. Real Estate Signs are subject to the following requirements: leasing signs
must be removed after initial leasing or within three hundred sixty (360) days
after a certificate of occupancy is issued if involving a new building or a
substantial remodeling. Leasing information integrated into an approved
permanent neighborhood identification sign or monument sign and given the
same architectural treatment using the same materials and design given to
the neighborhood identification or monument sign are not subject to the
removal provisions of this section. No Real Estate or for sale Sign shall
remain on a property longer than one (1) year unless approved by the City
Manager or his/her designee.
2. The maximum duration shall not exceed a total of one (1) month in any one
(1) calendar year. Each property is limited to four (4) occurrences in one (1)
calendar year.
B. In addition to the permits granted under paragraph A above for Temporary Signs,
a property owner or lessee may apply for a Special Temporary Sign Permit in
order to acknowledge an event of significant interest or benefit to the City, its
history, or culture. A Special Temporary Sign Permit shall be subject to all the
requirements of this Chapter regarding temporary signs except:
1. The permit may have a duration longer than one (1) month but no longer than
three hundred and sixty-five (365) days in any five (5) year period; and
Ordinance No. 589 -2- February 2, 2016
2. The permit may authorize a sign size of no greater than one hundred and fifty
percent (150%) of the permanent sign area otherwise allowed under this
Chapter for the subject property.
C. The City Manager or his/her designee shall grant a Special Temporary Sign
Permit only if all of the following conditions are met:
1. The property owner or lessee submits an application to the City for a Special
Temporary Sign Permit in the form prescribed by the City Manager or his/her
designee;
3. The signage shall not be allowed in R-1, R-2, R-3, or R-4 Zoning Districts;
4. The signage shall be composed of durable, high-quality materials that are
designed to withstand three hundred sixty-five (365) days of use without
replacement;
5. The signage and its duration shall not be determined to adversely affect
neighboring properties; and
6. Conditions 3, 4, and 5 above must be satisfied at the time of application and
for the duration of the permit. To receive a Special Temporary Sign Permit,
the applicant shall pay both a fee for a Temporary Sign Permit and a separate
fee for the Special Temporary Sign Permit, as established by the Council
under Section 4.02.
D. An approved permit shall be obtained prior to display of a Temporary Sign. A
Temporary Sign displayed without a permit shall be removed and no new
Temporary Sign shall be allowed nor shall a permit be approved within the next
twelve (12) months.
Section 2. City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions and Definitions
Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" and Section 4.99
entitled "Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their 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.
Adopted by the City Council this 2nd day of February, 2016.
/s/Shepard M. Harris
Shepard M. Harris, Mayor
ATTEST:
/s/Kristine A. Luedke
Kristine A. Luedke, City Clerk
SUMMARY OF
ORDINANCE NO. 589, 2ND SERIES
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE
Amending Section 4.20: Sign Permits and Regulations,
Regarding Temporary Signs, Banners and Inflatables
This is a summary of the provisions of the above ordinance which has been approved for
publication by the City Council.
This ordinance amends Section 4.20: Sign Permits and Regulations of the Golden Valley
City Code to allow for the approval of special temporary signage when certain criteria are
met and to regulate the size and duration of that signage. This ordinance shall take effect
upon publication.
A copy of the full text of this ordinance is available from the City Clerk's Office.
Adopted by the City Council this 2nd day of February, 2016.
/s/Shepard M. Harris
Shepard M. Harris, Mayor
ATTEST:
/s/Kristine A. Luedke
Kristine A. Luedke, City Clerk
golden MEMORANDUM
valley Administrative Services Department
763-593-8013/763-593-3969(fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
February 2, 2016
Agenda Item
3. H. Second Consideration - Amendment to the 2016 Master Fee Schedule for Temporary Signs,
Banners and Inflatables
Prepared By
Sue Virnig, Finance Director
Summary
Tonight is the second consideration of Ordinance #590 amending the 2016 Master Fee Schedule
to provide fees for Temporary Signs, Banners and Inflatables. Ordinance#589 made revisions to
City Code Section 4.20 which made the need for those permit fees. Permit fees relate to
inspection and administrative time. First consideration of this ordinance was held on the January
20, 2016, Council Meeting. If Council adopts the second consideration, it will be effective upon
publication.
The following underlined changes will be reflected:
Sign Permit
Base fee 50.00
Area fee (per sq ft of sign area) +3.00/sq ft
Plan Review (Pylon and Monument Signs) 40.00
Temporary Signs (up to one month) 50.00/week
Special Temporary Sign Permit 100.00
Re-inspection fee (after first month) +25.00/month
Attachments
Ordinance#590, Amending the 2016 Master Fee Schedule for Temporary Signs, Banners and
Inflatables (1 page)
Recommended Action
Motion to adopt second consideration Ordinance#590, Amending the 2016 Master Fee Schedule
for Temporary Signs, Banners and Inflatables.
ORDINANCE NO. 590, 2ND SERIES
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE
Amending 2016 Master Fee Schedule for
Temporary Signs, Banners and Inflatables Fees
The City Council for the City of Golden Valley hereby ordains:
Section 1. The 2016 Master Fee Schedule in Chapter 25 of the City Code is hereby
amended by adding the following new Temporary Sign and Special Temporary Sign fees:
Sign Permit
Base fee 50.00
Area fee (per sq ft of sign area) +3.00/sq ft
Plan Review (Pylon and Monument Signs) 40.00
Temporary Signs (up to one month) 50.00/week
Special Temporary Sign Permit 100.00
Re-inspection fee (after first month) +25.00/month
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.
Adopted by the City Council this 2nd day of February, 2016.
/s/Shepard M. Harris
Shepard M. Harris, Mayor
ATTEST:
/s/Kristine A. Luedke
Kristine A. Luedke, City Clerk
c J o
gold' e' n MEMORANDUM
valley Administrative Services Department
763-593-8013/763-593-3969(fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
February 2, 2016
Agenda Item
3. I. Annual Elections for the 2016 Insurance Policy
Prepared By
Sue Virnig, Finance Director
Summary
Cities can waive the statutory liability limits, in which case, the damages compensated could be
up to the amount of the coverage carried. Staff recommends that the City does not waive the
statutory limits on tort liability established by Minnesota Statues 466.04 for the 2016 insurance
policy. The policy is a February 1 renewal.
The League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust (LMCIT) requires each city to approve the
election through a resolution.
Attachments
• Resolution Making Annual Elections for the 2016 Insurance Policy (1 page)
Recommended Action
Motion to adopt Resolution Making Annual Elections for the 2016 Insurance Policy.
Resolution 16-05 February 2, 2016
Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION MAKING ANNUAL ELECTIONS
FOR THE 2016 INSURANCE POLICY
WHEREAS, the City of Golden Valley must declare whether or not to waive the
statutory limits on tort liability established by Minnesota Statutes 466.04.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council for the City of Golden
Valley that it does not waive the statutory limits on tort liability established by Minnesota
Statutes 466.04 for the 2016 insurance policy.
Shepard M. 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.
citv 0 1`0
gol d", :a
ntll'�r M E M 0 R A N D U M
va e y Physical Development Department
763-593-8030/763-593-3988(fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
February 2, 2016
Agenda Item
3. J. Authorize Contract Extension with Tim's Tree Service, Inc. for 2016 Spring Brush Pickup
Program
Prepared By
Al Lundstrom, Park Maintenance Supervisor
Tim Teynor, Assistant City Forester
Summary
The 2015-16 Adopted Biennial Budget, Recycling (7001, page 111) includes $71,400 for Spring Brush
Pickup. The City Council awarded a contract for Spring Brush Pick-Up Services in 2015 for a one-year
period. The contract provisions allow for an extension of two additional years.
Tim's Tree Service has been the single bidder for the project during the past several years. Tim's
Tree Service is agreeing to an extension with no price increase.
The 2016 Spring Brush Pickup Program is a three-week program scheduled to begin on April 25,
2016. The City will be divided into three sections with one week designated for pickup in each.
Section 1 Entire area north of Highway 55 and east of Douglas Drive Week of April 25
Section 2 Entire area north of Highway 55 and west of Douglas Drive Week of May 2
Section 3 Entire area south of Highway 55 Week of May 9
Golden Valley's recycling program (which includes curbside recycling, brush pick-up and leaf drop-
off) is supported through user fees. Residents pay$12 per quarter ($4/month) per household for
recycling services on their utility bills.
Staff provides information to residents about the 2016 Spring Brush Pickup Program through the
CityNews, postcards mailed to their homes, and on the City's website.
Attachments
• Amendment to Contract 15-10 between City of Golden Valley and Tim's Tree Service, Inc. for
2016 Spring Brush Pick-Up (1 page)
Recommended Action
Motion to approve Amendment to Contract 15-10 between the City of Golden Valley and Tim's Tree
Service, Inc. in the amount of$66,410 for the 2016 Spring Brush Pickup Program.
AMENDMENT
Contract 15-10 between
City of Golden Valley and Tim's Tree Service, Inc. for
Spring Brush Pick-up
This amendment to Contract 15-10 is made this February 2, 2016, by and between the City of
Golden Valley ("City") and Tim's Tree Service, Inc. ("Contractor")to perform Tree Spring Brush Pick-
Up services for the City of Golden,Valley.
The original contract was for a period of one year from January 1, 2015 through
December 31, 2015.
The parties wish to extend the original contract for one additional year from January 1, 2016
through December 31, 2016 at the same total contract price per year as the previous years.
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows:
1. Except to the extent modified by this Amendment, the contract between the City and
Tim's Tree Service, Inc. (the "Contract") is hereby ratified in all respects.
2. The Contract is extended for an additional one-year period from January 1, 2016
through December 31, 2016.
3. The total payment for contract services shall be in the amount of$66,410.
4. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is the original contract.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties sign below.
CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY TIM'S TREE SERVICE, INC.
By By
Timothy J. Cruikshank Its:
Its: City Manager
city, of*�'
goldM Ir MEMORANDUM
valle IV Ir Physical Development Department
763-593-80301763-593-3988(fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
February 2, 2016
Agenda Item
3. K. Authorize Contract for Restoration and Maintenance of Native Plant Communities
Prepared By
Eric Eckman, Public Works Specialist
Summary
Staff has requested a proposal from Prairie Restorations, Inc. for professional services related to
Restoration and Maintenance of Native Plant Communities adjacent to Golden Valley's
stormwater ponds, wetlands, and streams. Prairie Restoration, Inc. has assisted the City with the
management of these native buffer areas since 2000. The buffer areas maintained under this
contract serve to improve water quality and ecological diversity, and provide habitat and food
sources for pollinators like bees and butterflies (see attached location map).
The proposal from Prairie Restorations, Inc. includes performing controlled burns, dormant
mowing, and integrated plant management. The consultant visits each native buffer area
monthly during the growing season and performs maintenance on an as-needed basis.
There is $50,000 budgeted for this program in the 2016-2017 Biennial Budget, Storm Sewer
Utility, Native Buffer Zone Maintenance for Ponds (7303.6340). The actual amount of the
proposal from Prairie Restorations, Inc. is $32,700 and is shown in Exhibit B of the contract.
Attachments
• Location map (1 page)
• Contract for the 2016 Golden Valley Restoration and Maintenance of Native Plant
Communities (10 pages)
Recommended Action
Motion to authorize the Contract for Professional Services with Prairie Restorations, Inc. for the
2016 Golden Valley Restoration and Maintenance of Native Plant Communities in the amount of
$32,700.
i
W m -p I c I O a
-a
CE
�, m Q m a
N -0 0 p v f9 I . C Ln
L C I of >+
N 6 a vi �I $ 3 ¢( ai -0 v `n
N z YI c� CK 3 c M. -0 ° aa) CL c c cl Y ?� c = o
W C til O N O � Y� C ` c a p c, Y N °' C N m O °
I _l a a �c a c I o' p Y to a I a 3
.�.r cv °o o a/ a 3 +r � S " o a, z o c o c o
3 a� a °p d a L to C I m _ o- N o r1 I m Z
> ` M M v a o S
N Q CC rl = U E 7 3 Z I t > _ e j V l O 0J p
y Y v H y +'I m m C y Q l C O ~ Q ate+I O I— a. Q O
N O C — _ N C C ._ fZ co' y G1 L v l L C y -p N 7 h
10 Gl; pi O gg�� O f�0 �c Mi C t v O 7 H f0 G e0 C e c p
Zll9lmim l9 2 C9 x 2 ml � Mi < A_ xlCA SIH a. `g c� z W, $ 2 m` 3 " ,moo
y� ry� (A
�O I- 00 C1 O rl r f V I �a•I a^i m ��•1 AlN N N N N N N CN c Q
t7 I.__. ei e-I r•I I c �
au°°=aU o
tiI1QdV9NNIW 3(1,C.LtJ � "
SliodVarAWIW JO
SMO IR',:vN[W:la A.l.t.,
���✓ _. I----•-----------------------------� —
1IVQSNIfIfl011. JO A1tr XUl Ea N►op N O)
. ...�--------------------------i M
j Pro, C4,
j -
1 f
- j
H any aIRoM
j C
.:
I N 1 �• I
N r e
N
N------------------------
I
Ar pEoxss
a y Sx81R r 2A$ET%PX• 4
C I
03
I H g auEz [ Q 1
q
Z c °
j Nx S. uo J «'
' $aAV
j q ang Aasxaj '
u
o j N aAV EpleAa
j O ,
jq + Ei1TEAiAsuua
N a
j 11�
1
x � I
' ut uoo6TM • I
j
04
j PAIS jjW[E.ra a
~h DAY auoog -
c
j r M ar.V xxyEaa� a
4,
z o
v' el
..—._—_.- 1-----------------------------------------------------
J(.)
------------------------ ------ --- ----------Jc?AIIJ
Exhibit A
Prairie Restoration Management Strategies
Native landscape management techniques can be divided into five different
categories; monitoring, controlled burning, dormant mows, Integrated Plant
Management (IPM), and woody vegetation control. Each of these techniques
plays a key role in the development and success of a native landscape. Below is
a description of each tool and the reasons they are used.
Effective management of a restored area is achieved through a variety of
management practices. A complete understanding of the various plants' life
cycles and growth characteristics is necessary for the proper management
decisions to be made. Prairie Restoration's land managers use their experience
and knowledge to make these decisions for the betterment and health of the
landscapes they care for.
Monitoring
Monitoring is checking the progress of the planting regularly. The goal is to see
what weeds may be coming in that need to be addressed, but also to see how
the native plants are growing. Monitoring is perhaps the most important
technique land managers use. It allows the manager to make the determination
of what other techniques will best benefit the planting. Native plantings change,
not only from year to year, but from week to week and month to month.
Therefore, it is important to make regular trips through the planting. It is also
important to monitor the entire planting, as microenvironments found throughout
will grow different species of native plants and weeds. Monitoring is something
that can, and should, be done by the City, as well as by the land manager. Prairie
Restoration will provide information in the form of a basic field guide, if needed.
Controlled Burns
Prairies are fire-dependent communities, making controlled burning a very
important management tool. Historically, prairie fires would burn periodically.
Today, Prairie Restoration's experienced burn crews seek to replicate the
process using proper tools and techniques. Burning is typically done every three
to four years, beginning once adequate fuel is present. Each site is unique, and
the land manager will discuss with you when and why a burn would be a good
option.
Timing and intensity of burns are very important for controlling various weedy
species and promoting the native ones. Spring burns tend to favor the grass
species, while fall burns may enhance the flower component. The majority of
burns are conducted in the spring, usually during the months of April and May,
though some may occur later, depending on the needs of the site. Benefits of
spring burns include: the alleviation of the accumulation of biomass, a reduction
in exotic cool season species, control of woody plants, and the stimulation of
earlier growth of native warm season species. Fall burns are also very effective
in accomplishing many of these goals. They normally occur in October and
November. One negative to fall burning is the loss of winter cover for wildlife
species. Fall burns may also be harder to schedule due to wet Minnesota fall
weather conditions.
Burns should only be conducted by trained crews. Many of the controlled burns
conducted today are on a much smaller scale, and in a suburban setting. This
creates many challenges for the crews. Smoke is typically the biggest concern.
Burns must be conducted with proper wind conditions so smoke does not blow
onto busy roadways, or towards buildings. The presence of trees and shrubs in
or near the planting must also be taken into account. Before conducting a
controlled burn, proper permits must be obtained from the Department of Natural
Resources and local authorities. Neighboring residents and businesses will also
be notified.
Dormant Mows
Dormant mows are an alternative to fire, and are frequently done in years when a
controlled burn is not scheduled. Dormant mows are conducted when the prairie
plants are dormant (not actively growing), as the name suggests. They occur in
early spring or late fall, and benefit the prairie by dispersing grass and flower
seed and speeding up the breakdown of biomass. Dormant mows also give the
prairie a clean look to start or end the season. One consideration when
scheduling a dormant mow is soil moisture. Any soil disturbance will promote the
growth of weeds, so mows should only be done when the ground is firm enough
for the equipment being used. Larger sites are mowed with a tractor and flail
mower. Smaller sites may be mowed using weed-whips.
Integrated Plant Management (IPM)
Integrated Plant Management (IPM) is a combination of many hands-on
management techniques used during the growing season. The goal of IPM is to
remove unwanted species from the prairie. The method of control varies by
species and density of the weeds. If desired, Prairie Restorations' trained land
management crews will visit the site periodically during the growing season to
conduct various IPM tasks, as needed on a site-by-site basis.
Chemical Control
• Spot Spraying
For perennial weedy species, spot spraying is the primary method of control.
Selective spot spraying targets individual plants using backpack sprayers.
Because of the accuracy, it is possible to kill weeds intermixed with prairie plants
without harming the native forbs and grasses. Chemicals used for spot spraying
are "species specific," meaning different chemicals are used for the control of
different weedy species. In order to minimize negative impact on a site, the
minimum effective rate of the chemicals is used. Weather conditions are always
taken into account before applying chemicals to a site. It is not only rain that
causes concern. Heat may cause some chemicals to become less effective as
the plants shut down to preserve energy. Prairie Restorations Inc.'s crew
members are certified pesticide applicators and have been taught the proper
techniques for handling and applying the chemicals used. It is not recommended
that the homeowner apply chemicals to the site.
• Wicking
Wicking is another way to apply chemical. Using sponge-like devices, crew
members are able to wipe chemicals onto individual or small colonies of weeds.
This may be done using small hand-wicks, or larger "hockey-stick-wicks."
Wicking is very precise, but may take more time than spot spraying.
• Timed Oversprays
Timed oversprays are necessary when a large area of the planting contains
unwanted perennial plants. The timing is critical. Typically, oversprays are
conducted in the early spring or late fall, when native, warm-season plants are
dormant. Luckily, many weedy species, such as reed canary grass, are cool-
season plants. This means they become active earlier in the spring and remain
active later in the fall. Most often, the timed oversprays are conducted using a
truck or a tractor with a mounted boom sprayer. If the area is small enough, or
there is not adequate vehicle access, it may be done with backpack sprayers.
Glyphosate is the preferred chemical, as it is non-selective and good at
controlling most broadleaf and grass species. In the spring following an
overspray, areas that were sprayed become obvious until the native species start
filling them in.
Mechanical Control
• Spot Mowing
Spot mowing is typically done with weed-whips. Crew members cut down
individual plants, or smaller colonies. While chemicals will kill annual and biennial
weeds, spot mowing is often the preferred tool. Unlike perennial weeds, in which
each plant will grow and flower year after year, annuals and biennials only have a
one or two year growing cycle. They flower, produce seed, and die. The weeds
persist by producing large amounts of seed that germinate and flower quickly,
thereby producing more seed. Due to this growth pattern, mowing at, or just prior
to, the flowering stage is an effective method of control by stopping the seed
production. Spot mowing may also be used to stop perennials from spreading
seed. However, spot mowing is not enough to kill perennial weedy species. It will
delay the spread, but eventually another control method, such as spot spraying
or controlled burning, will be required.
• Complete Site Mows
Complete site mows are most often done on newly seeded projects. In the first
growing season, three to four complete mows may be necessary. The main
purpose of a complete site mowing is to prevent weeds from producing a closed
canopy and blocking out the light from the native seedlings. Plants are usually
allowed to grow to 12-18" in height before being mowed. Flail mowers are used
because they can be easily adjusted to different mowing heights. Typically, a
height of 6-8" is desired. If the vegetation is cut too short, it exposes the young
prairie plants to extreme heat and drying conditions and may inhibit growth.
• Hand weeding and chopping
Hand weeding and chopping will be completed by Prairie Restorations when
needed.
Exhibit B
Golden Valley Parks Maintenance
2016
Spring
Dormant
Park Spring Burn Mow IPM Total
Adeline Mature Area 50.00 354.40
Bassett Creek Nature Area
Pond 1,150.00 1,150.00
Bassett Creek and
innetka $ 500.00 $ 500.00
Boone Ave. Pond & Berm $ 350.04 $ 1,500.04 1,65O.04
Briarwood Mature Area $ 235.00 $ 1,050.00 $ fi 885.00
Briarwood-Dawnview Pond $ 750.00 $ 754.00
Brookview Park Ponds $ 054.00 $ 1,500.00 $ 2.250.00
General Mills Nature
Preserve $ 14875.00 $ 3,154.00 $ 5,025.00
Golden Meadows Pond $ 350.00 $ 350.00
Golden Ridge Pond $ 350.00 354.00
Golden Hills Pond $ 425.00 854.00 $ 1,275.00
Hampshire Pond $ 400.04 050.00 $ 1,050.00
Madison Pond 325.00 $ 700.00 $ 1' 025.00
Meadow Lane Woods Pond $ 400.(}0 4K00
Medley Park $ 1,240.00 $ 1,240.04
Minnaqua Pond $ 400-00 $ 550.00 $ 1,054.04
Minnaqua Wetland $ 575.00 $ 850.00 $ 1,425.00
North Tyrol Park $ 275.00 $ 1,050.00 $ 1,325.00
Perry Ave. Pond $ 950.00 050.00
Regent and Westbend $ 875.00 $ 1,050.00 $ 1 925.00
Scott Ave. Pond 325.00 $ 850.00 $ 1 175.00
Schaper Park $ 450.00 $ 1,250.00 $ 1,700.00
South Tyrol Pond $ 255.00 $ 450.04 $ 715.00
Sweeny Branch
Stabilization $ 950.00 $ 950.00
Winnetka & Hwy. 55 $ 500.00 $ 500.00
?penia Ave. Pond $ 625.001 $ 950.00 $ 1,575.00
Total $ 3,725.40 $ 4,325ZOI $ 24,550.00 $ 32,700.80
Exhibit C
2016 PRAIRIE MANAGEMENT BILLING RATES
Labor Costs: $68/hr. (including pro-rated travel time)
Travel Mileage: (Travel mileage one way only)
$0.60/mile - light duty trucks
$0.85/mile - trucks/trailer/w/equip.
Equipment Costs: $15/hr. Small power equipment use
$40/hr. Large tractor/mower use
$40/hr. ATV use
Material Costs:
Herbicides: Garlon 3A0 - $1.10/oz
Garlon 40 - $1.25/oz
Rodeo@ - $0.55/oz
Roundup@ - $0.55/oz
TranslineG - $2.75/oz
Vanquish@ - $1.05/oz
Contract No. 16-xx
CONTRACT FOR THE 2016 GOLDEN VALLEY RESTORATION
AND MAINTENANCE OF NATIVE PLANT COMMUNITIES
THIS AGREEMENT, entered into the 2nd day of February, 2016, between the City of
Golden Valley, a municipal corporation, existing under the laws of the State of
Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as the City, party of the First Part, and Prairie
Restorations, Inc., a C-Corporation, under the laws of the State of Minnesota
hereinafter, called the Consultant, party of the Second Part.
ARTICLE 1. The Consultant, for and in consideration of one dollar and other good and
valuable consideration received including the payment, or payments herein specified,
and by the City to be made, hereby covenants and agrees to furnish all materials, all
necessary tools and equipment, and to do and perform all the work and labor necessary
for the 2016 Golden Valley Restoration and Maintenance of Native Plant Communities
in accordance with the proposal included in Exhibit A.
A schedule of work is found in Exhibit B. Should additional work be necessary, the City
and Prairie Restorations, Inc. agree to the rates found in Exhibit C.
The Proposal of the Consultant, together with this Contract, shall together constitute the
Contract Documents, and herein are referred to as the Contract Documents,
ARTICLE 2. The Consultant agrees to commence said work and conclude the same in
accordance with the Proposal heretofore filed with the City and in accordance with the
time schedule for commencement and completion of the work set forth in the Contract
Documents, time being of the essence of this agreement, and to complete said work in
every respect to the satisfaction and approval of the City.
ARTICLE 3. In consideration of the covenants and agreements stated above, the City
agrees to pay the Consultant the sum stated in the Proposal of said Consultant.
Installment payments, if any, on account of work done and materials furnished by said
Consultant under this Contract and actually in place shall be due and payable on or
before ten (10) days after receipt by the Council of the City of: (a) a certificate by the
Water Resources Engineer that the work has been fully completed and this Contract
fully performed by the Consultant and (b) an opinion of the City's attorney that the City
is then obligated to pay the sum contracted for herein.
ARTICLE 4. The Consultant agrees to hold harmless, indemnify and defend the City,
their elected officials, officers, agents, and employees against any and all claims,
losses, or damages, including attorneys' fees, arising from, allegedly arising from, or
related to, the provision of services under this agreement by the Consultant, its
employees, agents or officers.
Contract No. 16-xx
CONTRACT FOR THE 2016 GOLDEN VALLEY RESTORATION
AND MAINTENANCE OF NATIVE PLANT COMMUNITIES
ARTICLE 5. The Consultant further agrees to make and maintain insurance coverage
for the duration of the project in accordance with the following requirements:
Workers Compensation Insurance:
A. Statutory Compensation Coverage
B. Coverage B — Employers Liability with limits of not less than:
$100,000 Bodily Injury per Disease per Employee
$500,000 Bodily Injury per Disease Aggregate
$100,000 Bodily Injury by Accident
Automobile Liability Insurance
A. Minimum Limits of Liability:
$1,500,000 — Per Occurrence — Bodily Injury and Property Damage
Combined Single Limit
B. Coverages:
X Owned Automobile, if any
X Non-Owned Automobile
X Hired Automobile
X City of Golden Valley named as Additional Insured
General Liability Insurance
A. Minimum Limits of Liability:
$1,500,000 — Per Occurrence
$3,000,000 —Annual Aggregate
B. Coverages:
X Bodily Injury
X_ Property Damage
X Personal Injury
X Blanket Contractual
X City of Golden Valley named as Additional Insured
The Consultant further agrees to furnish certificates of the above insurance to the City
naming City as an additional insured, not later than ten (10) days after execution of this
Contract, and will provide City with written notice ten (10) days prior to cancellation of
the policy or any material change in the coverage provided, or in lieu thereof, the
Consultant shall keep such policies in full force and effect throughout the term of the
Contract.
Contract No. 16-xx
CONTRACT FOR THE 2016 GOLDEN VALLEY RESTORATION
AND MAINTENANCE OF NATIVE PLANT COMMUNITIES
ARTICLE 6. It is understood and agreed by the Consultant that the City, through its
authorized agents shall be the sole and final judge of the fitness of the work and its
acceptability, and no payment shall be made to the Consultant hereunder until the work
shall have been found acceptable by the City through its authorized agents.
ARTICLE 7. It is understood and agreed by the Consultant that, with respect to all
work, the Consultant will keep as complete, exact and accurate an account of the labor
and materials used as is possible, and in submitting the final statement will itemize and
allocate the costs of said work.
ARTICLE 8. All payments to the Consultant shall be made payable to the order of
Prairie Restoration, Inc. and the City does not assume and shall not have any
responsibility for the allocation of payments or obligations of the Consultant to third
parties.
ARTICLE 9. The City reserves the right to cancel the award of any contract at any time
before the execution of the contract by all parties without any liability against the City.
ARTICLE 11. The City may by written notice terminate the Contract or any portion
thereof when it is deemed in the City's best interest to do so or the City is unable to
adequately fund payment for the Contract because of changes in state fiscal policy,
regulations or law; or after finding that for reasons beyond the Consultant's control the
Consultant is prevented from proceeding with or completing the Contract work within a
reasonable period of time.
Termination of the Contract or any portion thereof shall not relieve the Consultant of
responsibility for the completed work, nor shall it relieve the Consultant's Sureties of
their obligations for and concerning any just claims arising out of the work performed.
Contract No. 16-xx
CONTRACT FOR THE 2016 GOLDEN VALLEY RESTORATION
AND MAINTENANCE OF NATIVE PLANT COMMUNITIES
IN WITNESS HEREOF, both parties hereto have caused this Contract to be signed by
their duly authorized officers.
THE CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY
BY
Shepard M. Harris, Mayor
BY
Timothy J. Cruikshank, City Manager
PRAIRIE RESTORATIONS, INC.
BY
ITS
ci t� Vb'
golden . -Ir MEMORANDUM
valley Physical Development Department
763-593-80951763-593-8109(fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
February 2, 2016
Agenda Item
3. L. Open to Business Initiative
Prepared By
Marc Nevinski, Physical Development Director
Summary
The Council has previously received matching funds through the Hennepin Economic Development
Initiative to continue participation in the Open To Business Program offered by the Metropolitan
Consortium of Community Developers (MCCD).
Over the past four years, Golden Valley has partnered with the City of New Hope on a joint program.
Each year MCCD has charged $10,000 for its services to this joint program. Hennepin County has
again offered a match providing$5,000 towards this fee for 2016. New Hope is reviewing its
participation and is likely to continue its partnership with Golden Valley.
Hennepin County requires Council authorization by resolution. The attached resolution authorizes
the request for matching funds and is required by Hennepin County as part of the request. It also
authorizes appropriate City officials to enter a new agreement with MCCD.
Attachment
• Resolution Authorizing Submission of a Request for Matching Funds Through the 2016 Hennepin
County Economic Development Initiative and Authorizing Entering into an Agreement with the
Metropolitan Consortium of Community Developers for the Open to Business Initiative (1 page)
• Open To Business Update (2 pages)
• Contract for Services Between the Cities of Golden Valley and New Hope and Metropolitan
Consortium of Community Developers for the open to Business Program (7 pages)
Recommended Action
Motion to adopt Resolution Authorizing Submission of a Request for Matching Funds through the
2016 Hennepin County Economic Development Initiative and Authorizing Entering into an
Agreement with the Metropolitan Consortium of Community Developers for the Open to Business
Initiative.
Resolution 16-06 February 2, 2016
Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUBMISSION OF A REQUEST FOR MATCHING FUNDS
THROUGH THE 2016 HENNEPIN COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVE
AND AUTHORIZING ENTERING INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE
METROPOLITAN CONSORTIUM OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPERS
FOR THE OPEN TO BUSINESS INITIATIVE
WHEREAS, Hennepin County has announced an economic development initiative
to provide matching funds to municipalities to join the Open to Business program offered
by the Metropolitan Consortium of Community Developers; and
WHEREAS, the initiative allows smaller municipalities to cooperatively apply for the
county match and split the $5,000 local match; and
WHEREAS, the City of Golden Valley would like to continue its partnership with the
City of New Hope to participate in this initiative and seek matching funds from Hennepin
County to underwrite this participation, at a cost to Golden Valley of$2,500.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Golden
Valley that the City Manager is authorized to join with the City of New Hope to seek
matching funds from Hennepin County to participate in the Open to Business initiative.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that authorized City officials may enter into an
agreement with the Metropolitan Consortium of Community Developers to provide services
for Open to Business for 2016-2018.
Shepard M. 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.
TO BUSINESS City/County: Golden Valley/New Hope
Updates Time Frame: 1/1/15-12/31/15
Clients Served:
GV NH
Client Inquiries 1 3
New Entrepreneur/Start-up 7 7
Existing Business 7 3 Industry Segment:
Total 15 13 GV NH
Service 6 4
How did client hear about OTB: GV NH Food 3 3Technology 1 1
• Municipality (newsletter) 7 $ Manufacturing 1 2
• Friends/Family 2
• Bank Referral 2 Health/Fitness 2
• Entrepreneur 1 1 Retail 2 1
• Other 3 2
Types of Businesses:
Direct& Facilitated Financing approved: Micro Heatlh Hand HR
# of loans 2 brewing and clinic sanitizer Consultant
Amount $110,000 TAP room
Capital Leveraged: $771,680 Bakery Computer Medical BBQ
pastry shop reseller Device caterer
Program related hours TA/Admin: 141 sales
Personalized Trucking Virtual Business
Types of Services Provided: sports gifts asst/gift Concierge
risk tolerance Cash flow Capital access baskets
assessment projections advice
GRH Auto Staffing Restaurant
Sales analysis Network Training intermediary Repair company and play
referrals recommendations
zone
Trend Business Business plan Personal Highway
analysis feasibility development training sign
Strategic Target Market Bookkeeping studio business
planning development assistance
Loan Lease
Packaging negotiation/
review
Client Highlights:
Uptown Imports, Inc.
Owned and operated by Golden Valley resident John Shanderuk, Uptown Imports, Inc.
is a full service auto repair shop specializing in foreign autos. The 27-year-old company
prides itself on providing great customer service and is an accredited business with the
Better Business Bureau and rated A+. The company has also received a Super Service
Award from Angie's List for three years and was a Best Auto Repair Shop winner on
Best of Citysearch. Uptown Imports outgrew its existing space in south Minneapolis. To
help the business purchase a larger building in north Minneapolis, Wells Fargo asked
MCCD to fill a financing gap in a project totaling $824,500. After the move, John learned
that the city was requiring that he install a ventilation and make-up air system. MCCD in
partnership with the city's Department of Community Planning and Economic
Development provided Uptown Imports with additional financing to install the new
ventilation system.
Under Pressure Brewing Company
Assisted entrepreneurs in developing a full set of financial projections as they explore
the opening of a tap room in Golden Valley.
Comments from New Hope/Golden Valley clients participating in an Open to Business
Client Survey:
"/ think it is a great way for somebody started in the right direction. The
information received is sometimes things you never thought about or it just gives
you a new perspective." New Hope client-
"Promote it a little heavier from the city side to make the program known -
because the rest is up to the individual seeking advice. I think it is a great
program." New Hope client
"I have been working with my advisor, Robert Smolund and I have been very
pleased. He has been instrumental in providing guidance and support for my
business." Golden Valley client
Contract for Services
Between the Cities of Golden Valley and New Hope
Metropolitan Consortium of Community Developers
for the
Open to Business Program
THIS AGREEMENT, is made and entered into as of the 1" day of March, 2016, (the
"Effective Date") between the Cities of Golden Valley and New Hope, (herein
collectively referred to as "GVNH") and Metropolitan Consortium of Community
Developers, (herein referred to as "MCCD").
WHEREAS, the City of Golden Valley and the City of New Hope wish to retain an
entity with the capacity to provide small business technical assistance to existing
businesses and those parties interested in opening a business in Golden Valley and New
Hope; and have elected to jointly promote and market such a program to be called the
Golden Valley and New Hope Open to Business Program (referred to herein as the
"Initiative");
WHEREAS, MCCD has represented itself as competent to provide the services required
to administer and carry out the Initiative; and
WHEREAS, GVNH wishes to engage MCCD to provide said services necessary to carry
out the Initiative.
NOW THEREFORE, it is agreed between the parties hereto that:
1. TIME OF PERFORMANCE
The service to be provided by MCCD shall commence on January 1, 2016 and
unless canceled by either party, automatically renew January 1, 2017 and January
1, 2018. Either party may, at their sole discretion and without cause, cancel any
remaining years covered under this agreement by providing written notice to the
other party at least 30 days prior to renewal. Each Party agrees that a Party that
opts out of the contract under these terms shall be subject to no penalty, and held
harmless for future liability or obligation related to the terms of this agreement.
All services, documents, and information to be furnished or performed by MCCD
in order to carry out the Initiative shall be furnished or performed as promptly as
possible, and with the fullest due diligence.
2. COMPENSATION
Total compensation to MCCD shall be $10,000 for a one year period (the
"Contract Amount") to manage the Initiative. The Contract Amount will be paid
in two equal installments: the first installment will be $5,000, which shall be
comprised of a $2,500-payment due and payable by the City of Golden Valley and
a $2,500 payment due and payable by the City of New Hope upon execution of
this Agreement, and on or about 6 months from the Effective Date, MCCD shall
invoice each city which is a party to this Agreement for the second installment,
each such invoice shall be in the amount of$2,500.00 and shall be payable by the
Hennepin County Housing Redevelopment Authority.
3. SCOPE OF SERVICES
MCCD will provide technical assistance to existing Golden Valley and New Hope
businesses, residents and parties interested in starting a business in Golden Valley
and New Hope; (See Exhibit A Scope of Services-Golden Valley and New Hope
Open to Business Program).
4. REPORTING
MCCD agrees to submit reports related to its operation of the Initiative. Items to
be reported on include, but are not limited to, the following:
➢ Number of inquiries
➢ Hours of technical assistance provided
➢ Type of assistance provided
➢ Type of business
➢ Annual sales revenue of businesses served
➢ Number of businesses opened
➢ Number of business expanded/stabilized
➢ Number and amounts of financing packages
➢ Demographic information on entrepreneurs
The required reporting schedule is as follows:
January—June activity, report due July 31 St
January—December activity, report due January 31St
MCCD will provide additional reports as requested by the GVNH.
5. PERSONNEL
MCCD represents that it has, or will secure, at its own expense, all personnel
required in performing the services to carry out the Initiative. Such personnel
shall not be employees of or have any contractual relationship with GVNH. No
tenure or any other rights or benefits, including worker's compensation,
unemployment insurance, medical care, sick leave, vacation pay, severance pay,
or any other benefits available to GVNH employees shall accrue to MCCD or
employees of MCCD performing services under this Agreement. The MCCD is
an independent contractor.
All of the services required to carry out the Initiative will be performed by
MCCD, and all personnel engaged in the work shall be fully qualified and shall be
authorized or permitted under State and local law to perform such work.
6. INTEREST OF MEMBERS OF THE CITY, EDA AND OTHERS
No officer, member, or employee of GVNH, and no member of its governing
body, and no other public official or governing body of the locality in which the
Initiative is situated or being carried out, who exercises any functions or
responsibilities in the review or approval of the undertaking or carrying out of the
Initiative, shall participate in the decision relating to this Agreement which affects
his/her personal interest or the interest of any corporation, partnership, or
association in which he/she is, directly or indirectly, interested or has any personal
or pecuniary interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement or proceeds thereof.
7. ASSIGNABILTY
MCCD shall not assign any interest in this Agreement, and shall not transfer any
interest in the same without the prior written approval of GVNH thereto.
8. COMPLIANCE WITH LOCAL LAWS
MCCD agrees to comply with all federal and state laws, statutes and applicable
regulations and the ordinances of the GVNH.
9. INSURANCE
MCCD agrees to provide proof of workers' compensation in the statutory
amounts, auto liability (hired, owned and non-owned), and comprehensive general
liability insurance by providing certificates of insurance, naming the city as an
additional insured, not later than ten (10) days after execution of this Agreement.
Comprehensive general liability and auto liability insurance shall be in the
minimum amount of$1,500,000.
10. HOLD HARMLESS
MCCD agrees to defend, protect, indemnify and hold harmless GVNH, their
elected officials, agents, officers and employees harmless from and against all
liabilities, losses, damages, costs, and expenses, whether personal, property, or
contractual, including reasonable attorney's fees, arising out of, or related to the
provision of services under the Agreement or with respect to errors or omissions
in performance of professional services related to the Initiative, and from any act
of negligence of MCCD, its officers, employees, servants, agents, or contractors.
GVNH agree to defend, protect, indemnify and hold harmless the MCCD, its
agents, officers and employees harmless from and against all liabilities, losses,
damages, costs, and expenses, whether personal, property, or contractual,
including reasonable attorney's fees, arising out of, or related to the
administration and operation of the Initiative, and from any act of negligence of
GVNH, their officers, employees, servants, agents, or contractors.
11. NOTICES
A notice, demand, or other communication under the Agreement by either party to
the other shall be sufficiently given or delivered if it is dispatched by mail,
postage prepaid, return receipt requested, or delivered personally; and
(a) In the case of MCCD, is addressed or delivered personally to:
David Chapman, Director of Lending and Operations
Metropolitan Consortium of Community Developers
3137 Chicago Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55407
(b) In the case of the GVNH:
Marc Nevinski
Physical Development Director
City of Golden Valley
7800 Golden Valley Road
Golden Valley, MN 55427
Jeff Sargent
Director of Community Development
City of New Hope
4401 Xylon Ave N
New Hope, MN 55428
or at such other address with respect to any party as that party may designate in
writing and forward to the other as provide in the Section.
12. MODIFICATION AND GOVERNING LAW
This Agreement shall be governed by Minnesota law and may not be modified,
changed, or amended in any manner whatsoever without the prior written
approval of all the parties hereto.
13. TERMINATION
The City may by written notice terminate the Agreement or any portion thereof
when it is deemed in the City's best interest to do so or the City is unable to
adequately fund payment for the Agreement because of changes in State fiscal
policy, regulation or law.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the
day and year first written above.
CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY METROPOLITAN
CONSORTIUM
OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPERS
By: By:
Timothy J. Cruikshank, City Manager Jim Roth, Its Executive Director
CITY OF NEW HOPE
By
Jeff Sargent, Its Community Development Director
Exhibit A
Scope of Services
Open for Business Technical Assistance Services
MCCD will provide intensive one-on-one technical assistance to Golden Valley and New
Hope businesses, Golden Valley and New Hope residents and aspiring entrepreneurs
intending to establish, purchase, or improve a business in Golden Valley and New Hope.
Technical assistance includes, but is not limited to, the following:
➢ Business plan development
➢ Feasibility analysis
➢ Marketing
➢ Cashflow and other financial projection development
➢ Operational analysis
➢ City and State licensing and regulatory assistance
➢ Loan packaging, and other assistance in obtaining financing
➢ Help in obtaining competent legal advice
MCCD will also provide technical assistance on a walk-in basis at least monthly in the
City Halls of the cities of Golden Valley and New Hope or as requested at a place of
business within Golden Valley and New Hope.
Open for Business Access to Capital
Access to capital will be provided to qualifying businesses through MCCD's Emerging
Small Business Loan Program (see Exhibit B Small Business Loan Program Guidelines
below). MCCD also provides its financing in partnership other community lenders,
banks or both.
EXHIBIT B
Small Business Loan Program Guidelines
Loan Amounts:
• Up to $25,000 for start-up businesses
• Larger financing packages for established businesses
• Designed to leverage other financing programs as well as private financing
provided by the commercial banking community.
Eligible Projects:
• Borrowers must be a "for-profit" business.
• Business must be complimentary to existing business community.
• Borrowers must have equity injection as determined by fund management.
Allowable Use of Proceeds:
• Loan proceeds can be used for working capital, inventory, building and
equipment and general business operations.
Interest Rates:
• Loan interest rate is dependent on use, term and other factors, not to exceed 10%.
Loan Term Length:
• Loan repayment terms will generally range from three to five years, but may be
substantially longer for major asset financing such as commercial property.
Fees and Charles:
• Borrowers are responsible for paying all customary legal and other loan closing
costs.
city 0
olden E O R A N CS U
valley Physical Development De ai•tyient
7453-593-8095 f 763r593-4�1 09 lfaw
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
February 2, 2016
Agenda Item
4. A. Public Hearing - Preliminary Design Plans of the METRO Blue Line Extension (Bottineau) Light
Rail Transit Project
Prepared By
Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager
Summary
Minnesota State statute requires that each municipality along a proposed light rail line hold a public
hearing in order to allow for public review and comment on the physical elements of the project's
preliminary design plans (also known as the Municipal Consent Plans). As a participating City in the
METRO Blue Line Extension (Bottineau) Light Rail Transit Project, Golden Valley is required to hold a
public hearing and take action to approve or disapprove the Municipal Consent Plans within 45 days
of a joint public hearing held by the Metropolitan Council, Hennepin County, and the Hennepin
County Regional Railroad Authority (HCRRA). This joint public hearing took place on January 19,
2016, meaning the City of Golden Valley must take action by March 4, 2016. Failure to approve or
disapprove the Plans is deemed to be a vote of approval.
Project Background
The concept of transit in the Bottineau Corridor has been studied as far back as 1988, when
Hennepin County included it in its regional transportation system plans. In 2008, it was one of 29
corridors studied by the Metropolitan Council for potential commuter rail or Light Rail Transit
(LRT)/Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) investment.
After two years of investigation by the HCRRA, the Metropolitan Council, and local jurisdictions, an
Alternatives Analysis Report was published in March of 2010 that narrowed the universe of options
for the corridor with respect to mode and route. Four LRT options and one BRT option were
advanced.
In June of 2012, the HCRRA recommended the LRT B -C -D1 alignment which included a section of
track and at least one station in the northeast corner of Golden Valley. After a lengthy process that
involved extensive public input, the City of Golden Valley voted to approve the Locally Preferred
Alternative (LPA) in December of 2012.
The Metropolitan Council voted to approve the LPA route and mode in May of 2013 and adopted
the Bottineau Transitway into the 2030 Transportation Policy Plan.
In April of 2014, Hennepin County published the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) that
identified the significant benefits and impacts of the four LRT alternatives and strategies for
minimizing or mitigating the negative impacts identified. The City of Golden Valley provided
comments on the DEIS in May of 2014 after joint review by the Planning, Environmental, and Open
Space and Recreation Commissions and following a public hearing.
The Bottineau Transitway was redesignated the METRO Blue Line Extension in August of 2014 and
the Metropolitan Council became the lead agency as the project entered the two year Project
Development phase of work. The purpose of this phase is to refine the LPA through significant
design work (including track alignment, the location of stations, and other system elements),
refinement of the project scope and cost estimate, and an environmental analysis (FEIS).
Throughout the Project Development phase, elected officials, City staff, Commissioners, business
representatives, and residents have had opportunities to review and comment on the evolving
Plans. City staff has participated in regular Issue Resolution Team (IRT) and Technical Project
Advisory Team (TPAC) meetings in cooperation with staff from the Bottineau Project Office, the
other Cities along the line, Hennepin County, MnDOT, the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board,
and the Three Rivers Parks District. Members of the Planning and Open Space and Recreation
Commissions serve on the Community Advisory Committee (CAC) and business representatives
serve on the Business Advisory Committee (BAC). Council Member Snope and Mayor Harris serve on
the Corridor Management Committee. Each of these groups have reviewed and provided feedback
on the Plans.
The Bottineau Project Office held a public Community Workshop at the Church of St. Margaret Mary
in February of 2015 to present an overview of the light rail project and to solicit input on the design
from attendees. Two open houses were held at Golden Valley City Hall - in August and October of
2015 - to review such items as the location of stations, parking, pedestrian and bicycle access, and
environmental issues.
In December of 2015, the Metropolitan Council approved a revised scope and cost estimate for the
project, initiating the Municipal Consent process with Hennepin County and the member Cities.
A Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) is expected in the summer of 2016. Upon its
conclusion and approval by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), entry into the two year
Engineering phase of work is anticipated.
If all remains on schedule, construction of the METRO Blue Line Extension would take place between
2018 and 2020, with revenue service beginning in 2021.
Of the estimated $1.488 billion price tag for the project, 49% is expected to be funded by the FTA,
31% by the Counties Transit Improvement Board, 10% by the HCRRA, and 10% by the State of
Minnesota. Any financial contributions associated with the project by Golden Valley would only
come in the form of additional items that the City might choose to construct in order to enhance or
take advantage of work already being done as part of the project.
Station Area Planning
In addition to the Project Development work conducted by the Metropolitan Council, the City of
Golden Valley has also been engaged in station area planning to prepare for the eventual
construction of two light rail stations within the City.
In February and March of 2013, the City participated in a Design Charrette at Theodore Wirth Park
with the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board. The outcome of this process was a series of design
explorations around each of the two proposed stations.
Hennepin County convened a public roundtable at Unity Christ Church in August of 2013 to discuss
the proposed Golden Valley Road and Plymouth Avenue stations and identify key challenges and
considerations for each.
The Golden Valley City Council formed the Bottineau LRT Planning Advisory Committee in October of
2013. Serving on the Committee were two Commissioners each from the Planning, Environmental,
and Open Space and Recreation Commissions; two residents; one business representative from the
Courage Kenney Rehabilitation Institute; and one representative from the Church of St. Margaret
Mary. This group met monthly and began work with Hennepin County and its project consultants in
July of 2014 to develop station area plans.
Three Open Houses were held as part of the process to solicit feedback on the plans - in November
of 2014 and in January and June of 2015. In addition, a City -sponsored Community Meeting was held
at the Courage Kenny Rehabilitation Institute in January of 2015. The City Council received the final
Station Area Planning Report in July of 2015 and key elements of the plans have informed and been
incorporated into the Municipal Consent Plans.
Plan Elements
The Municipal Consent Plans show the general dimensions and location of the light rail tracks,
stations, and other components. Specifically, they document the LRT track location; the location and
layout of stations; roadway features including turn lanes, lane widths, and traffic signals; sidewalks;
pedestrian crossings; the location of the Operations and Maintenance Facility; freight track location;
and system elements, including the general location of Traction Power Substations.
Moving from south to north, the Plans for Golden Valley include: a Traction Power Substation in the
vicinity of Xerxes Avenue North and Oak Park Avenue North (a Minneapolis street), BNSF freight rail
tracks shifted to the westerly 50 feet of the rail corridor, two new light rail tracks in the easterly 50
feet of the rail corridor, a reconstructed trail within Theodore Wirth Park, a reconstructed Plymouth
Avenue Bridge which would provide space for the trail and Bassett Creek in the westerly portal,
space for freight rail in the center portal, and space for light rail in the easterly portal.
The platform for the Plymouth Avenue station would be located between the light rail tracks north
of the Plymouth Avenue bridge, with vertical access provided from the north side of the bridge deck.
North of the Plymouth Avenue station, the Plans include: a second Traction Power Substation in the
vicinity of City right-of-way at the termination of York Avenue North, a reconstructed Theodore
Wirth Parkway bridge which would provide space for freight rail in the westerly portal and space for
light rail in the easterly portal.
The platform for the Golden Valley Road station would be located between the light rail tracks north
of the Theodore Wirth Parkway bridge, with vertical access provided from the south side of the
Golden Valley Road bridge deck. A reconstructed Golden Valley Road bridge would provide space for
trail access in the westerly portal, space for freight rail in the center portal, and space for light rail in
the easterly portal.
North of the Golden Valley Road station, the Plans include bridging to allow the light rail tracks to
cross the Grimes Pond area.
In the triangle of land bounded by the rail corridor, Golden Valley Road, and Theodore Wirth
Parkway, the Plans include a park and ride for approximately 100 parking spaces. Vehicle access
would be provided from Golden Valley Road and a ramp would provide pedestrian access from the
parking area to the station platform. A portion of the planned Bassett Creek Regional Trail would be
incorporated into the Golden Valley Road bridge design.
While not shown on the Plans, improvements to the intersection of Golden Valley Road and
Theodore Wirth Parkway and trail connections at the Golden Valley Road station are included in the
project scope and cost estimate.
Items of Concern
In November of 2015, prior to the Metropolitan Council's vote on the revised scope and cost
estimate for the project, the Golden Valley City Council passed a resolution outlining six key
positions that were viewed as being critical to the interests of the City. These included: support for
light rail stations at both Golden Valley Road and Plymouth Avenue, the need for a park and ride at
the Golden Valley Road station and importance of trail connections there, improvements to the
intersection of Golden Valley Road and Theodore Wirth Park, restoration and enhancement of
Sochacki Park after its use for construction staging, the incorporation of pedestrian and bicycle
facilities into the design of the new bridges, and the mitigation of impacts of noise, vibration,
aesthetics, etc., resulting from the construction and operation of the light rail line.
A majority of these items were addressed as part of the revised scope and are included in the Plans,
though details - included advanced design - remain to be fleshed out through the Engineering phase
of work. These include the park and ride at the Golden Valley Road station, improvements to the
intersection of Golden Valley Road and Theodore Wirth Parkway, a new trail connection between
Theodore Wirth Park and Sochacki Park under the reconstructed Golden Valley Road bridge, and
enhanced pedestrian and bicycle facilities on the reconstructed bridges. In addition, the Sochacki
Park Joint Powers Agreement Partnership, made up of representatives from the Cities of Golden
Valley and Robbinsdale as well as from the Three Rivers Park District, have worked to arrive at an
agreement governing the use of Sochacki Park for construction staging for the line and the
reasonable mitigation, restoration, and enhancement that must be done in conjunction with its use.
The remaining item concerns the mitigation of issues such as noise, vibration, lighting, safety, and
aesthetics. These items will be addressed within the FEIS and will continue to be refined throughout
the Engineering phase of work. Some specific issues, such as the details regarding construction
(what will be the days and hours of operation? where will workers park? how will the line be
accessed?), will need to be negotiated in the future as more is known about the final design and
staging of construction.
As part of the DEIS review in May of 2014, the City of Golden Valley submitted to Hennepin County a
comment letter outlining a number of items it felt needed to be addressed in the Project
Development and FEIS processes. Staff has reviewed these comments and feels they have all been
addressed by the Bottineau Project Office as part of Project Development, or will be addressed in
the coming months as part of Engineering. The attached document summarizes those comments
and provides an update on how they have been handled.
Municipal Consent Communication and Public Engagement
Printed copies of the Municipal Consent Plans have been made available to the public since
December 15, 2016, at Golden Valley City Hall and at Brookview Community Center. Digital plans
have been available to the public on the METRO Blue Line Extension page on the Metropolitan
Council website and linked to via the City's website since December 15, 2016. Opportunities to
comment on the Plans via the internet, email, or US mail have been made available. City staff has
recorded and passed along to the Bottineau Project Office any comments received to date.
Outreach to the community in advance of the public hearing was conducted in a number of ways,
including: newspaper articles in the Star Tribune and SunPost, an article in the January/February City
newsletter, broadcast pieces on local cable television, news stories on the City website, posts on the
City Facebook page, emails sent to those on the City's Bottineau listserv, an electronic highway sign
along Golden Valley Road, individual postcard mailings to a previously identified list of roughly 700
property owners along the proposed line, and announcements at City Council and other Commission
meetings over the past two months. Finally, an open house on the Municipal Consent Plans was held
at City Hall this evening prior to the public hearing.
The public hearing scheduled for the City Council meeting tonight is meant to provide an avenue for
interested parties to comment on the Municipal Consent Plans. Action on the Plans is anticipated at
the regular City Council meeting of February 16, 2016.
Going Forward
Assuming all of the parties involved in the process grant Municipal Consent, the design, engineering,
and refinement of the Plans will continue cooperatively with each of the cities along the line, as well
as with the other agencies involved. Staff is already engaged in biweekly Design Resolution Team
meetings to continue to work on issues such as the park and ride at Golden Valley Road and trail
connections at the two Golden Valley stations. The TPAC, CAC, BAC, and CMC groups will also
continue to meet to review plans and provide feedback. New plan sets will be provided to the City at
the 30%, 60%, 90%, and 100% levels of design and regular updates will be provided to the City
Council as has been done over the past two years.
The FEIS process, which is anticipated to be completed in the summer of 2016, will be based on the
DEIS analysis but will also incorporate any comments received as part of the public review of that
document. In order to satisfy federal requirements, it must identify the significant benefits and
impacts of the proposed LRT line and propose strategies for minimizing or mitigating any negative
impacts identified.
The FEIS document will include a Transportation Analysis (items such as freight rail, vehicular traffic,
pedestrians and bicycles, and parking), a Community and Social Analysis (items such as land use
plans, cultural resources, visual/aesthetics, and safety and security), a Physical and Environmental
Analysis (items such as utilities, floodplains, wetlands, noise, vibration, water biological
environment, and water quality and stormwater), an Analysis of Indirect Effects and Cumulative
Impacts, an Evaluation of Environmental Justice (addressing potential impacts to minority and/or
low-income populations), an Evaluation of Section 4(f) (which deals with parks and recreational
areas of significance and historic sites), and an Evaluation of Financial Considerations.
Additional initiatives, such as the Hennepin County Community Works program which seeks to
promote complimentary projects that are outside of the project scope but that support the
operation of the light rail line, have begun. Staff and elected officials are already engaged in this
effort through regular meetings of the Community Works Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and
Community Works Steering Committee.
Attachments
• Sochacki JPA Partnership Policies and Recommended Actions (2 pages)
• Status of Golden Valley Comments on Draft Environmental Impact Statement (4 pages)
• Municipal Consent Comments Received by City (5 pages)
• Draft Resolution Approving the Preliminary Design Plans (3 pages)
Proposed JPA Board Action
MOTION TO APPROVE THE PROPOSED TEMPORARY OCCUPANCY OF SOCHACKI
PARK FOR CONSTRUCTION STAGING OF THE METRO BLUE LINE EXTENSION LRT
PROJECT, CONTIGENT UPON PRICIPLES A THROUGH M:
Principle A: The temporary occupancy of Sochacki Park is proposed solely by the Blue
Line Extension Project Office (BPO), and is being proposed only due to the lack of
prudent and feasible alternatives.
Principle B: BPO will provide an opportunity for the public to provide input on the
proposed construction staging and park revegetation plan prior to construction.
Principle C: The proposed boundaries of impact are as shown on Map Attachment A
Those boundaries within Robbinsdale may be adjusted at the discretion of the City of
Robbinsdale, and those boundaries within the City of Golden Valley may be adjusted at
the discretion of the City of Golden Valley.
Principle D: Any additional Golden Valley lands, including Bonnie Lane, may not be
used for LRT construction or construction access without prior notice, review and formal
approval by the City of Golden Valley.
Principle E: Sochacki will remain open for public use during LRT construction, and will
include contiguous and safe north/south travel by pedestrians and bicyclists through the
entire park. Access sites from the interim trail to the area east of the construction road
will be provided in order to enhance access.
Principle F: If the BPO uncovers any environmental contamination in its use of
Sochacki, the BPO will be responsible for required environmental remediation in
accordance with Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) permitting requirements.
Principle G: Any areas that are disturbed by construction activities that are adjacent to
wetland and water bodies must be restored with native vegetation buffers in accordance
with the Wetland Conservation Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
Principle H: BPO commits to ongoing coordination with the JPA and the cities of Golden
Valley and Robbinsdale. Coordination efforts will continue through all phases of BLRT
project development, including engineering, final design, and construction.
Principle I: BPO will incorporate the results of a BLRT Phase II Environmental Site
Assessment (ESA) into construction staging planning. Phase II results and MPCA
permitting requirements resulting from this site assessment will be communicated to JPA
and the cities of Golden Valley and Robbinsdale.
Principle J: BPO will require their construction contractor to develop a final Sochacki
Park Construction Staging Plan, consistent with mitigation commitments made to the
JPA and the cities of Robbinsdale and Golden Valley and based on the results of further
engineering and environmental investigations. Input from the JPA and the cities of
Golden Valley and Robbinsdale will be sought prior to BPO accepting the Contractor's
final Sochacki Park Construction Staging Plan.
Principle K: The Met Council will not be responsible for long-term operations and
maintenance of all infrastructure restored and/or constructed by BPO.
Principle L: The BPO will actively collaborate with JPA staff throughout planning,
design, construction and remediation to ensure adherence to these principles and the
related actions adopted by the JPA, and/or Cities of Golden Valley and Robbinsdale.
Principle M: The determination of temporary occupancy under Section 4(f) for Sochacki
Park and the following subsequent actions to provide mitigation and equitable
compensation was made based on the project definition within the Municipal Consent
plans and the project's Final Environmental Impact Statement at a 15% level of design.
Proposed JPA Board Action: Recommended Actions for Equitable Use of Sochacki Park
MOTION TO RECOMMEND THE FOLLOWING 14 ACTIONS TO PROVIDE MITIGATION
AND EQUITABLE COMPENSATION FOR THE TEMPORARY OCCUPANCY OF SOCHACKI
PARK FOR CONSTRUCTION STAGING AND USE ALONG THE EASTERN BOUNDARY:
1) Removal of existing vegetation as agreed to by BPO staff and JPA staff within the
restoration zone, defined as A) the southern construction staging area, and B) the
northern staging area (See Figure A), blending into the adjacent disturbed areas in
the NE quadrant of the park.
2) Removal and disposal of all surface rubble within the restoration zone, in accordance
with MPCA permitting requirements.
3) Addition of clean fill and top soil in the restoration zone in accordance with MPCA
permitting requirements and consistent with the re -use of this area as guided by
stakeholders.
4) Development and implementation of a revegetation plan approved by the JPA staff.
The plan will address all areas disturbed by construction activities. In addition, the
plan will identify practicable additional thickening of the vegetative buffer between the
Park and the LRT Corridor where needed and feasible for the purposes of reducing
potential visual impacts of the LRT on Park visitors.
5) In the southern staging area, N. Rice Lake water edge restoration work and
vegetation plantings to provide learning opportunities for park users (design and
species TBD).
6) Restoration of the existing paved interior road to provide for safe two way traffic.
7) Removal or replacement of the northern parking lot to be determined in consultation
with JPA staff.
8) Reconstruction and expansion of the interior paved parking lot (exact site TBD in
consultation with JPA staff), to include room for a school bus turnaround.
9) Clearing, revegetation and fencing of an area immediately east and north of the
interior parking lot within the northern staging area for future use as a dog off leash
area.
10) Providing practicable utility services to a site adjacent to the interior parking lot for
future development of a bathroom/storm shelter, and drinking water fountain.
11) Ground preparation for a future education shelter sized for 50 students in a location
TBD.
12) Construction of a water education platform on N Rice Lake.
13) Redevelopment of a safe 10 -foot wide paved trail through the length of the park,
running from the northern entrance to the current trail terminus by Bonnie Lane.
14) Construction of an off-road trail connection from the existing terminus of the Sochacki
Park trail at Bonnie Lane, crossing underneath the reconstructed Golden Valley Road
Bridge and connecting to the existing trail in Theodore Wirth Regional Park (see
attached Figure B).
Status of Golden Valley Comments on Draft Environmental Impact Statement
The following text outlines the issues raised by Golden Valley City Council based upon review of
the Bottineau Transitway Draft EIS. The letter from Council was addressed to Hennepin County
Commissioner Peter McLaughlin on May 20, 2014. The right-hand column represents the current
status of each issue and what part of the planning process it is identified with.
Natural Resources
Comment
Response
Status
Floodplain impacts
In Issue Resolution Team meetings, it has been identified
FEIS
floodway or floodplain
and addressed as "Technical Issue #5-14 Bassett Creek
impacts - identify potential
Floodplain Impacts"
flood storage areas outside of
the railroad rights-of-way
Substandard soils
In Issue Resolution Team meetings, it has been identified
FEIS
and addressed as "Technical Issue #5-16 Poor Soils
through Bassett Creek Watershed"
Wetland impacts - Wetland
In Issue Resolution Team meetings, it has been identified
FEIS
Conservation Act
and addressed as "Technical Issue #5-14 Bassett Creek
Floodplain Impacts"
Stormwater - best
Stormwater Technical Report has been reviewed by TPAC
FEIS
management practices
members
addressing erosion and
sediment control, treatment
that reduces pollutants and
runoff
Wildlife - endangered,
Biological Environment Technical Report has been
FEIS
threatened, or special concern
reviewed by TPAC members
species - new wildlife surveys
may be warranted given the
age of the surveys used in the
Draft EIS
Historic and cultural resources
Analyzed under Section 106 consultation led by
FEIS
- The City shall be involved in
Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office in which
decisions that impact these
Golden Valley City staff is a consulting party
resources
City must be actively involved
This issue is being addressed as part of the Sochacki Park
Ongoing
with any reconstruction or
discussions with the Sochacki Park JPA Partnership
realignment of asphalt trail in
the Mary Hills Nature Area
Mitigation of visual impacts
Visual Quality Technical Report will be reviewed by TPAC
FEIS
could include natural buffers
members
natural boulder retaining
Land
walls
1
Natural Resources
Comment
Qualitative analysis of the
impacts to Mary Hills Nature
Area and Theodore Wirth Park
Vibration impacts from
possible future freight rail
traffic
Eliminate the use of train bells
or whistles and potentially
build sound walls to mitigate
noise impacts
Pursuing funding
opportunities for
improvements to homes that
are negatively impacted or
possible acquisition of homes
adjacent to the corridor for
the purposes of mitieation
Transportation System
Comment
Traffic impacts during and
after construction
Impacts to infrastructure on
Golden Valley Road, Wirth
Parkway, and surrounding
local streets
Incorporating multiple modes
of transportation near stations
How buses would be
incorporated into the station
areas, including the amount
and frequency of feeder buses
serving the stations, and
information about how bus
drop-off and pick-up would
function at the stations
Response Status
Theodore Wirth Regional Park Cultural Landscape Study FEIS
has been reviewed by Section 106 Consulting Parties
(includes Golden Valley City staff)
Noise and Vibration Technical Report has been reviewed FEIS
by TPAC members
Noise and Vibration Technical Report has been reviewed FEIS
by TPAC members
Economic Impacts
TPAC members
Response
Status
Traffic Operations Plan Technical Report and Traffic
FEIS
Technical Report has been reviewed by TPAC members
Utility plans will be reviewed by City staff as part of the
Ongoing
Engineering phase of work
The opportunity for new bicycle and pedestrian facilities
Ongoing
was explored during Station Area Planning and the work
continues with a Bicycle Study of the Bottineau corridor,
which is expected to be completed by Hennepin County
in the winter of 2016. Bicycle and pedestrian connections
will also be addressed in the City's Comprehensive
Planning process beginning in winter 2016.
Changes to the Metro Transit bus network will be part of
Ongoing
the Service Planning process beginning in 2019, which will
include public input opportunities
Passenger drop-off by car and bus will be included in the Ongoing
station design process beginning in 2016
2
Transportation System
Comment Response
Parking options at stations In Issue Resolution Team meetings, it has been identified
and addressed as "Technical Issue #4-19 Golden Valley
Road Transit Patron Parking Management Strategies"
Ridership levels
Golden Valley Road as well as
its intersection with Theodore
Wirth Parkway
Year-round maintenance
responsibilities
Reconstruction of Hennepin
County State Aid Highway
(CSAH) 66 with Bassett Creek
Regional Trail
Infrastructure
Comment
Watermain, sanitary sewer,
and storm sewer facilities -
City shall be consulted on all
design and construction
considerations and field
decisions involving City,
particularly with 48 -inch
watermain
Xcel Energy transmission line
towers may need to be
relocated - City's Right -of -Way
Management Ordinance may
require them to be buried
when over 300 feet
Maintenance of infrastructure
such as pipes and culverts
Ridership Forecasting Report has been shared with TPAC
members
Intersection improvements included in scope and cost
estimate
Operations and Maintenance Cost Methodology and
Results Technical Report will be reviewed by TPAC
members
The Golden Valley Road Bridge will be reconstructed to
include Bassett Creek Trial on south side and sidewalk on
north side
Response
Water Resources Technical Report and Stormwater
Technical Report have been reviewed by TPAC members
Utility plans will be reviewed by City staff as part of the
Engineering phase of work
Status
Resolved —
ongoing
design
discussions
Resolved
Resolved —
ongoing
design
discussions
FEIS
Resolved -
ongoing
design
discussions
Status
FEIS
Ongoing
In Issue Resolution Team meetings, it has been identified Resolved
and addressed as "Technical Issue #14-17 Xcel high
voltage transmission line location within BNSF right of
way and support structures"
Utility coordination process; utility plans will be reviewed Ongoing
by City staff as part of the Engineering phase of work
3
Safety
Comment Response
Ltatus
Pedestrian movement A pedestrian crossing over the freight and light rail will be Resolved —
throughout Mary Hills Nature provided with the newly constructed Golden Valley Road ongoing
Area - safe pedestrian -only bridge. No pedestrian -only crossings will be provided. design
grade crossing discussions
Personal safety of transit users ' Metro Transit Police; station design will incorporate Ongoing
safety as a priority
Dear Mr. Zimmerman,
My name is Matt Hernick, and my wife and two young kids and I live in south Robbinsdale, a few blocks from
the proposed Blue Line Extension route. I understand that as non-residents (three houses north of the Golden
Valley/Robbinsdale town line), we don't have a say in Golden Valley's process, but I do have a couple of
suggestions that I think would benefit our neighbors in Golden Valley as well. I just sent the text below and the
attached file to the Blue Line Extension office:
First, I would like to say that we support the project.
Second, I would like to offer two suggestions.
Suggestion #1 concerns the Golden Valley Road & Theodore Wirth intersection. We drive through this
intersection at least twice a day, and usually bike or walk through a couple times per week, often with a bike
trailer or stroller. Due to the multi -lane 4 -way stop and the extra right turn lanes, this is a confusing
intersection for cars as well as bikes and pedestrians. For instance, crossing on the Theodore Wirth bike path, I
currently need to navigate four traffic lanes, with pretty small median islands. It's manageable if I'm by myself
and traffic is light, but when I have the kids in the trailer and some other bikes or walkers, it is tricky.
I would like to suggest a roundabout for this intersection. I think this is the best solution for several reasons:
- Reduce traffic confusion (is it my turn? Well, the other guy is going, I guess I will too...) and queuing at the 4 -
way stop;
- Increase safety of motorists, pedestrians, and bikes.
- Reduce idling and quick accelerations;
- Low speeds preserve parkway feel;
- Right of way appears to be available to support this.
I'm a civil engineer, so although road design is not my specialty, I couldn't help but made a sketch with some
ideas, which I have attached. The principal features I would like to highlight are the path and sidewalk
crossings: 1. Crossings are far enough away from the roundabout to allow two cars to wait safely out of traffic
for pedestrians to cross, 2. Splitter islands large enough for pedestrians and bikes to feel safe waiting for cars
to clear, and 3. Pedestrians or bikes only need to look one way (left) at each crossing. Taking up the scenario of
bicycling north to south on Theodore Wirth path, there would be only two road crossings, which is far less
confusing for everyone.
Suggestion #2 concerns access across the tracks between Golden Valley Road and 36th Ave N. The current
lightly -used freight rail line serves as an informal east -west crossing to access Mary Hills Nature area, Sochacki
Park and other areas in this 1.5 mile stretch between formal crossings. This is probably technically illegal, but is
relatively safe. The proposed light rail would close those opportunities off, leading to a loss of access or people
attempting to cross in an unsafe manner.
I would like to suggest that the designers add two safe, pedestrian -only crossings at 26th Avenue North, and at
or near South Halifax Park (near Lowry and Indiana Avenues). This would benefit the local neighborhoods in
Robbinsdale and Golden Valley, but especially would be a little compensation for the people who live right
along the tracks, which will go from quiet to busy.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment, and please contact me if you have questions on the above.
Sincerely,
Matt Hernick
2611 Parkview Blvd
Robbinsdale, MN 55422
k
j4
AMMd `211
3
Ham' ��,�"' � 3�
tea) �Id #-L-dim -:?ecua L � (v �gmvA Iv -74' J
My comments for the Council --
Before I was invited on the Environmental Commission, I was at many of the early hearings, as a
long time user/supporter of light rail and transit. I was soon dismayed that it seemed "locked in"
to go thru Wirth Park, rather than down a corridor where people could get to jobs or to everyday
shopping, and the like.
When I looked at the early environmental statement, the Wirth Park route had the biggest
destruction to wetlands, and they're not just about wildlife. They're about water filtration, natural
drainage and flood control, and a whole host of other things related to health of people and
community. I've been involved in too many other efforts where those in charge say, "We're
working hard to remediate the damage", and it's not really possible. I worked (and got intensely
ill, along with just about everyone else) in an environmentally damaged school building in the
90s. We had to fight to get those in charge to pay attention at all, and when they did do some
"remediation", the experts told us "There is no way that will begin to solve the problem". That
statement rings in my mind every time there are national ads touting remediation by those
responsible for things like massive oil spills, and I when I hear light rail planners talk about
going thru the park, I hear "What's the logic of destroying the health benefits of pristine
wilderness to get more people to come to pristine wilderness". Or, since I served as a medic
during the War in Vietnam, I hear officials telling us "Don't worry. Agent Orange won't hurt
you. It will help you", and now I watch many of my friends, the ones still alive after direct
exposure, still fighting for their health.
It's hard, at this point, for me to believe this route wasn't planned, for some other secret reason,
before the process started, and I have no interest tinkering on the edges, e.g. with station
design. I did a 61 Mile Hike on my 61 st birthday in 2007, related to all of the issues above. This
fall I'm set to do a 70 Mile Hike in my 70th year. It will make a stop at Prairie Island, and I will
carry, among other things, my property insurance, because few people know that nuclear power
generation was considered so dangerous from the start that private insurers considered it too
risky to cover. I prefer to err on the side of those who believe too much radiation in the air,
along with too many chemicals in the ground, are a detriment to all of us. I have no tolerance for
high level decisions affecting all of us, after leaving out pertinent facts that might have led to a
different decision.
On general principle, the day before I leave on the 70 Mile Symbolic Hike, I plan to walk thru
Wirth Park, from the site of the Plymouth Station to the place where the Golden Valley Station is
to be built. Ever after that, if the line is built there, I will get off at either of those stations and
walk to the other one, because the train should not be going thru the park Whatever happens
with the route decision, I hope that excessive priority will be given for returning veterans to get
"good jobs" building it. We came home and many of us couldn't get jobs, and the same travesty
is occurring too much today. Whether a veteran returns relatively intact and ready to go to work,
or is dealing with the more current environmental falsehoods about the impact of depleted
uranium or the toxins lumped under "Persian Gulf Syndrome", he or she deserves an immediate
job and the chance to come back home healthy.
Larry Johnson
315 Georgia Ave N
Golden Valley, MN 55427
GOLDEN VALLEY ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
The Golden Valley Environmental Commission has reviewed the Preliminary Design
Plans of the Metro Blue Line Extension Light Rail Transit Project (Project). Due to a lack
of environmental data the Commission is not in a position to recommend a Yes vote on
this project at this time. We look forward to reviewing the data when the Final
Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) is complete. In the meantime, the Commission
has the following concerns it wishes to share with the City Council:
Without a FEIS in hand, the Commission feels it does not have enough
information or data about the environmental impacts and mitigation efforts to
comment accordingly. Environmental concerns such as light, noise, vibration,
loss of wetland habitat, loss of pervious open space, and the presence of
potentially contaminated soils and other regulated materials have been voiced by
stakeholders repeatedly throughout the planning and design process, and there
has been no evidence that these items are being addressed in a manner
acceptable to the Commission. Making a significant City decision in the absence
of valid data is risky. While the completed FEIS would provide vital information
needed to help determine how the project will impact wetlands, open space, and
surrounding areas, there is no way at present to assess the potential issues that
might arise from making a decision without more complete data and information.
Additionally, there are open questions about the effectiveness of known
remediation efforts. Information available suggests that some projects are
successful, but there is not much data on the success of ecosystem restoration
when the activities are ongoing (i.e. with a train going through it). Nearly all case
studies focus on restoration following some kind of construction or human activity
that is completed and then ceases. Installing a loud, bright, and vibration -
producing train is an unknown quantity, but in general, most animals (other than
human) usually gravitate away from perceived threats such as sound, light and
vibration.
Also, the Commission has concerns about the impacts of noise on surrounding
neighborhoods. There are two medical facilities within hearing range, and our
various experiences with exposure to existing Blue and Green lines suggests
strongly that noise is not effectively mitigated.
2. As a general environmental matter the Commission is concerned the placement
of LRT will not have a significant impact on reducing carbon levels. Golden
Valley is only a 10 minute drive from downtown Minneapolis, and it has not been
demonstrated that most residents would get on a bus, travel across the City to
arrive at the station, and then proceed downtown via train, effectively doubling or
tripling their commute time.
It has been stated that this route is "serving Golden Valley". The Commission has
no data to support this conclusion. Transiting through Golden Valley does not
mean serving Golden Valley. If Golden Valley residents are still inclined to drive
their cars, the carbon footprint is not reduced. There is no question that the train
goes through Golden Valley, but this does not mean Golden Valley realizes an
environmental benefit.
Furthermore, only a small number of people live and work within walking distance
of the Golden Valley Station. The improvements, enhancements and amenities,
including trail connections, proposed as part of the project do not outweigh the
fact that the project does not serve the majority of residents of Golden Valley in
the best, most efficient manner. A significant number of riders will need to use
other means of transportation to get to the station, namely cars or buses, and the
impact of this is not fully understood.
To summarize: The Commission strongly advocates finding viable transportation
options other than petroleum based vehicles. However, due to the concerns noted
above, the Environmental Commission is not in a position to recommend a Yes vote on
the project.
Sincerely,
The Golden Valley Environmental Commission
Dear Mayor Harris and Council Members Clausen, Fonnest, Schmidgall, and Snope:
We support the municipal consent for the Bottineau Light Rail project in Golden Valley with the following
needed improvements to make the Golden Valley Road (GVR), Plymouth and Penn Avenue North LRT
stations more accessible to our community:
* New Highway 55 Bus Rapid Transit service to the Penn Avenue North LRT station from Golden Valley
and western suburbs envisioned by Mayor Shep Harris.
* Improved bus service, and bike and pedestrian access on a new "Golden Valley Road Transit Corridor"
from the Golden Valley City Center to the GVR LRT station envisioned by Council Member Steve
Schmidgall.
* Bike and pedestrian trail access under the GVR bridge to the GVR LRT station on both the east and
west side of the tracks to give both communities east and west of the tracks direct station access.
* Development and implementation of a new Bike and Pedestrian Plan for Golden Valley supported by
Council Members Snope, Clausen and Fonnest, Schmidgall and Mayor Harris that also incorporates the
station access improvement plan in Hennepin County's Bottienau LRT Bike Plan in one "seamless"
network.
And finally, because the GVR and Plymouth Avenue North Stations are below the roadway grade, we
strongly encourage you to support residents who are the closest to and most impacted by the LRT project
itself, who want the elimination of the unnecessarily loud LRT train horn in favor of a lesser volume motor
vehicle roadway type intersection signal for the visually impaired.
Thank you for your consideration and your hard work on this project.
Sincerely,
Billy Binder and Julie Bartell
2700 Major Avenue North
Golden Valley MN 55422
Lois Binder
4201 Bassett Creek Drive
Golden Valley MN 55422
February 2, 2016 Regarding the Blue Line LRT municipal consent
Golden Valley City Council
Met Council
Blue Line LRT Project Office
Metro Transit
Dear Sirs and Madams –
“The BIGGEST mistake this city can make is pushing out light rail. We will NEVER have the
opportunity for this type of mass transit again in our lifetime.”
I have heard this and similar comments regarding LRT being forced through Wirth Park, Mary Hills and Sochacki Park’s
and Nature Areas. As a logical, rational adult these kinds of thoughts seem like playground talk. If you don’t play by my
rules I am going to take my ball and go home! Of course, politics rarely plays well with logic and reason so one could
assume this is a true enough statement.
Having said that, I would like to go on record as saying
•I disagree with the route as proposed. Mass transit should accommodate riders that NEED public transit and
therefore should be located near those masses.
•If the route goes through as currently proposed it should not include 2 stops within blocks of each other. One or
the other please. The stop at the Wirth Chalet is more of a destination and there is some room for on street
parking in that area so this makes the most sense.
•If reason and logic is ignored and a 2nd stop at Golden Valley road remains in the mix, park land should NOT be
paved over for a parking lot. Bike parking – YES! Room for 90+ vehicles NO! This will only cause more congestion
on an already busy and dangerous street and intersection.
I don’t believe our city council should give consent nor should they even be asked for it before the final environmental
studies have been completed.
To my Golden Valley city council members I would respectfully request that consent not be given for the many reasons
cited in the GV Environmental Commission report.
Unfortunately, all evening activities at schools have now been cancelled and I am not at all sure I will attend tonight’s
meeting because of weather. But I do want my voice heard.
Regards,
Darla Pardo
21+ year resident of Golden Valley
Please add this to the public record of comments on the LRT, as attendance at tonight's meeting
is infeasible for so many of us under the weather conditions.
As I shovel my back porch, the only sounds in my neighborhood are softly falling snow in
Sochacki Park and a few neighboring shoveling sounds as people try to keep up. The deer are out
and about, as they often are in snowstorms. The neighborhood and the park look like magic, tress
draped in white, the air clean, the snow dancing, the beauty of the quiet palpable.
Please do not vote to take this all away. A "yes" vote on municipal consent to the Metro
Council's ill-conceived plans to route 200 trains a day and night and countless BNSF trains as
well in this "wilderness in the city" is foolish. It is bad for Golden Valley's economy, tax base,
environment and and social justice. The only officials who seem to have a handle on this are the
people on the Environmental Commission. Read their thoughtful report. Recognize that they are
right - without even a final EIS, you have no idea about the environmental damage and
degradation being planned, the irremediable harm being done. As the Commission points out,
there is no evidence at all that a park can be restored, remediated or enhanced when operations of
hundreds of trains are on-going. How can you hide that sight? How can you quiet that ruckus?
How can you restore rural noise levels, which is what we have now and why we live here? What
"buffer" or "wall" can prevent the park from becoming just an asphalt path next to a train yard?
And how can Golden Valley withstand the economic losses when you have to acquire homes and
the tax base drops from other homes losing value? It is no answer to say that rapid transit can
increase values - sure it can in blighted urban areas, but not one study shows a benefit in housing
values for homes with rural amenities near quiet parks. How can you prevent toxins and asbestos
from contaminating the area much further when it is dug up? How can you tolerate 2 to three
years of construction staging while the park is barely open and ends up decimated of most of its
mature trees? How can this possibly pass Section 4(f) review anyway?
Above all, how can you do this without an FEIS? No answers to these questions have been
proposed or even discussed as far as the public can tell. We were assured over and over again
that the DEIS process was just the beginning, that our views would be addressed in the FEIS,
that full information would be available before important steps were taken and yet now the
Council wants our cities to consent before the FEIS is even done. Shame on them and shame on
you if you vote yes on this sketchy record. Listen to your own Commission and vote at least "not
now."
Madge Thorsen
Dear Sirs and Madams
I am writing this afternoon as I gaze at the snow falling outside my work window, and I
am not certain I will be able to be present at Tonight's Open House/Municipal Consent
Vote for the LRT. I would like my issues/concerns and recommendations to be heard;
even tho I understand this may not be the forum (despite being encouraged by
Community Advisory Committee members that this IS the forum for my concerns to be
addressed).
After reading the concerns listed about the Environmental Impact Statement posted by
Golden Valley Environmental Commission, I urge City Council to withhold Municipal
Consent until there is more data to the impact that the Bottineau Line will cause in terms
of environment and noise.
Additionally, I urge all involved to not support a Golden Valley Road station with Park
and Ride. I have read and reviewed the plans; which I think are faulty based upon
faulty information being presented by Courage Kinney. Those representatives who
have sat on the Advisory Board are not the individuals who work with clients and
transportation; the majority of those who sat on the board are Physical Therapists and
not the Social Workers who are by profession 1. Advocates for the Disabled and
Disenfranchised 2. the Medical Team members who do the work in helping clients
access transportation resources for medical appointments. I have raised this issue with
representatives on the CAC and have had the response of "well, I don't work in the
medical field so I wouldn't know, but I trust that they do." I am a Social Worker in the
Medical Field, I have talked to my colleagues at Courage Kinney and North Memorial
and they do not support the belief that a Golden Valley Road station will be utilized by
the clients of Courage Kinney, simply because it is moving access from "Door to Door"
delivery to a point nearly 1/2 mile away.
If an individual is certified disabled in the State of MN, they have access to Door to Door
transportation (or, for the Residents of Courage Kinney, Door thru Door) as part of a
Medical Insurance benefit. For those who can use mass transit and are eligible for
Metro Mobility, there is already a mechanism in place that will allow for their Metro
Mobility benefit (or case manager discretion) to provide tokens for using Bus or Light
Rail.
Additionally, many disabled individuals who rely on walkers, scooters, wheel chairs
(manual and electric) find most city sidewalks to be unsafe for ambulation due to snow
and ice. I have been told this directly from many patients in many levels of care (rehab,
Sub Acute Centers, hospitals, clinics) for the past 16 years. It has been my experience
as a Golden Valley Resident that the side walk between Courage Kinney and the
proposed Station is not adequately maintained for a healthy, fully "abled" body to walk
her dogs safely in the winter time.
I also urge withdrawal of support for a Golden Valley Road Station due to the cost of
building such a station; adding parking spaces increases the cost to the overall project
with out adding any real significance to serving greater Golden Valley with only 100
proposed parking spaces. Many residents (According to Social Justice Representatives
at LRT Open Houses) have stated that most Golden Valley residents who attempt to
use the Parking will find it full and will most likely have to go to Robbinsdale Ramp or
they will "Park and Hide" on nearby residential streets, which jeopardizes the safety of
those residents due to narrow streets and lack of access by Fire and other Emergency
Vehicles. It is also in direct violation of City Code.
Supporting a Plymouth Avenue Stop/Station in collaboration with the City of Minneapolis
and the Minneapolis Park Board makes more "sense" and will have better chance of
service ALL of Golden Valley by providing closer access of the LRT to West/Southern
Golden Valley. Furthermore, this area is already an established destination year round
for the park, and for some, the opening point for Golden Valley.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Melissa Johnson, Golden Valley Resident.
As you know, I have studied the Blue Line Extension LRT (formerly Bottineau) and followed its
development for a few years, starting before the LPA was even officially selected. My overall
views are clear - the line should not be avoiding the transit-dependent communities of
Minneapolis; the line should not be going through Wirth Park; there is no demonstrated need for
2 stations in GV; the "new" ridership figures are illogical and without any demonstrated
analytical support; the project office's "new" ridership figures are only designed to support the
desired GV Rd station and parking lot; the anticipated cost of 6 million dollars for a parking lot
for 100 cars, in a location destined for high, very high, maintenance costs, is so unreasonable and
exorbitant that it's embarrassing.
The issue of the parking lot has not been resolved, as your documents assert. It is unfair and
misleading to assert that the parking lot is to meet the interests of the neighbors - there has NOT
been even one neighbor who has asked for a parking lot. Period. The City ought to have the
foresight and wisdom demonstrated years ago by Minneapolis, which banned parking lots at
LRT stations. And the neighbors have said, many times, that they want permit parking on our
streets rather than loss of even more parkland and all the safety issues that arise with a below-
grade unmanned parking lot.
I will not repeat myself, again. I, like many other residents, believe that the Council will give its
municipal consent without regard to what residents say at this hearing or have tried to say
before. The City continues to support this LRT and its desired "transit oriented development" in
the area surrounding the LRT station, at any cost; yes, at any cost, to the Park, to the
neighborhood, to the residents, and ultimately to the City. To most of us, the costs are just too
high.
Please submit this email to the public hearing record; unfortunately I am out of town and will not
be back by tomorrow. Thank you.
Linda Gallant
1707 Xerxes Avenue North
Golden Valley, MN 55411
Resolution
February 16, 2016
Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY DESIGN PLANS
FOR THE METRO BLUE LINE EXTENSION (BOTTINEAU)
LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT PROJECT
WITHIN THE CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY
WHEREAS, the City of Golden Valley supports transit in general as an important
part of the regional transportation network and supports the METRO Blue Line Extension
(Bottineau) Light Rail Transit Project ("Project") specifically as it believes it will help satisfy
long-term regional mobility and accessibility needs for businesses and the traveling public
the northwest portion of the Twin Cities; and,
WHEREAS, the Governor designated the Metropolitan Council ("Council") as the
responsible authority for the Project, which makes it responsible for the planning,
designing, acquiring, constructing, and equipping the Project; and
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statues Section 473.3994 allows cities and counties along a
proposed light rail route to provide input to the Council on the physical design component of
the preliminary design plans ("Plans"); and
WHEREAS, many residents and businesses have participated in numerous
Commissions, Committees, Open Houses, and other Public Forums to provide feedback
and assist with the evaluation of the Plans; and,
WHEREAS, on December 15, 2015, the Council submitted the Plans to the
governing body of each statutory and home rule charter city, county, and town in which the
route is proposed to be located; and
WHEREAS, public hearings are then required, which the City of Golden Valley held
on February 2, 2016; and
WHEREAS, within 45 days of a joint hearing held by the Council and the Hennepin
County Regional Rail Authority ("HCRRA"), which was held on January 19, 2016, the City
of Golden Valley must review and approve or disapprove the Plans for the route to be
located in the City of Golden Valley; and
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statues Section 473.3994 provides that "a local unit of
government that disapproves the plans shall describe specific amendments to the plans
that, if adopted, would cause the local unit to withdraw its disapproval;" and
WHEREAS, approval or disapproval by the City of Golden Valley is part of the
statutory preliminary design process; and
WHEREAS, City staff has reviewed the Plans and developed a report pertaining to
these Plans and has made its recommendations; and
WHEREAS, the City of Golden Valley supports the implementation of the Project
and is committed to supporting the Project through its successful implementation by 2021;
and
WHEREAS, the City of Golden Valley will work with the Council throughout the
design and construction process.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Golden Valley provides its
municipal approval of the Plans pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 473.3994
consistent with the above and directs City staff to submit the City of Golden Valley's
approval to the Metropolitan Council.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City identifies the
following issues as not fully settled and declares that this consent is granted based on the
City's full faith and trust in the Metropolitan Council's commitment to arrive at solutions
satisfactory to the City on the following:
In order to protect the surrounding single family neighborhoods from congestion,
public parking must be provided as part of the project for riders who arrive at the
Golden Valley Road station by automobile. The City continues to support
collaboration with the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board and the Blue Line
Project Office on the design exploration of infrastructure at the station that
accommodates parking while also serving as a trailhead for the many local and
regional trails that converge in the area.
2. Improvements to the Golden Valley Road and Theodore Wirth Parkway
intersection shall be included as part of the project in order to address anticipated
traffic and safety concerns resulting from a Golden Valley Road station.
3. Any impacts to Sochacki Park and to the surrounding neighborhoods during
construction of the light rail project shall be mitigated as part of the project to the
extent possible. Sochacki Park must be restored and enhanced at the conclusion
of the project.
4. New or improved pedestrian and bicycle connections shall be incorporated into
the design of bridges reconstructed over the Burlington Northern Santa Fe rail
line as part of the light rail project.
5. Mitigation efforts shall be conducted as part of the project to reduce the impacts
to Theodore Wirth Park, to Sochacki Park, and to surrounding neighborhoods of
noise, vibration, lighting, aesthetics, and safety associated with stations and the
operation of light rail vehicles.
Adopted by the City Council this 16th day of February, 2016.
/s/Shepard M. Harris
Shepard M. Harris, Mayor
ATTEST:
/s/Kristine A. Luedke
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.
A G E N D A
Council/Manager Meeting
Golden Valley City Hall
7800 Golden Valley Road
Council Chambers
February 9, 2016
6:30 pm
Pages
1.Golden Valley Fire Relief Association By-Law Amendment ( minutes)
2. Community Center Check-in ( minutes)
3. Flavored Tobacco ( minutes)
4. Council Items:
A. Elected Officials Guiding Principles ( minutes)
B. Council Agenda Format ( minutes)
C. Revised Neighborhood Meeting Policy ( minutes)
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.
AGENDA
Regular Meeting
of the
City Council
Golden Valley City Hall
7800 Golden Valley Road
Council Chamber
February 16, 2016
6:30 pm
The Council may consider item numbers 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6
prior to the public hearings scheduled at 7 pm
1.CALL TO ORDER PAGES
A.Roll Call
B.Pledge of Allegiance
2.ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS TO AGENDA
3.CONSENT AGENDA
Approval of Consent Agenda - All items listed under this heading are considered to be
routine by the City Council and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no
discussion of these items unless a Council Member or citizen so requests in which
event the item will be removed from the general order of business and considered in its
normal sequence on the agenda.
A.Approval of Minutes - City Council Meeting - February 2, 2016
B.Approval of City Check Register
C.Licenses:
1.
D.Minutes of Boards and Commissions:
E.Bids and Quotes:
1.
F.Approve Remote Attendance Policy
G.Douglas Drive - Hennepin County Cooperative Agreement
4.PUBLIC HEARINGS 7 PM
5.OLD BUSINESS
6.NEW BUSINESS
A.METRO Blue Line Extension - Municipal Consent (vote)
B.State of the City
C.Announcements of Meetings
1. Future Draft Agendas: City Council March 2, 2016, Council/Manager March 8,
2016 and City Council March 15, 2016
D.Mayor and Council Communications
7.ADJOURNMENT
AGENDA
Regular Meeting
of the
City Council
Golden Valley City Hall
7800 Golden Valley Road
Council Chamber
March 2, 2016
6:30 pm
The Council may consider item numbers 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6
prior to the public hearings scheduled at 7 pm
1.CALL TO ORDER PAGES
A.Roll Call
B.Pledge of Allegiance
C.Certificate of Recognition: Eagle Scout Andy Schmaltz, Troop 268
2.ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS TO AGENDA
3.CONSENT AGENDA
Approval of Consent Agenda - All items listed under this heading are considered to be
routine by the City Council and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no
discussion of these items unless a Council Member or citizen so requests in which
event the item will be removed from the general order of business and considered in its
normal sequence on the agenda.
A.Approval of Minutes - City Council Meeting - February 16, 2016
B.Approval of City Check Register
C.Licenses:
1. General Business Licenses
D.Minutes of Boards and Commissions:
1. Human Rights Commission
E.Bids and Quotes:
1.
F.
4.PUBLIC HEARINGS 7 PM
A.Major PUD Amendment - Central Park West - Hotel
B.Zoning Text Amendment - Accessory Retail in the Light Industrial Zoning District
5.OLD BUSINESS
6.NEW BUSINESS
A.Announcements of Meetings
1. Future Draft Agendas: Council/Manager March 8, 2016, City Council March 15,
2016 and April 5, 2016
B.Mayor and Council Communications
7.ADJOURNMENT