Loading...
10-18-16 CC Agenda Packet (entire)AGENDA Regular Meeting of the City Council Golden Valley City Hall 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Chamber October 18, 2016 6:30 pm 1.CALL TO ORDER PAGES A.Pledge of Allegiance B.Roll Call 2.ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS TO AGENDA 3.CONSENT AGENDA Approval of Consent Agenda - All items listed under this heading are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no discussion of these items unless a Council Member 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 October 5, 2016 3-6 B.Approval of Check Register 1. City 7 2. Housing and Redevelopment Authority 8 C.Minutes of Boards and Commissions: 1. Environmental Commission - June 27, 2016 9-10 2. Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission - July 21, 2016 11-18 D.Approve an Interfund Loan in Connection with Tax Increment Financing District (Redevelopment) Winnetka Avenue and Medicine Lake Road 16-61 19-21 E.Waiver of Public Hearing and Certification of Special Assessments - 2016 PMP Driveways 16-62 22-24 F.Waiver of Public Hearing and Certification of Special Assessments - 2016 PMP Sanitary Sewer Repairs 16-63 25-27 G.Waiver of Public Hearing and Certification of Special Assessments - 2016 Sewer Repairs located in Douglas Drive Project Area 16-64 28-30 H.Approval of Amended Public Purpose Expenditure Policy 16-65 31-36 4.PUBLIC HEARINGS A.Public Hearing - Vacate Easements at 5301 Woodstock Avenue 16-66 37-40 5.OLD BUSINESS 6.NEW BUSINESS A.Presentation of 2016 Residential Survey - The Morris Leatherman Company 41-74 B.Acceptance of Donation and Grants for Ball Field Improvement and Play Structure Equipment for St. Croix park and Medley Park 16-67 75-76 C.Authorize the Purchase and Installation of Playground Equipment for St. Croix Park and Medley Park 77-78 D.2018 and 2019 Pavement Management Program 79-93 1. Authorize Preparation of Feasibility Report 16-68 2. Authorize Professional Services Agreement with SEH, Inc. 6. NEW BUSINESS - continued E.Announcement of Meetings 1. Future Draft Agendas: City Council November 1, 2016, Council/Manager November 8, 2016 and November 15, 2016 94-96 F.Mayor and Council Communications 7.ADJOURNMENT UNOFFICIAL MINUTES CITY COUNCIL MEETING GOLDEN VALLEY, MINNESOTA October 5, 2016 1. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Harris called the meeting to order at 6:30 pm. 1A. Pledge of Allegiance 1B. Roll Call Present: Mayor Shep Harris, Council Members Joanie Clausen, Larry Fonnest, Andy Snope and Steve Schmidgall. Also present were: City Manager Cruikshank, City Attorney Garry and City Clerk Luedke. 1C. Board/Commission Oath of Office and Present Certificate of Appointment Mayor Harris administered the Oath of Office and presented a Certificate of Appointment to Ms. Cindy Carow-Schiebe for the Open Space and Recreation Commission. 2. ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS TO AGENDA MOTION made by Council Member Snope, seconded by Council Member Fonnest to approve the agenda of October 5, 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 October 5, 2016, as revised: removal of 3H-Authorize Participation in the Metropolitan Council Municipal Publicly Owned Infrastructure Inflow/Infiltration Grant Program and the motion carried. 3A.Approve Minutes of the City Council Meeting of September 20, 2016. 3B. Approve City Check Register and authorize the payment of the bills as submitted. 3C1.Authorize the Issuance of New/Used Vehicle Dealer licenses as recommended by Staff. 3D. Accept for filing the Minutes of Boards and Commissions as follows: 1. Human Rights Commission - June 28, 2016 2. Human Services Fund - June 13, 2016 3. Open Space and Recreation Commission - June 27, 2016 4. Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission - June 16, 2016 3E.Approve a one-year extension for an approved Zoning Code variance for 3235 Kyle Avenue North to October 16, 2017. 3F.Adopt Resolution 16-56, approving the appointment of Election Judges and Absentee Ballot Board for the General Election to be held on November 8, 2016. 3G.Adopt Resolution 16-57, Approval of Plat - Tralee at Paisley Lane 1 st Addition. 3H.Authorize Participation in the Metropolitan Council Municipal Publicly Owned Infrastructure Inflow/Infiltration Grant Program. Unofficial City Council Minutes -2- October 5, 2016 3. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA 3H. Authorize Participation in the Metropolitan Council Municipal Publicly Owned Infrastructure Inflow/Infiltration Grant Program City Manager Cruikshank answered questions from Council regarding the grant program. MOTION made by Council Member Clausen, seconded by Council Member Snope to adopt Resolution 16-58, Authorizing Participation in the Metropolitan Council Municipal Publicly Owned Infrastructure Inflow/Infiltration Grant Program for the Reimbursement of Project Costs Associated with Inflow/Infiltration Improvements upon a vote being taken the following voted in favor of: Harris, Fonnest, Clausen, Schmidgall and Snope, the following voted against: none and the motion carried. 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS 4A. Public Hearing - Amendment to City Code Section 11.60 Floodplain Management Zoning Overlay District Public Works Specialist Eckman presented the staff report and answered questions from Council. City Attorney Garry answered questions from Council. Mayor Harris opened the public hearing. No one came forward. Mayor Harris closed the public hearing. MOTION made by Council Member Schmidgall, seconded by Council Member Clausen to adopt Ordinance #614, Amending Section 11.60 of the City Code updating the City’s Floodplain Management Zoning Overlay District upon a vote being taken the following voted in favor of: Fonnest, Clausen, Harris, Schmidgall and Snope, the following voted against: none and the motion carried. MOTION made by Council Member Clausen, seconded by Council Member Snope to approve the Summary of Ordinance #614, for publication and the motion carried. 4B. Public Hearing - Special Assessments - 2016 Delinquent Utility Bills Finance Director Virnig presented the staff report and answered questions from Council. City Manager Cruikshank answered questions from Council. Mayor Harris opened the public hearing. Ms. Kelsey Judge, 1560 Winnetka Avenue North, said she closed on the property in March of this year. She said they did not receive a utility bill but did receive a certification notice. She said she called the City and found out the bill was from the prior owner. She said she contacted her title company, who said they would contact the previous owner. She said she then received an email stating the previous owner was disputing the bill because he had not been living at the house. She said she was concerned because she did not want the bill to go towards her taxes because the charges occurred before she bought the property. Mayor Harris closed the public hearing. Unofficial City Council Minutes -3- October 5, 2016 4B. Public Hearing - Special Assessments - 2016 Delinquent Utility Bills - continued There was Council discussion regarding the special assessments for delinquent utility bills. MOTION made by Council Member Fonnest, seconded by Council Member Clausen to adopt Resolution 16-59, Adopting and Confirming Assessments for Delinquent Utility Billing upon a vote being taken the following voted in favor of: Clausen, Schmidgall, Snope, Harris and Fonnest, the following voted against: none and the motion carried. 4C. Public Hearing -Special Assessments - 2016 Miscellaneous Charges Finance Director Virnig presented the staff report and answered questions from Council. Mayor Harris opened the public hearing. No one came forward. Mayor Harris closed the public hearing. MOTION made by Council Member Fonnest, seconded by Council Member Clausen to adopt Resolution 16-60, Adopting and Confirming Assessments for Miscellaneous Charges upon a vote being taken the following voted in favor of: Schmidgall, Harris, Fonnest, Clausen, and Snope, the following voted against: none and the motion carried. 6. NEW BUSINESS 6A. Authorize the City to enter into a Shared Services Agreement with the City of St. Louis Park for the Central Park West PUD Associate Planner/Grant Writer Goellner presented the staff report and answered questions from Council. MOTION made by Council Member Clausen, seconded by Council Member Fonnest to authorize the City to enter into a Shared Services Agreement with the City of St. Louis Park and the motion carried. 6B. Announcement of Meetings Some Council Members may attend the Kelly Drive Pumpkin Festival on October 8, 2016, at 11 am at the Kelly Drive/Duluth Street Intersection. Mighty Tidy Day will be held on October 8, 2016, from 8 am to 1 pm at Brookview Park. The new Play Structure Selection meeting for Medley Park will be held on October 10, 2016, at 6 pm at Brookview Community Center. The new Play Structure Selection meeting for St. Croix Park will be held on October 10, 2016, at 7:15 pm at Brookview Community Center. The Neighborhood Watch Annual meeting will be held on October 12, 2016, at 7 pm in the Golden Valley Public Safety Building. The next Housing and Redevelopment Authority meeting will be held on October 13, 2016, at 6:30 pm in the Council Chambers. Unofficial City Council Minutes -4- October 5, 2016 6B. Announcement of Meetings - continued The next Council/Manager meeting will be held on October 13, 2016, immediately following the Housing and Redevelopment Authority meeting in the Council Conference Room. A Council Quarterly Review Session will be held on October 18, 2016, at 5:30 pm in the Council Conference Room. The next City Council meeting will be held on October 18, 2016, at 6:30 pm in the Council Chambers. 6C. Mayor and Council Communication Mayor Harris thanked City staff for the wonderful Brookview Community Center ground breaking event. 7.ADJOURNMENT MOTION made by Council Member Snope, seconded by Council Member Clausen and the motion carried unanimously to adjourn the meeting at 7:34 pm. _______________________________ Shepard M. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: __________________________ Kristine A. Luedke, City Clerk Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting October 18, 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. Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting October 18, 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. GOLDEN VALLEY ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION Regular Meeting, Minutes June 27, 2016 Commissioners Present: Lynn Gitelis, Dawn Hill, Tonia Galonska, Larry Johnson, Jim Stremel, Debra Yahle and Tracy Anderson Staff Present: John Crelly, Fire Chief; Eric Eckman, Public Works Specialist and Claire Huisman, Administrative Assistant Also Present: Council Member Larry Fonnest Absent: None Call to Order Lynn Gitelis called the meeting to order at 6:30 pm. Approval of Regular Meeting Minutes MOVED by Hill, SECONDED by Stremel, and the motion carried unanimously to approve the minutes of the May 23, 2016 regular meeting. Minnesota Climate Change Basics Staff recently attended a climate adaptation workshop as part of the City's continued work on resilience planning. A presentation on Minnesota Climate Change Basics was given by Kenny Blumenfeld from the MN DNR Climatology Office. Eric Eckman discussed with the Commission, the key points from the presentation regarding climate observations & expectations over the next 10 years. It was suggested to have this presentation available to the public via website. Eric will confirm with the DNR if this document is a stand-alone report. It will also be made available at the table during the Comprehensive Plan Kick-Off Open House on September 19, 2016 from 6:30pm-8:30pm. GreenStep Cities Golden Valley Fire Chief, John Crelly was asked to speak to the Commission to discuss resilience from a Fire Department perspective. Discussion ensued on the City's Hazard Mitigation Plan and Emergency Management preparation in relation to the GreenSteps Best Practice #29. Mr. Crelly summarized that the main objective of the plan is to reduce loss of life, minimize property damage and damage to the environment. Mr. Crelly highlighted some projects and examples of how the City prepares for weather related events and discussed how the City communicates information regarding hazards and emergencies to the public. Following the presentation and discussion the Commission discussed the Best Practice #29 priority list. MOVED by Hill, SECONDED by Johnson and the motion carried unanimously to approve the Best Practice #29 priority list which staff presented to the Commission. This list included action items and their star ratings which would be completed in order over the course of the next year and discussed at future EC meetings. Minutes of the Environmental Commission June 27, 2016 Page 2 of 2 Comprehensive Plan-MPCA Grant for Resilience Planning Staff discussed the status of the grant application that will help fund the City's Resilience Plan effort. It appears the City has been selected to receive the grant this summer and a consultant will be brought on board to lead this effort with the Commission. Commission members will bring to the next meeting their thoughts on the basic information that should be made available to the public at the table for the Resilience Chapter during the Comprehensive Plan Open House. They may also start thinking of questions to ask in a future survey questionnaire. It was also suggested to have the Fire Chief at the open house as well to answer the public's questions regarding emergency preparedness/hazard mitigation. Program/Project Updates The complete program/project update is on file. Commission Member Council Reports Council member Fonnest gave a few updates to the Commission: • The three cities met regarding the DeCola Ponds flood study and the cities are currently considering their commitment levels to the long term plan and future projects. Money could become available if the bonding bill passes in a special session but all three cities would have to be in agreement on how to move forward. • The Annual Bassett Creek Watershed Bus Tour was a success. • Dawn Hill was appointed to the Bike & Pedestrian Task Force. • Debra Yahle was appointed to another 3 yr term on the Environmental Commission. • Douglas Drive is moving forward on its renovations and is expected to be completed by fall of 2017. Adjourn MOVED by Johnson, SECONDED by Anderson, and the motion carried to adjourn the meeting at 8:34 pm. Claire Huisman Administrative Assistant Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission Minutes of Regular Meeting July 21, 2016 Golden Valley City Hall, 8:30 a.m. Commissioners and Staff Present: Crystal Commissioner Guy Mueller,Vice Chair Plymouth Alt. Commissioner Dave Tobelmann Golden Valley Commissioner Stacy Hoschka, Robbinsdale Absent Secretary/Treasurer Medicine Lake Alt. Commissioner Gary Holter St.Louis Park Commissioner Jim de Lambert,Chair Minneapolis Alternate Commissioner Lisa Goddard Administrator Laura Jester Minnetonka Commissioner Mike Fruen Attorney Troy Gilchrist,Kennedy&Graven New Hope Alternate Commissioner Pat Crough Engineer Karen Chandler,Barr Engineering Technical Advisory Committee(TAC)Members/Other Attendees Present: Derek Asche,TAC,City of Plymouth Bob Paschke,TAC,City of New Hope Erick Francis,TAC,City of St. Louis Park Megan Albert,TAC,City of New Hope Liz Stout,TAC,City of Minneapolis Jane McDonald Black,Alternate Commissioner, Golden Valley Mark Ray,TAC,City of Crystal Dave Tobelmann,Alternate Commissioner,Plymouth Richard McCoy,TAC,City of Robbinsdale Becky Rice,Metro Blooms Tom Dietrich,TAC,City of Minnetonka Dawn Pape,Lawn Chair Gardener Chuck Schmidt,Resident,City of New Hope 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL On Thursday,July 21,2016,at 8:35 a.m. in the Council Conference Room at Golden Valley City Hall(7800 Golden Valley Rd.),Chair de Lambert called to order the meeting of the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission(BCWMC)and asked for roll call to be taken. [The city of Robbinsdale was absent from roll call]. TAC member Bob Paschke,City of New Hope, introduced Megan Albert,the city's new Storm Water Specialist and Project Coordinator. 2. CITIZEN FORUM ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS Chuck Schmidt,a resident in the City of New Hope, indicated concern about a significant gully flowing into the pond at Winnetka Village Apartments(Winnetka Pond)and eroding up closer and closer to the railroad bed.He wondered if the railroad authority had been contacted about the gully.Mark Ray,City of Crystal staff,indicated 1 BCWMC July 21, 2016, Meeting Minutes that he had located the gully after previous comments from Mr. Schmidt,had checked easements and determined the gully is on railroad property. He indicated that he would contact the railroad about the gully. 3.AGENDA MOTION: Commissioner Hoschka moved to approve the agenda. Alt. Commissioner Goddard seconded the motion. Upon a vote,the motion carried 8-0. [The city of Robbinsdale as absent from the vote.] 4.CONSENT AGENDA MOTION: Commissioner Mueller moved to approve the consent agenda. Alt. Commissioner Goddard seconded the motion.Upon a vote,the motion carried 8-0. [The city of Robbinsdale was absent from the vote.] [The following items were approved as part of the consent agenda: the June 16,2016, Commission Meeting Minutes,the July 2016 Financial Report,the payment of invoices,the reimbursement request from the City of New Hope for the Northwood Lake Improvement Project, and the project at 2860 Evergreen Lane,Plymouth. Additionally,the Commission set a public hearing for September 15,2016 regarding the 2017 Capital Improvement Program projects.] The general and construction account balances reported in the July 2016 Financial Report are as follows: Checking Account Balance $623,611.75 TOTAL GENERAL FUND BALANCE $623,611.75 TOTAL CASH&INVESTMENTS ON-HAND (7/12/16) $2,879,233.45 CIP Projects Levied—Budget Remaining $3,359,019.19 Closed Projects Remaining Balance ($479,785.74) 2011-2015 Anticipated Tax Levy Revenue $6,710.47 2016 Anticipated Tax Levy Revenue $601,430.96 Anticipated Closed Project Balance $128,355.69 5. BUSINESS A. Consider Proposal to Develop Feasibility Study for Dredging Bassett Creek Park Pond and Winnetka Pond(2018 CIP Project BCP-2) Administrator Jester reminded Commissioners that at the May meeting,the Commission directed the Commission Engineer to submit a proposal for development of a feasibility study for dredging Bassett Creek Park Pond with an alternate to include a study of the feasibility of dredging Winnetka Pond. Engineer Chandler showed the location of the ponds on a map, indicating that Winnetka Pond is divided into an east pond and a west pond. She reviewed the proposal and noted that although it's known that Bassett Creek Park Pond has significant sediment 2 BCWMC July 21, 2016, Meeting Minutes build up, it's unclear if Winnetka Pond has a buildup of sediment. She noted that if it was not found to have sediment worth dredging,they would stop studying the Winnetka Pond and only continue studying Bassett Creek Park Pond. She noted that she expects less interest or concern from the public regarding this potential project and that there was some savings in surveying and reporting both ponds within one study. Alt.Commissioner Goddard asked if it might be possible to"over-dredge"Bassett Creek Park Pond to gain more pollutant removal efficiency. Engineer Chandler said that depending on the wetland regulations for the pond,it might be possible and would be considered during the study. However, she also noted that because the pond is a DNR public water,over dredging wasn't likely permittable. Mark Ray,City of Crystal staff,indicated support for developing an access point to Bassett Creek Park Pond for more frequent dredging.There was more discussion about the possible depth to which the pond could be dredged. Commissioner Mueller wondered if it would be possible to have a depth deep enough for fish to survive. There was discussion about the possible source of the sediment in Bassett Creek Park Pond.Engineer Chandler noted that sources include erosion from upstream which has likely lessened after erosion control projects on the North Branch of Bassett Creek. She also noted that cleaning out pre-settlement ponds is a city responsibility and that Winnetka Pond is being considered within this CIP project because it's part of the BCWMC Trunk System. Mr.Ray noted that the city is hoping to dovetail park improvements at the same time as CIP construction. MOTION: Alternate Commissioner Goddard moved to approve the proposal and scope of work as presented by the Commission Engineer to prepare a feasibility study for Bassett Creek Park Pond and Winnetka Pond Dredgine Project(BCP-2) for a total cost of$60,000. Alternate Commissioner Tobelmann seconded the motion. Upon a vote the motion carried 8-0. [City of Robbinsdale was absent from the vote.] B. Consider Metropolitan Council Stormwater Grant Awarded for Northside Neighborhood Engagement & Opportunities in Clean Water Initiatives (Harrison Neighborhood Project) i. Review Draft Project Work Plan from Metro Blooms ii. Consider Entering Agreement with Metropolitan Council to Implement Project iii. Consider Directing Staff to Develop and Execute a Sub-grant Agreement with Metro Blooms to Implement Project Administrator Jester provided background on the project,reminding the Commission that at the December 2015 meeting,the Commission agreed to submit a grant application to the Met Council on behalf of Metro Blooms for the Harrison Neighborhood Project. She reported that the BCWMC was recently awarded$100,000 from the Met Council and that before a grant agreement can be approved,a work plan for the project must be approved by Met Council staff. She noted the draft work plan in the meeting materials was developed by Metro Blooms for the Commission's review and consideration. Further, she noted the grant agreement template from the Met Council included in the meeting materials was reviewed by Commission Legal Counsel. Administrator Jester indicated that Minneapolis staff has comments on the draft work plan and that staff is also seeking comments from Commissioners. She noted that staff is seeking approval to execute a grant agreement with the Met Council once the work plan is revised and approved by Minneapolis staff and is approved by the Met Council. She also indicated that staff is seeking approval to develop and execute a corresponding sub-grant agreement with Metro Blooms to implement the project per the agreement with Met Council. Ms.Becky Rice with Metro Blooms noted that the project scope has been scaled back from the original proposal due to less than anticipated grant funding. She reported the current work plan includes installing bioswales with alternative turf and native grasses after ash trees are removed from boulevards along Glenwood Ave. She noted that the bioswales will capture runoff from properties and not from streets and 3 BCWMC July 21, 2016, Meeting Minutes that work in alleyways is no longer part of the project plan unless additional funding becomes available. There was discussion about maintenance of the projects since most residents in the Harrison Neighborhood are not the property owners. Ms.Rice indicated that Metro Blooms will only work with property owners and that not all properties will be residential. Ms. Stout,City of Minneapolis,reported that city staff has some concerns with the work plan as currently presented and would like the opportunity to provide input. Ms.Rice and Administrator Jester indicated city input would be sought before submitting the work plan to the Met Council. MOTION: Alternate Commissioner Goddard moved to approve the draft work plan with input from Minneapolis city staff and to bring a revised work plan to the Commission if it's significantly different from the current draft,to execute an agreement with the Metropolitan Council for the stormwater grant: and to develop and execute a sub-grant agreement with Metro Blooms to carry out the Metropolitan Councilrgant agreement. Commissioner Mueller seconded the motion.Upon a vote the motion carried 8- 0. [City of Robbinsdale was absent from the vote.] C. Review Draft Clean Water Fund Grant Application for Harrison Neighborhood Project Administrator Jester noted that at the June meeting,the Commission directed staff to work with Metro Blooms to develop a Clean Water Fund grant application for the Harrison Neighborhood Project. She noted that the attached draft application requests$150,000 in grant funds from the"Community Partners"portion of the Clean Water Fund which is separate from the Projects and Practices funds being sought for the Plymouth Creek Restoration Project. She indicated that staff is seeking comments on the draft application and approval to submit the application on behalf of Metro Blooms by the deadline of August 8`�. Ms.Rice with Metro Blooms reported that the project proposed in this grant application is an extension of the Harrison Neighborhood Project discussed previously in Item 5B. She noted that this project would work with businesses, organizations,and other larger property owners and would focus on Glenwood Avenue with the Glenwood Revitalization Team. She noted the funding would be used to fund 6-8 larger projects at up to $25,000 each. She reported that Metro Blooms is also submitting a grant application for Hennepin County's Opportunity Grant Fund and that property owners would also be required to provide some match. There was discussion about how the Minneapolis Stormwater Credit program could be used to further incentivize businesses. Ms. Stout noted that receiving a stormwater credit can be more rigorous than expected and indicated that stormwater management features should be privately owned and maintained. There were further comments from Commissioners on various aspects of the application. Ms.Rice said she open to all comments and would like Minneapolis city staff to review the application and provide comments. MOTION: Alternate Commissioner Goddard moved to direct staff to work with Metro Blooms to finalize the Clean Water Fund grant application with input from the city of Minneapolis and others and to submit the grant application to the Board of Water and Soil Resources. Alternate Commissioner Holter seconded the motion.Upon a vote the motion carried 8-0. [City of Robbinsdale was absent from the vote.l D. Review Draft Clean Water Fund Grant Application for Plymouth Creek Restoration Project Administrator Jester noted that at the June meeting,the Commission directed staff to discuss the two 2017 stream restoration projects with BWSR staff,determine which project has a better chance of receiving grant funds,and draft a grant application for the appropriate project. She reported that after discussions with BWSR, staff began drafting a grant application for the Plymouth Creek Restoration Project due to its impact on Medicine Lake and the Medicine Lake TMDL. She noted that the application in the meeting materials is a working document that still needs some additions and refinement. She indicated that staff is seeking comments on the draft application. There was discussion about the amount of grant funding to request. Commission Engineer Chandler cautioned against requesting the 75%of total project cost allowed in the 4 BCWMC July 21, 2016, Meeting Minutes application in order to allow for flexibility during project implementation. Administrator Jester recommended requesting$400,000. MOTION: Commissioner Mueller moved to direct staff to finalize and submit the Clean Water Fund grant application for the Plymouth Creek Restoration Project for$400,000. Seconded by Commissioner Hoschka. Upon a vote the motion carried 8-0. [City of Robbinsdale was absent from the vote.l E. Consider Approval of Recommendations from Technical Advisory Committee on Responsibilities and Funding Mechanisms for Rehabilitation and Replacement of Flood Control Project Features Commission Engineer Chandler noted that at the May meeting,the Commission discussed the TAC recommendations on the"Responsibilities and Funding Mechanisms for Rehabilitation and Replacement of Flood Control Project Features." She noted that of the eight recommendations in the May memo,the Commission accepted recommendations 2—6 but requested that the TAC come back to the Commission with more information and/or revised language for recommendations 1, 7,and 8. She reported that the TAC met on June 28th,discussed these items, and developed revised recommendations for the Commission's consideration. Engineer Chandler reviewed recommendation#1 indicating that there had been a question about the expense of additional tunnel inspections. She reported that over the course of 20 years,the annual average increase of inspection costs would be$2,750/year and that the TAC recommended that the Commission continue to fully fund inspections even with the additional cost. There was some discussion about the likely need to increase the amount of funding set aside each year from the Commission's Operating Budget to the Long Term Maintenance Fund. The group decided that was a discussion for a different meeting or committee. There was consensus to accept the TAC's recommendation for#1. Engineer Chandler reviewed recommendation#7 indicating that the TAC still agreed cities are responsible for maintenance of Flood Control Project structures at road crossings and they recommended deleting one confusing sentence from the original recommendation.There was consensus to accept the TAC's recommendation for#7. Engineer Chandler reviewed recommendation#8 indicating Commissioners sought more information on the potential costs of future major rehabilitation. Engineer Chandler reviewed a table showing possible projected costs of significant rehabilitation and replacement of Flood Control Project features. She indicated the TAC's original recommendation remained the same with the additional note that cities are expected to inform the Commission in advance of their request for reimbursement of large scale projects so the Commission can financially prepare. There was discussion about the fact that Hennepin County owns the structure at the Medicine Lake outlet and about different sources of funding(such as the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers, bonding by the County,etc.) for large scale rehabilitation or replacement projects. It was reiterated that inspection and reporting on maintenance will be a key to receiving future funding and will extend the life of the structures. There was also a discussion about the need to share this information with Hennepin County. It was noted that the new proposed funding mechanism(using CIP funds)may require an amendment to the Watershed Management Plan which would give the County and others a chance to comment. Administrator Jester also noted that early and often communication with the County and the Army Corps of Engineers is warranted. MOTION: Alternate Commissioner Goddard moved to approve the recommendations of the Technical Advisory Committee on the Responsibilities and Funding Mechanisms for Rehabilitation and Replacement of Flood Control Project Features. Seconded by Alternate Commissioner Crough_Upon a vote the motion carried 8-0. [City of Robbinsdale was absent from the vote.l 5 BCWMC July 21, 2016, Meeting Minutes F. Consider Education Committee Recommendation to Approve Contract with Lawn Chair Gardner for BCWMC Educational Display Upgrades and Monthly Article Writing Administrator Jester reported that the at the Education Committee meeting on July 12`h, she and Commissioner Black(the only committee member in attendance)discussed outreach ideas with Dawn Pape, an independent contractor doing business as the Lawn Chair Gardener. She reported that she and Commissioner Black recommended contracting with Ms.Pape for the development of three new educational displays and for writing five articles for local news outlets and city newsletters. Administrator Jester noted that Ms.Pape is a local author and graphic designer with a Masters in Environmental Education,and that she founded the Blue Thumb-Planting for Clean Water program and has experience with many watershed organizations.There was some discussion about the need for displays that are useful outside in windy conditions and about where displays could be used.There was consensus that the Commission displays need upgrades and that articles written for local news outlets or city newsletters would reach a wide audience. Administrator Jester also reported that Recording Secretary Amy Herbert had resigned her position with the Commission and gave a 35 day notice to terminate her contract which would end on August 16. She noted that one of Ms.Herbert's functions was to write posts for the Commission's Facebook page. Administrator Jester noted that social media is one of Ms.Pape's specialties and distributed a proposal from Ms.Pape to create a social media calendar,work on growing the social media audience through various campaigns,post weekly social media posts,and review analytics to determine campaign performance. Administrator Jester requested that the contract with Ms.Pape in the meeting materials be revised to include these social media activities for an amount not to exceed$3,360 through January 1,2017. She indicated there is plenty of funding remaining in the Recording Secretary's budget line to cover these costs. Ms.Pape introduced herself,provided information on her background and expertise,and spoke about the importance of a complete social media campaign, including developing a plan and analyzing data. There was further discussion about the Commission's displays and future maintenance.Administrator Jester indicated that maintenance is certainly something to consider. MOTION: Commissioner Mueller moved to approve a contract with Ms.Dawn Pape for development of undated educational displays,writing 5 articles for local news outlets,and developingand implementing a social media campaign for a cost not to exceed$10,360 through January 31,2017. Seconded by Alternate Commissioner Holter.Upon a vote the motion carried 8-0. [City of Robbinsdale was absent from the vote.l G. Receive Update on XP-SWMM Phase II Project Commission Engineer Chandler walked through the memo in the meeting materials with an update on the XP- SWMM Phase II modeling project. She reported that the Plymouth Creek and Medicine Lake direct modeling was completed in FY2015 along with flow monitoring on the North Branch of Bassett Creek. She reported that modeling is underway for the North Branch and Main Stem Bassett Creek and that data from the City of Minneapolis' detailed modeling project is being incorporated into this project. Further,Engineer Chandler indicated that city staff have been very cooperative in supplying the information needed to perform the modeling.Alt. Commissioner Goddard noted that surveys from the Blue Line LRT project could be used along the Main Stem corridor. [Commissioner Hoschka departs the meeting.Alt.Commissioner McDonald Black assumes Golden Valley representation.] 6 BCWMC July 21, 2016, Meeting Minutes 6. COMMUNICATIONS A. Administrator's Report Administrator Jester noted that besides her written report, she wanted to direct Commissioner's attention to informational item#7C regarding the Four Seasons Mall redevelopment project. She noted that the developer is prepared to go above and beyond requirements for pollutant removals and will likely seek a partnership with the Commission. She indicated that more information will be forthcoming at a future meeting. B. Chair Chair de Lambert noted that he,Minneapolis city staff,Commission Engineer Jeff Weiss,and the Administrator attended the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners committee meeting earlier in the week. He noted there were no questions posed to the Commission regarding the levy request for 2017 projects and the motion to approve the maximum levy request was approved by the committee. C. Commissioners Commissioner Fruen reported that he had witnessed the flood damage from recent storms in northern Wisconsin and indicated the work of the Commission to alleviate flooding is very important. D. TAC Members TAC member Bob Paschke,City of New Hope,reported that the Northwood Lake Improvement Project continues to be constructed and is on time and on budget. TAC member Mark Ray,City of Crystal,indicated that the Three Rivers Park District trail project will be completed this fall. E. Committees i. APM/AIS Committee—Administrator Jester reported the first meeting of the APM/AIS Committee was well attended and that Meg Rattei with Barr Engineering gave a very informative presentation that is now posted online on the"meeting materials"webpage. She indicated the next committee meeting is scheduled for August 16th. Administrator Jester noted that the Budget Committee will meet on August 8th at noon at the Golden Valley City Hall. F. Legal Counsel Legal Counsel Troy Gilchrist indicated his appreciation to attend the Watershed Tour in order to see the projects he's writing contracts about and that are being discussed in meetings. G. Engineer Commission Engineer Chandler reported that the project plans for the North Branch Bassett Creek Channel Maintenance Project are complete. She also reported that the floating baffle on Schaper Pond had been vandalized and that crews will be reattaching the baffle and will find a way to deter future vandals.Finally, Engineer Chandler reported that the Department of Natural Resources recently developed an index of biological integrity(IBI) for fish and that DNR's data indicate Medicine Lake would not meet the standard based on preliminary work. She noted it's unclear whether that would result in an additional"impaired waters"listing. She noted an aquatic plant IBI is also in development. 7 BCWMC July 21, 2016, Meeting Minutes 7. INFORMATION ONLY (Available at http://www.bassettcreekwmo.org/document/meeting- materials-minu/meeting-materials/i my-21-2016) H. CIP Project Updates: Now Available Online http://www.bassettcreekwmo.or2/projects I. Grant Tracking Summary and Spreadsheet J. Four Seasons Mall Redevelopment Letter of Support and Preliminary Project Plans K. West Metro Water Alliance"Water Links" Summer Newsletter https://content.2ovdelivery.com/accounts/MNHENNE/bulletins/1523191 L. MWMO's "Water Wednesdays"Workshop Series (June 8,July 13,Aug 10): http://mwmo.or2/blot/introducing-water-wednesdays-new-summer-workshop-series/ M. Clean Water Summit September 22"d,Minnesota Landscape Arboretum,Register at http://www.arboretum.umn.edu/2016cleanwatersummit.aspx N. Water Resources Conference, October 18— 19, St.Paul RiverCentre,http://www.wrc.umn.edu/news- events/waterconf O. WCA Notice of Decision,Plymouth Commons,Plymouth P. WCA Notice of Decision-Vrieze Property,Plymouth Q. WCA Notice of Decision-St.Barnabas Lutheran Church,Plymouth R. WCA Notice of Application and Delineation Report—South Shore Drive,Medicine Lake S. Channel 12 News Story on Golden Valley Residents Improving Creekside Habitat: http://twelve.tv/news/newsitem.aspx?newsid=324&newsitemid=30907 8. ADJOURNMENT- Chair de Lambert adjourned the meeting at 10:52 a.m. Signature/Title Date Signature/Title Date 8 Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting October 18, 2016 Agenda Item 3. D. Approve an Interfund Loan in Connection with Tax Increment Financing District (Redevelopment) Winnetka Avenue and Medicine Lake Road Prepared By Sue Virnig, Finance Director Summary The City of Golden Valley will need to consider the following resolution that will provide for the financing for the Winnetka-Medicine Lake Tax Increment District that coincides with the Liberty project. The amount of the interfund loan will be $1,500,000. Once the project needs additional financing, the financing will come from the Storm Sewer Fund and will be paid back through future tax increment created from the project area. The interfund loan was approved by the Golden Valley Housing and Redevelopment Authority on October 13, 2016. Attachment •Resolution Approving an Interfund Loan in Connection with Tax Increment Financing District (Redevelopment) Winnetka Avenue and Medicine Lake Road (2 pages) Required Action Motion to adopt Resolution Approving an Interfund Loan in Connection with Tax Increment Financing District (Redevelopment) Winnetka Avenue and Medicine Lake Road. Resolution 16-61 October 18, 2016 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION APPROVING AN INTERFUND LOAN IN CONNECTION WITH TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT (REDEVELOPMENT), WINNETKA AVENUE & MEDICINE LAKE ROAD BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Golden Valley, Minnesota (the “City”), as follows: 1. Recitals. (a) The Housing and Redevelopment Authority of the City of Golden Valley (the “HRA”) and the City adopted the Golden Hills Redevelopment Plan for the Winnetka and Medicine Lake Road Project Area (the “Plan”), together with the Tax Increment Financing Plan (the “TIF Plan”) for Tax Increment Financing District (Redevelopment), Winnetka Avenue North & Medicine Lake Road No. 1 (the “District”); all pursuant to and in conformity with applicable law, including Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174 to 469.1794, all inclusive, as amended (the “Act”). (b) In accordance with the TIF Plan, the HRA has agreed to undertake a project with Liberty Crossing Investment Partners, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company (the “Developer”), consisting of a five-story apartment building with approximately 187 apartments and approximately 55 townhomes, plus parking, landscaping, utilities and certain other improvements (the “Development”), all pursuant to a Private Development Agreement (the “Development Agreement”) entered into with the Developer on April 29, 2016. (c) In support of the Development, the City is issuing its General Obligation Storm Sewer Revenue Bonds (the “Bonds”) to finance storm water flood containment and storage improvements within the District. (d) In connection with the Development, the City authorized by written resolution dated December 15, 2015 an interfund loan of $1,000,000 to the HRA from the City’s Storm Utility Fund, and the HRA approved the interfund loan by written resolution dated April 12, 2016 (the “Prior Interfund Loan”). Pursuant to Section 3.7 of the Development Agreement, the HRA paid Developer $1,000,000 to accommodate the installation of a large underground storm water storage basin beneath the Development. (e) The HRA has approved on October 13 an additional interfund loan from the City to the HRA in the amount of $1,500,000 to pay qualified costs of private activity improvements relating to the Development (the “Current Interfund Loan”). (f) The Bonds will be a general obligation of the City, secured by its full faith and credit and taxing power. The City will also pledge net revenues of the storm sewer utility to the payment of principal and interest on the Bonds. The City expects to use tax increment revenues derived from the Development to first, repay the interfund loans and second, pay debt service on the Bonds. Resolution No. 16-61 -2-October 18, 2016 2. Approval of the Current Interfund Loan. (a) The City hereby authorizes the loan of up to $1,500,000 to the HRA from its Storm Utility Fund or other funds available or so much thereof as may be paid as qualified costs. The City shall be reimbursed such amount, together with interest at the rate stated below. Interest accrues on the principal amount from the date of each loan. The maximum rate of interest permitted to be charged is limited to the greater of the rates specified under Minnesota Statutes, Section 270C.40 or Section 549.09, as of the date the loan is made, unless the written agreement states that the maximum interest rate will fluctuate as the interest rates specified under Minnesota Statutes, Section 270C.40 or Section 549.09, are from time to time adjusted. The interest rate shall be 4% and will not fluctuate. (b) Principal and interest (“Payments”) on the outstanding Current Interfund Loan balance shall be paid semi-annually in two (2) equal installments per year, each installment to be paid within ten (10) business days of receipt by the City of property tax revenues from Hennepin County (the “Payment Dates”), commencing on the first Payment Date on which the City has Available Tax Increment (defined below), or on any other dates determined by the City Finance Director, through the date of last receipt of tax increment from the HRA pursuant to the TIF Plan. (c) Payments on this Current Interfund Loan are payable solely from “Available Tax Increment,” which shall mean, on each Payment Date, tax increment available after other obligations, if any, have been paid for the preceding six (6) months with respect to the Development Property and remitted by Hennepin County, all in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174 to 469.1794, as amended. Payments on this Current Interfund Loan may be subordinated to any outstanding or future bonds, notes or contracts secured in whole or in part with Available Tax Increment, and are on parity with any other outstanding or future interfund loans secured in whole or in part with Available Tax Increment. (d) The principal sum and all accrued interest payable under this Current Interfund Loan are pre-payable in whole or in part at any time by the HRA without premium or penalty. No partial prepayment shall affect the amount or timing of any other regular payment otherwise required to be made under this Current Interfund Loan. (e) This Current Interfund Loan is evidence of a loan in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.178, subdivision 7, and is a limited obligation payable solely from Available Tax Increment pledged to the payment hereof under this resolution. _____________________________ Shepard Harris, Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ Kristine A. Luedke, City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Member and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the Mayor and his signature attested by the City Clerk. Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting October 18, 2016 Agenda Item 3. E. Waiver of Public Hearing and Certification of Special Assessments - 2016 Driveways Prepared By Susan Virnig, Finance Director Summary Agreements have been signed with the property owners regarding total costs and waiving the public hearing pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 429.031. By adopting the resolution it allows the property owner to pay for their driveway improvement over time with their property taxes. This work was done by the contractor for the PMP and was billed at the time of completion of the project. Terms are the same as the 2016 project. Attachments •List of Driveways Assessed in 2016 for 2016 PMP (1 page) •Resolution Waiving the Public Hearing Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 429.031 and Ordering Certification of Special Assessments on Driveways that Involve 2016 City Street Improvements (1 page) Recommended Action Motion to adopt Resolution Waiving the Public Hearing Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 429.031 and Ordering Certification of Special Assessments on Driveways that Involve 2016 City Street Improvements. CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY 2016 PMP DRIVEWAYS LEVY 19431 PID Address Assessment 30-118-21-33-0051 1401 INDEPENDENCE AVE N 3,333.85 30-118-21-33-0077 1400 INDEPENDENCE AVE N 1,415.62 30-118-21-33-0035 1521 INDEPENDENCE AVE N 8,036.35 30-118-21-33-0037 1513 INDEPENDENCE AVE N 2,937.34 15,723.16 Resolution 16-62 October 18, 2016 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION WAIVING THE PUBLIC HEARING PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA STATUTES 429.031 AND ORDERING CERTIFICATION OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS ON PRIVATE DRIVEWAYS THAT INVOLVE 2016 CITY STREET IMPROVEMENTS Project Years Interest Rate First Year Levy Total Assessed 2016 PMP Driveways 10 5%2017 $15,723.16 1. Each individual address (lots) will be assessed the full value of the signed contract with the homeowner for the various driveway improvement(s). 2. The proposed assessments are hereby adopted and confirmed as the proper assessments for each of said property respectively together with interest at the rate of five (5) percent per annum accruing on the full amount thereof unpaid, shall be a lien concurrent with general taxes upon parcel and all thereof. The total amount of each such assessment not prepaid shall be payable in equal annual principal installments extending over a period of 10 years, as indicated in each case. 3. The first of said installments, together with interest on the entire assessment for the period of January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017, will be payable with general taxes for the year of 2016, collectible in 2017, and one of each of the remaining installments, together with one year’s interest on that and all other unpaid installments, will be paid with general taxes for each consecutive year thereafter unless the entire assessment is paid in full by November 15, 2016. 4. The owner may pay off the assessment in full after November 15, 2016 with interest accrued to December 31 of the year in which such payment is made. Such payment must be made before November 15 or interest will be charged through December 31 of the succeeding year. 5. The City Clerk shall, as soon as may be, prepare and transmit to the County Auditor a certified duplicate of the assessment roll, with each installment and interest on each unpaid assessment set forth separately, to be extended upon the proper tax lists of the County and the County Auditor shall thereafter collect said assessment in the manner provided by law. _____________________________ 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. Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting October 18, 2016 Agenda Item 3. F. Waiver of Public Hearing and Certification of Special Assessments - 2016 Sewer Repairs located in the Pavement Management Area Prepared By Sue Virnig, Finance Director Summary Agreements have been signed with the property owners located in the 2016 PMP regarding total costs for sanitary sewer repairs and waiving the public hearing pursuant to Minnesota Statues 429.031. This work has been done by the city contractor for sewer repairs. Attachments •List of Sanitary Sewer Improvements in 2016 PMP (1 page) •Resolution Waiving the Public Hearing Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 429.031 and Ordering Certification of Special Assessments on Private Sanitary Sewer Repairs that involve 2016 Street Improvements (1 page) Recommended Action Motion to adopt Resolution Waiving the Public Hearing Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 429.031 and Ordering Certification of Special Assessments on Private Sanitary Sewer Repairs that involve 2016 Street Improvements. CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY 2016 PMP SANITARY SEWER LEVY 19383 PID Address Assessment 30-118-21-33-0038 1505 Independence Ave N 6,065.00 30-118-21-33-0065 1325 Hillsboro Ave N 4,715.00 30-118-21-33-0066 1321 Hillsboro Ave N 4,230.00 15,010.00 Resolution 16-63 October 18, 2016 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION WAIVING THE PUBLIC HEARING PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA STATUTES 429.031 AND ORDERING CERTIFICATION OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS ON PRIVATE SANITARY SEWER REPAIRS THAT INVOLVE 2016 CITY STREET IMPROVEMENTS Project Years Interest Rate First Year Levy Total Assessed 2016 PMP Sanitary Sewer Repairs 10 5%2017 $15,010.00 1. Each individual address (lots) will be assessed the full value of the signed contract with the homeowner for the various sanitary sewer repair(s). 2. The proposed assessments are hereby adopted and confirmed as the proper assessments for each of said property respectively together with interest at the rate of five (5) percent per annum accruing on the full amount thereof unpaid, shall be a lien concurrent with general taxes upon parcel and all thereof. The total amount of each such assessment not prepaid shall be payable in equal annual principal installments extending over a period of 10 years, as indicated in each case. 3. The first of said installments, together with interest on the entire assessment for the period of January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017, will be payable with general taxes for the year of 2016, collectible in 2017, and one of each of the remaining installments, together with one year’s interest on that and all other unpaid installments, will be paid with general taxes for each consecutive year thereafter unless the entire assessment is paid in full by November 15, 2016. 4. The owner may pay off the assessment in full after November 15, 2016 with interest accrued to December 31 of the year in which such payment is made. Such payment must be made before November 15 or interest will be charged through December 31 of the succeeding year. 5. The City Clerk shall, as soon as may be, prepare and transmit to the County Auditor a certified duplicate of the assessment roll, with each installment and interest on each unpaid assessment set forth separately, to be extended upon the proper tax lists of the County and the County Auditor shall thereafter collect said assessment in the manner provided by law. _____________________________ 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. Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting October 18, 2016 Agenda Item 3. G. Waiver of Public Hearing and Certification of Special Assessments - 2016 Sewer Repairs located in the Douglas Drive Project Area Prepared By Sue Virnig, Finance Director Summary Agreements have been signed with the property owners located in the 2016 Douglas Drive Project Area regarding total costs for sanitary sewer repairs and waiving the public hearing pursuant to Minnesota Statues 429.031. This work has been done by the city contractor for sewer repairs. Attachments •List of Sanitary Sewer Improvements in 2016 Douglas Drive Project Area (1 page) •Resolution Waiving the Public Hearing Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 429.031 and Ordering Certification of Special Assessments on Private Sanitary Sewer Repairs that involve 2016 Douglas Drive Project Area (1 page) Recommended Action Motion to adopt Resolution Waiving the Public Hearing Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 429.031 and Ordering Certification of Special Assessments on Private Sanitary Sewer Repairs that involve 2016 Douglas Drive Project Area. CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY 2016 DOUGLAS DRIVE SANITARY SEWER REPAIR LEVY 19086 PID Address Assessment 28-118-21-23-0045 2020 Douglas Drive 9,325.00 28-118-21-22-0004 2400 Douglas Drive 7,345.00 16,670.00 Resolution 16-64 October 18, 2016 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION WAIVING THE PUBLIC HEARING PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA STATUTES 429.031 AND ORDERING CERTIFICATION OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS ON PRIVATE SANITARY SEWER REPAIRS THAT INVOLVE 2016 DOUGLAS DRIVE PROJECT AREA Project Years Interest Rate First Year Levy Total Assessed 2016 PMP Sanitary Sewer Repairs 10 5%2017 $16,670.00 1. Each individual address (lots) will be assessed the full value of the signed contract with the homeowner for the various sanitary sewer repair(s). 2. The proposed assessments are hereby adopted and confirmed as the proper assessments for each of said property respectively together with interest at the rate of five (5) percent per annum accruing on the full amount thereof unpaid, shall be a lien concurrent with general taxes upon parcel and all thereof. The total amount of each such assessment not prepaid shall be payable in equal annual principal installments extending over a period of 10 years, as indicated in each case. 3. The first of said installments, together with interest on the entire assessment for the period of January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017, will be payable with general taxes for the year of 2016, collectible in 2017, and one of each of the remaining installments, together with one year’s interest on that and all other unpaid installments, will be paid with general taxes for each consecutive year thereafter unless the entire assessment is paid in full by November 15, 2016. 4. The owner may pay off the assessment in full after November 15, 2016 with interest accrued to December 31 of the year in which such payment is made. Such payment must be made before November 15 or interest will be charged through December 31 of the succeeding year. 5. The City Clerk shall, as soon as may be, prepare and transmit to the County Auditor a certified duplicate of the assessment roll, with each installment and interest on each unpaid assessment set forth separately, to be extended upon the proper tax lists of the County and the County Auditor shall thereafter collect said assessment in the manner provided by law. _____________________________ 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. Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting October 18, 2016 Agenda Item 3. H. Approval of Amended Public Purpose Expenditure Policy Prepared By Chantell Knauss, Assistant City Manager Summary The City’s Public Purpose Expenditure Policy was originally put into effect on December 21, 2004. State law requires public entities have a policy that identifies items such as employee recognition programs and awards, travel, meals, etc. that public funds are authorized to be spent. With the lack of availability of some of the service award items and changes in some of the programs, staff wanted to take this opportunity to review this policy and suggest revisions that would better reflect current practices and ease of administration. After discussing proposed revisions at their Council/Manager Meeting on October 13, 2016, staff was directed to place the revised policy on the City Council Agenda for consideration. Attachments •Resolution Adopting Amended Public Purpose Expenditure Policy (5 pages) Recommended Action Motion to adopt Resolution Adopting Amended Public Purpose Expenditure Policy. Resolution 16-65 October 18, 2016 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ADOPTING AMENDED PUBLIC PURPOSE EXPENDITURE POLICY WHEREAS, the City expenditures are made in accordance with explicit or implied authority as established in Minnesota State Statutes and as authorized by the City Council through the adoption of the City of Golden Valley’s annual budget; and WHEREAS, the City Council believes the benefits of attracting, retaining and motivating employees through programs that supports employee job satisfaction result in excellence in customer service and thereby serves the interests of the citizens and customers of the City of Golden Valley; and WHEREAS, the City Council recognizes the dedication and service performed by the employees and volunteers of the City of Golden Valley; and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution 04-87 on December 21, 2004 and staff is suggesting revisions to the policy due to the lack of availability of some service award items and changes in some of the programs; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Golden Valley hereby adopts the Amended Public Purpose Expenditure Policy which formalizes the recognition of its volunteers and employees as set forth in Exhibit A. _____________________________ 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. Resolution 16-65 -2- October 18, 2016 Exhibit A Policy The City of Golden Valley requires that all expenditures be valid based upon the public purpose for which it is purchased and the specific or implied authority for the expenditure found in Minnesota State Statutes and as authorized as part of the City of Golden Valley’s annual budget. Employee Recognition Program The Golden Valley City Council recognizes the hard work and service performed by employees of the City of Golden Valley through a recognition program. The City Council believes the benefits of attracting, retaining and motivating employees through an Employee Recognition Program supports employee job satisfaction, which in turn impacts cooperation and productivity. The result is to provide excellent public and customer service to better serve the interests of the citizens of the community. The Employee Recognition Program is considered “additional compensation” for work performed by employees and is entirely dependent on receiving funding from year-to-year. No provisions of this policy, or its administration, shall be subject to review under the grievance or arbitration provisions of any collective bargaining agreement and/or the City of Golden Valley Employee Handbook. The Program will include: 1. New employees will receive a City of Golden Valley pin. 2. Employees reaching 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35 & 40 years of service will receive a certificate thanking them for their dedicated years of service to the Community. In addition to the certificate the employee shall receive the following: 5 years of service:$ 25 service award 10 years of service:$ 50 service award 15 years of service:$ 75 service award 20 years of service:$100 service award 25 years of service:$200 service award 30 years of service:$300 service award 35 years of service:$400 service award 40 years of service:$500 service award Employee service awards will be given only after the employee’s anniversary date has passed. In accordance with IRS regulations, service awards are considered compensation and must be reported as income on the employee’s W-2. Resolution 16-65 -3- October 18, 2016 3. Annually, the City will sponsor Employee Appreciation events at which employees reaching the above service anniversary milestones will be recognized. The City Manager and Department Heads may also recognize City, departmental and individual accomplishments at these events. Members of the City Council will be invited to attend. 4. The City supports other events that are planned and paid for by employees. Examples of such events include outings such as employee golf and bowling events. The cost of the Employee Recognition Program will be included as a separate line item in the City of Golden Valley City Manager Department Budget. This line-item will be adopted annually by the City Council as part of the overall budget approval process which includes a public hearing on the proposed budget. Employee Committee A committee representing various City departments may be formed to plan the Employee Appreciation Events. Representatives may be appointed by the City Manager or Department Heads and shall serve one year terms. Permanent committee members will include the Finance Director and Human Resources. The committee may also plan additional employee-paid events at their discretion. Resignations The City may sponsor refreshments (up to $50) for employees who have completed probation and resign in good standing. Retirements Employees who are eligible to: A) Receive a retirement annuity from a Minnesota Public Pension Plan, other than a Paid, On-call Firefighter plan; or B) Receive a disability benefit from a Minnesota Public Pension Plan, other than a Paid, On-call, Firefighter plan; Employees having met criteria A or B, above, are eligible to receive the following retirement check amounts: •10 - 14 years of service $300 and an award of the employee’s selection from City provided options, up to a value of $50 •15 - 20 years of service $400 and an award of the employee’s selection from City provided options, up to a value of $100 •21+ years of service $500 and an award of the employee’s selection from City provided options, up to a value of $150 Employee retirement check amounts will be given only after the employee’s retirement from the City. In accordance with IRS regulations, retirement check amounts are considered compensation and must be reported as income on the employee’s W-2. Resolution 16-65 -4- October 18, 2016 All employees that have met either criteria A or B, above, will receive a personalized City of Golden Valley street sign. The City may sponsor refreshments (up to $125) for retiring employees. Any additional retirement food or activities will be employee-paid. Meeting Food/Meals The City Council recognizes that situations in which City business needs to be discussed can and do occur during meal hours (i.e. luncheon or dinner meetings). In addition, there are public and employee meetings and events in which reasonable refreshments may add to the success of the meeting and/or event and create a more productive work force. The following items are deemed to meet the Council definition of public purpose expenditures in regards to food and meals: •Food and refreshments are allowed at City meetings and events that have a purpose of discussing City business. These meetings would normally have a pre-planned agenda. •Food and refreshments are allowed at employee meetings and events that have a purpose of discussing City business or are a part of an employee training. These meetings would also normally have a pre-planned agenda. This does not include routine staff meetings and regular training activities held at the employee’s regular worksite and which provide time for the employee to take their regular breaks. •Food and refreshments are allowed when they are part of a breakfast/lunch/dinner meeting for official City business when it is the only practical time to meet. Usually these meals involve official meetings with the City Council, Council committees, Boards/Commissions, Committees, taskforces, or local business/fraternal organizations. •Authorized travel expenses for employees are outlined in the City of Golden Valley Employee Handbook. Meals that are included as part of the registration cost for any workshop/training/seminar/conference will not be reimbursed. The cost of travel expenses is included in the departments’ travel/conferences line-item in the City of Golden Valley Budget. No purchase or reimbursement of alcoholic beverages is allowed. Membership and Dues The City Council has determined that the City will fund memberships and dues in professional organizations and City social and community organizations when the purpose is to promote, advertise, improve or develop the City’s resources and advantages and not for personal interest or gain. The cost of memberships/dues is included in the departments’ memberships/dues line-item in the City of Golden Valley Budget. These line-items are approved annually by the City Resolution 16-65 -5- October 18, 2016 Council as a part of the overall budget approval process which includes a public hearing on the proposed budget. Recognition of Commissioners Individuals who leave after multiple terms of service as a member of a standing Commission, Board or Committee shall receive: 5 - 8 years of service - small inscribed award 9 - 17 years of service - medium inscribed award 18 + years of service - large inscribed award The award will be distributed at the Board/Commission Recognition Dinner. However, under special circumstances, the service anniversary milestones may be noted at a Council Meeting or a Board/Commission meeting. Annually, the City will sponsor a Board/Commission Recognition Dinner at which Commission, Board and Committee members and one guest per member are invited to attend. Also, members of task forces or other special boards may be invited to attend the Board/Commission Recognition Dinner, along with their one guest per member. Recognition of Council Members Individuals who leave after serving as a Council Member shall receive a large engraved award. Council Members will also receive a personalized City of Golden Valley street sign. Upon completion of service as Mayor and/or Housing and Redevelopment Chair, the City will provide an inscribed gavel plaque. The City will sponsor refreshments for the Mayor and/or Council Members at the swearing in/first seating of the Council and as these members leave office. The City may also sponsor additional food for Council Members and/or the Mayor, under special circumstances as authorized by the City Manager. All items within this Policy are line-items subject to approval annually by the City Council as part of the overall budget adoption process which includes a public hearing on the proposed budget. *The terms City Council Members, Council Members, and Council applies to the Mayor and Council Members collectively. Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting October 18, 2016 Agenda Item 4. A. Public Hearing to Vacate Easements at 5301 Woodstock Avenue Prepared By Marc Nevinski, Physical Development Director Eric Eckman, Public Works Specialist Summary In preparing to sell the subject property, the owner discovered that their attached garage was constructed over an existing utility and drainage easement dedicated in the plat of Clover Leaf Terrace 2 nd Addition. The easement extends across Lots 3 and 4 in Block 2 of the plat. The house and attached garage was constructed in 1960 and a portion of Lot 3 was combined with Lot 4 around 1979. It appears the easement in question was not vacated at the time of construction or lot combination. The property owner would like to rectify this situation so the property may be sold, and has requested that the City vacate the easement accordingly. A notice of public hearing regarding the proposed easement vacation was published and posted and letters were sent to the affected property owners along with the proposed resolution. Staff sent a letter to all private utility companies requesting their review and comment. Since the easements are not adjacent to public waters, Notice to the Commissioner of Natural Resources is not required. There has been no objection to this easement vacation. Consideration of this easement vacation was supported by resolution of the City Council at their meeting on September 20, 2016, and therefore in accordance with state statutes requires a four-fifths majority vote in favor of the resolution. Attachments •Location Map (1 page) •Easement Vacation Exhibit (1 page) •Resolution Vacating Easements in the Plat of Clover Leaf Terrace 2 nd Addition (5301 Woodstock Avenue) (1 page) Recommended Action Motion to adopt Resolution Vacating Easements in the Plat of Clover Leaf Terrace 2 nd Addition (5301 Woodstock Avenue). t, r • 111 avivriTiT: M mi ! ATIrrm f i 4 Owl 9 9 9 9 9 9 99 7 5 DOC NO 3013962 30 60 134.62 80 3 0 DOC NO 6957782 /\ = 2 2 ° 4 0 ' 100 352.53 7 5 30 DOC NO 3053542 105 100.38 S44°36'E 2 7 2 .0 3 2 0 0 S 0 °4 4 'W 1 2 5 100 R = 1 2 9 . 7 5 54 45 4 .6 5 S8 9 °1 6 'E 3 0 159.96 3 0 C L O V E R L A (22) (54) (40) (55) (23) (32) (39)(44) (45) 5 6 2 6 7 3 4 1 1 1 0 27.38 118.81 7 3 .1 9 3 2 . 4 7 5 1 2 5 .1 4 R=25 6 0 122.6 3 9 . 9 7 120 6 5 1 5 0 80 (PLAT 52.03) 7 8 . 9 2 1 0 5 46 1 0 0 R =7 0 1 2 5 1 0 5 1 0 5 124.37 158.88 125 C l o v e r L n L i l a c D r N Woodstock Ave I 0 40 8020Feet Easement VacationExhibit Print Date: 10/11/2016Sources:-Hennepin County Surveyors Office for Property Lines (2016) & Aerial Photography (2015).-City of Golden Valley for all other layers. Vacate E asement Resolution 16-66 October 18, 2016 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION VACATING EASEMENTS IN THE PLAT OF CLOVER LEAF TERRACE 2 ND ADDITION (5301 WOODSTOCK AVENUE) WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Golden Valley, pursuant to due notice, has heretofore conducted a public hearing on the vacation of certain utility and drainage easements dedicated in the recorded plat of Clover Leaf Terrace 2 nd Addition, located in the property legally described as follows: Lot 4 and the East 46 feet of Lot 3, Block 2, Clover Leaf Terrace 2 nd Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota (the “Subject Property”). WHEREAS, all persons present were given the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, a house with an attached garage was constructed on the Subject Property in 1960. WHEREAS, the east 46 feet of Lot 3 was combined with Lot 4 upon approval by the City in 1979; and WHEREAS, the utility and drainage easements within the Subject Property were not vacated at the time of construction or lot combination; and WHEREAS, the City has evaluated its interest and use of the property; and WHEREAS, the Council has determined that the vacation will benefit the public interest because the vacation is predicted to foster economic growth in the City of Golden Valley and, on a greater scale, the State of Minnesota benefits by the projected measurable increase in tax revenue and general prosperity. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Golden Valley that said easement located in the Subject Property legally described below be vacated: The east 5.00 feet of said Lot 3, Block 2, except the south 20.00 feet thereof; and The west 5.00 feet of said Lot 4, Block 2. __________________________ 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. Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting October 18, 2016 Agenda Item 6. A. Presentation of 2016 Residential Survey - The Morris Leatherman Company Prepared By Cheryl Weiler, Communications Manager Summary The Council hired The Morris Leatherman Company to conduct a random telephone survey of 400 Golden Valley residents in August 2016. Bill Morris of The Morris Leatherman Company will be at the Council meeting to provide an overview of the survey results. Attachments •Executive Summary 2016 City of Golden Valley - The Morris Leatherman Company (33 pages) Recommended Action Motion to receive and file The Morris Leatherman Company City of Golden Valley Residential Survey - Final July 2016. The Morris Leatherman Company E x e c u tiv e S u m m a ry 2016 City of Golden Valley City Demographics: Golden Valley continues to maintain the characteristics of both a mature, generally stable community combined with a significant element of transience, particularly among a segment of younger renters. The median longevity of adult residents is 15.7 years. Thirty-five percent of the sample report moving to the city during the past ten years, while 38% have lived there for over two decades. In looking toward the future, the typical resident expects to remain in the community for at least another ten years if not for the rest of their life, while nine percent envision leaving within the next five years. Thirty-nine percent of the households have individuals at least 55 years old; in fact, 31% of the households are composed entirely of over 55 year olds. Twenty-seven percent of the households with seniors in residence report participation in senior programs offered by the City of Golden Valley. Virtually all of the participants rate their experiences positively and a 12% group would like to see the City offer “card leagues.” Twenty-seven percent of the households possess school-aged children and/or pre-schoolers. Seventy-six percent own their current residences, whereas 24% rent. The average age of respondents is 49.7 years old. Twenty percent of the sample fall into the 18- 34 year age range, with 21% 65 years old or older. Residents are classified according to the precinct in which they live. Twenty-seven percent reside in Precincts 1 or 2; twenty-three percent in Precincts 3 or 4; twenty-five percent in Precincts 5 or 6; and, 26% in Precincts 7 and 8. Women outnumber men by four percent in the sample. Quality of Life Issues: A solid 98% again rate the quality of life as either “excellent” or “good;” forty-eight percent rating it as “excellent.” A very small two percent post “only fair” ratings. Positive ratings, then, held fairly constant during the ten-year period. In thinking about “high quality” aspects of Golden Valley, 34% point to “housing/ neighborhoods,” while 17% cite its “people.” “City government and services” or “schools” are critical to 13%, and “natural areas and open spaces” is key to 10%. The Morris Leatherman Company August 2016 In discussing “low quality” aspects of the city, eight percent are unable to respond to the query. Thirty-nine percent are “enthusiasts” — residents who see no “low quality” aspects of the community; this enthusiasm level, while still much higher than the suburban norm, dropped 15% in three years. “Streets” tops the list at 15%, followed by “low income housing,” at 14%. In considering serious issues facing the city, 14% point to “high taxes,” consistent with the 2013 study. “Growing diversity” follows at eight percent. “Rising crime” and “too much growth” are each posted by seven percent. Twenty-seven percent see no serous issues facing the community, down five percent in three years. This “booster” level is four times higher than the Metropolitan Area suburban norm. Eighty-eight percent feel the city is moving in the “right direction,” and nine percent think it is going “off on the wrong track.” Once again, residents endorse the direction of the city and its recent policies. City Government and Staff: Seventy-one percent, an 11% decrease since 2013, feel they could have an impact on the way things are run in Golden Valley; twenty-three percent think they could not. Overall, this level of empowerment remains above the suburban area norm. Fifty-nine percent report having a “great deal” or “fair amount” of knowledge about the work of the Mayor and City Council. Eighty-five percent either “strongly approve” or “approve” of their job, while 11% register disapproval. Positive ratings are based upon the perception of a “good job,” “lack of city problems,” and “listens to residents;” critics point to an “unwillingness to listen” and “disagreement with City Council spending decisions.” Fifty-two percent report having contact with the Golden Valley City Staff; this level of contact is six percent higher than the 2013 study. Eighty-seven percent rate the staff as “excellent” or “good,” while only eight percent rate them critically, relatively unchanged from the 2013 level. Positive evaluations are based on the perception of a “good job,” “helpfulness,” “good listeners,” and “lack of problems in the community;” negative judgments are based upon perceptions of “poor spending.” By a 67%-18% majority, residents favor changing from the current odd-numbered year city elections to even-numbered years. There were no “strong opponents” of this change. Community Characteristics: When considering a list of 15 characteristics of a community, majorities think the City of Golden Valley has “about the right number or amount” of fourteen. “Affordable rental units” is the only 2 The Morris Leatherman Company August, 2016 one where “about right” dropped to 49%. Five characteristics are viewed by 25% or more respondents as “too few or little” in the city. These five characteristics include: “affordable housing, defined as a single family home costing less than $160,250,” at 31%; “starter homes for young families,” at 30%; “entertainment establishments, such as movie theaters and night clubs,” at 28%; “assisted living for seniors,” at 26%; and, “one level housing for seniors maintained by an association,” at 25%. Three other characteristics are viewed by over 20% as “too much or two many:” “luxury high amenity rental units,” at 21%; “affordable rental units,” at 20%; and, “executive high-end housing,” at 20%. City Services: On the issues of property taxes and city services, residents are trending toward a more supportive approach to maintain highly-rated services. They split — 60%-35% — in support of an increase in their property taxes if it were needed to maintain city services at their current levels; in 2006, residents split against a property tax increase by a 43% to 36% margin, and in 2013, residents favored a property tax increase by a 53%-39% majority. Even so, 62% rate the city portion of their property taxes as either “very high” or “somewhat high” in comparison with nearby suburbs; thirty-three percent see them as “about average.” Ninety-two percent, an increase of eight percent in three years, think they receive either an “excellent” or a “good” value for the property taxes they pay. City services evaluations are very positive. Police protection, fire protection, recycling service, storm drainage and flood control, park maintenance, city recreation facilities, city-sponsored recreation programs, animal control, communications, street lighting, quality of city drinking water, dependability of city drinking water, quality of sanitary sewer service, dependability of sanitary sewer service, and snow plowing receive approval ratings of ninety percent or higher. Only Neighborhood Watch programs and city street repair and maintenance post positive ratings under 90% – for Neighborhood Watch programs, its positive rating is 82%; and, for street repair and maintenance, the positive rating is 84%, which is still almost 40% higher than the Metropolitan Area suburban norm. Critics of the Neighborhood Watch programs focus on the “need for more programs,” while critics of city street repair and maintenance point to “poor street repair.” Overall, though, the consistency and magnitude of the positive ratings of Golden Valley city services remains at the top of the Metropolitan Area. Forty-nine percent would prioritize funding directed toward “maintaining and improving infrastructure, such as roads, water and sewers.” Eighteen percent would prioritize “creating community connections, such as neighborhood associations and community events,” while 15% urge “improving public safety.” Sixty-two percent are “concerned” about the aging infrastructure in the City of Golden Valley; 3 The Morris Leatherman Company August, 2016 of those concerned, most express a moderate level of anxiety. By an 88%-13% majority, residents support using property taxes or fees to repair or replace city roads. By an 80%-20% majority, they feel the same way about repair or replacement of city water and sewer pipes. By a 77%-23% majority, residents would support a project focused on sidewalks and trails. And, by a 68%-33% verdict, they support repairing or replacing city buildings and facilities. Economic Development: Ninety-three percent, a 12% increase in three years, rate general economic development in the community as either “excellent” or “good.” Only six percent are more critical in their evaluations. Ninety percent favorably rate the city’s efforts to attract new businesses, an eight percent increase since the 2013 study; only six percent post negative ratings. Three types of development are sought by moderate-sized groups in the community: “big-box retail,” at 13%; “restaurants,” at 12%; and, “assisted living facilities,” at 11%. Fifteen percent also state there are “no types” of development they would particularly like to see in the city. Only one type of development is strongly opposed by moderate-sized groups in the city: “apartments,” at 15%. Twenty-six percent report there are “no types” of development they would strongly oppose. Ninety-seven percent rate the general condition and appearance of industrial and commercial properties as either “excellent” or “good;” only four percent rate them as “only fair” or “poor.” The positive rating jumped 25% in ten years. By a solid 66%-21% majority, residents support the recent changes to limit the subdividing of current residential lots. Environmental Issues: Moderate percentages of respondents point to five environmental issues as “most important” to be addressed in the City of Golden Valley: “air pollution,” at 15%; “litter,” at 14%; “lawn chemical run-off,” at 10%; “water quality in lakes and ponds,” at nine percent; and, “quality of drinking water,” at seven percent. But, 18% think there are no important environmental issues currently needing to be addressed. Eighty-six percent rate the water quality of lakes, rivers, streams and wetlands in the community as either “excellent” or “good;” thirteen percent rate it lower. Fifty-four percent report they are at least “somewhat concerned” about invasive species in the city; only ten percent, though, are “very concerned.” Respondents were informed some communities in the Metro Area have approved ordinances 4 The Morris Leatherman Company August, 2016 encouraging the reduction of plastic bag use either by charging fees in stores or a complete plastic bag ban. By a solid 64%-30% majority, residents support the City of Golden Valley doing something similar; intense support proves twice as high as intense opposition to policies like this. Transportation Issues: Fifty-two percent leave Golden Valley on a regular or daily basis. Twenty-seven percent do not leave the community on a regular basis, while 22% are currently unemployed or retired. Among the group leaving on a regular or daily basis, 87% report they normally drive alone while commuting to work while 11% van or car pool. Ninety-three percent rate the ease of getting from place to place within the City of Golden Valley favorably; eight percent are more critical. Twenty-eight percent have used public transportation during the past two years, a ten percent increase in three years; ninety-four percent rate their experience favorably, while six percent hold the opposite view. Public transportation non-users indicate one overwhelming reason for their choice: seventy-nine percent just “prefer to drive.” When told about the Metro Blue Line Light Rail Line plans connecting Downtown Minneapolis to Brooklyn Park, with a stop near Theodore Wirth Park, 23% report they or household members are at least “somewhat likely” to use this option when opened in 2021. Projected use by Golden Valley residents is only seven percent of city households. They are almost equally likely to get to the Light Rail Station by walking, biking, being dropped off, or using a park and ride lot. If bus rapid transit were available along Highway 55, 30% of Golden Valley households are either “very likely” or “somewhat likely” to use this service; standard market projection techniques estimate nine percent of the households in the city would be actual riders. Respondents were reminded two years ago the City passed a winter parking ordinance, restricting parking on city streets from midnight to 6 AM from November 1 through March 31 . st st By a 64%-32% majority, residents favor changing the ordinance to restrict parking from 2 AM to 6 AM during Winter months. Public Safety Issues: Thirty-two percent, almost a three-fold increase in three years, report there are members of their households who would consider becoming a firefighter in the city; perceived barriers for the lack of potential participation are “age or health issues,” at 39%, and “no interest,” at 45%. Seventy-nine percent think the current response time of around eight minutes to a fire call of the Golden Valley Fire Department is “acceptable;” of the 17% not finding the average response 5 The Morris Leatherman Company August, 2016 time acceptable, 72% would support a property tax increase to reduce that time. The three most-often offered one-word perceptions of the Golden Valley Police Department are “excellent,” “good” and “helpful.” Eighty-four percent report awareness of the Police Department’s community programs, such as Night to Unite, Police in the Parks, the Citizen’s Academy, GVPD University, and open houses. Forty percent of the sample had contact with the Department through its community programs during the past year, and 97% rate the experience favorably. Twenty-six percent report other contacts with the Police Department in the past two years. Among these contacts, 42% were for traffic violations, 36% were for emergency services, and 18% were for the investigation of a crime. Eighty-nine percent rate the way the Police Department handled these situations as either “excellent” or “good;” eleven percent were more critical. Ninety percent say the time it took the Police Department to respond was “prompt.” And, 89% say the Police Department personnel were courteous and acted in a professional manner. The best ways for residents to receive information and updates from the Police Department include: “mailings,” at 33%; “e-mail,” at 23%; and the “City Newsletter,” at 19%. Ninety-four percent think there is “about the right amount” of police patrolling in their residential neighborhood. Only five percent see it as “not enough.” There are two public safety problems which residents feel concerned about: “juvenile crime,” at 20%; and, “traffic safety,” at 14%. But, at the same time, 21% do not see any public safety problems as critical in the community. Waste Disposal Issues: Fifty-five percent, down ten percent in three years, participated in the City Brush Pick-Up, Leaf Drop, or Mighty Tidy Day programs; all participants rate these services highly. Seventy-seven percent label these programs as at least “somewhat important” to their households; in fact, 29% say they are “very important.” Forty-two percent report currently using the curbside pick-up of yard waste and small brush service; another 22% are “very interested” in using this service in the future. Twenty-six percent are currently using the curbside pick-up of composting organics service; this time another 26% are “very interested” in using the service in the future. Twenty percent avail themselves of the yard waste drop-off site; twenty-eight percent are “very interested” in future use. Thirteen percent currently use the dirt and mulch pick-up service; another 26%, though, are “very interested” in future use. Reversing the 54%-39% majority of respondents opposed to organized garbage collection three years ago, residents currently support the change by a 51%-38% majority. Supporters cite three reasons for their position: “less truck traffic,” “cheaper,” and “less road maintenance.” 6 The Morris Leatherman Company August, 2016 Opponents base their decision on “liking their current hauler,” “cheaper,” or “want to choose.” In assessing organized versus open garbage collection systems, pluralities or majorities think an open garbage collection does a better job in “cost for garbage collection” and “customer service,” while pluralities or majorities consider an organized collection does a better job in “cost for street maintenance and upkeep” or “pollution from trucks.” Parks and Recreation: Usage of the various components of the park system vary markedly. During the past year, 72% used the city’s trails. Sixty-seven percent of the households used community parks and/or neighborhood parks, down eight percent in three years, and an identical 67% used open spaces and natural areas. Thirty-nine percent report attending summer concerts and special events, while 32% visited the Brookview Golf Course and Lawnbowling. Twenty-nine percent used the community athletic fields, 28% used on-street bike routes and shoulders, and 27% used the Brookview Park Picnic Shelters. Twenty-three percent visited the Brookview Community Center and 21% visited the David Community Center at Meadowbrook School. Only 14% used outdoor ice rinks, while 13% used City tennis courts. Ninety-five percent of the users of city sidewalks, trails, bike routes and shoulders report walking or running there, 36% recreational bike there, 20% fitness train, and 18% commute there. Ninety-five percent rate the city’s trails and sidewalks system favorably; only five percent are more critical in their evaluations. The very small group of negative respondents focus on the “lack of enough sidewalks.” If sidewalks in their neighborhood were connected, 20% are “much more likely” to walk or bicycle to where they needed to go and 51% are “somewhat more likely” to do so. Residents provide super-majorities in favor of using city funds for three parks and recreation purposes. By a 72%-27% majority, residents support the use of city funding for city gardens. By a 69%-30%, residents similarly endorse the use of city funds for off-street trails. And, by a 67%-30% split, residents would approve city funds to be used for an off-leash dog area. Two more projects are favored by majorities. By a 55%-38% split, residents assent to the use of city funds for a central community pedestrian plaza replacing Winnetka Avenue near the Creek and Library. And, by a 54%-46% margin, they support city funding for bicycle boulevards on neighborhood streets where pedestrians, bikes and motor vehicles share the road. Two projects, however, are opposed by majorities. By a 54%-45% split, residents oppose the use of city funds for on-street bicycle lanes. And, by a 58%-41% majority, they oppose city funds used for tennis courts. 7 The Morris Leatherman Company September, 2016 In discussing the future of city tennis courts, respondents were told most were built in the 1970's and 1980's, can no longer be maintained for safe use, and would require complete reconstruction. They were also informed the City maintains and operate significantly more tennis courts than most neighboring communities. Thirty-six percent support “reconstruct(ing) courts only needed for community tennis programs,” while 32% opt for “reduc(ing) the number of tennis courts and reconstruct(ing) them.” Sixteen percent suggest “do not replace any of the tennis courts,” while eight percent urge “fund(ing) the replacement of all current tessis court facilities.” Thirty-four percent of the sample, five percent higher than the 2013 study and 14% higher than the 2006 study, report household members participated in City park and recreation programs. The most popular programs are “softball/baseball,” “summer programs,” “arts/crafts/hobby,” and “fitness.” Satisfaction with the offerings remains virtually unanimous. Ninety-nine percent view the current mix of City park and recreation programming as meeting the needs of their households. Fifty-four percent say household members currently leave the city for park and recreational facilities and activities elsewhere; this level is 20% higher than the 2013 level. The most popular reason is for “lakes/boating,” at 28%, followed by “parks,” at seven percent, and “walking trails” or “golf courses,” at six percent each. This level of recreational “leakage” to other communities is about ten percent higher than the suburban norm. Communications Issues: The City Newsletter is regarded as the principal source of information about Golden Valley City Government and its activities by 56%. The City website and local newspapers follow, at 12% and 13%, respectively. Forty-eight percent prefer to receive information about City Government and its activities through the city’s newsletter. Thirteen percent prefer the City website, and 12% point to local newspapers. In assessing the reach of various communications channels, the “Golden Valley City News” newsletter registers a high reach of 82%, but eight percent lower than the 2013 level. Only 84%, down 11% in three years, of those receiving the city newsletter report regularly reading it. Ninety-five percent rate the content of the newsletter highly, while 94% rate the format and appearance of the newsletter favorably. Regular reads suggest the need for both “more detail” and “more budget information.” Seventy-six percent receive and read the “New Hope/Golden Valley Sun Post” newspaper. Forty-two percent read the city legal notices printed there. But, if they could choose, 47% would prefer to receive city legal notices in the newsletter, 20% in the newspaper, and 18% through e- mail. 8 The Morris Leatherman Company September, 2016 Forty-nine percent, down 12% since the 2013 study, of the surveyed households currently receive cable television. Among cable television subscribers, 31% “frequently” or “occasionally” watch Golden Valley City Council Meeting live or taped telecasts during the past year; this level of viewership is down 14% in three years. Thirty-three percent, also down 14%, report watching the Community Bulletin Board during the past year. Thirty-four percent at least “occasionally” tune in to city programming, such as the State of the City, Mayor Minutes and city videos. Seventy-four percent report having access to the Internet from home or at work. In fact, 72% have access from their homes. Sixty-three percent of home or work Internet users report accessing the City’s website – translating to 47% of the households across the community. The typical website visitor rates it as either “excellent” or “good” and is able to find what he/she is looking for. While 65% of Internet-equipped residents, up 10% in three years, are aware the City is webstreaming city meetings and programs on the city’s web site, 25%, also a 10% increase, actually viewed a city meeting or program there. Similarly, while 65%, up 11% since the 2013 study, are aware the city provides e-mail updates to residents who subscribe to the “GV Direct Connect” service, only 19% have subscribed to that service. Both Facebook and YouTube already have large user pools, at 78% and 53%, respectively. In both cases, moderately large pools of current users would be likely to use them for obtaining information about the community. Twitter is a secondary social medium for this purpose. Conclusions: 1. Once again, Golden Valley citizens remain very pleased with their community — city services, City Staff and City Council. The dramatic increase in city service ratings, noted in the 2013 study, has been reinforced in this study. There are no major declines in service ratings, indicating the 2013 changes were not a fluke but a significant and sustainable change. Community identity and neighborliness still remain at remarkably high levels for an inner-ring suburban community. In fact, 39% think there is nothing “low quality” in the community. “Boosterism,” while registering a slight retreat from three years ago, is over one-quarter of the sample and three times higher than the suburban norm. Residential views of City government continue to rank among the top four or five cities in the Metropolitan Area. Confidence in the future, which was very shaky in the 2006 study, is maintaining high levels of stability. 2. The property tax climate has become more hostile during the past three years. In fact, at 14%, it leads the list of “most serious” issues facing the community. But, residents are not reflexively anti-tax. They almost unanimously see “excellent” or “good” value in the taxes they 9 The Morris Leatherman Company September, 2016 pay for high quality city services, and they would support a property tax to maintain city services at current levels. Respondents also support the use of property taxes or fees to repair or replace aging infrastructure, such as city roads, water and sewer pipes, sidewalks and trails, and city buildings and facilities. And, in considering parks and recreational facilities, residents also overwhelmingly support city funding of community gardens, an off-leash dog area, and off- street trails. 3. The City needs to reassess its communications system with residents. The “Golden Valley News” dropped by 17% in three years. The reach of cable television also declined by 12% during the same time period; among cable television subscribers, viewing of programs on the Government Channel dropped by an average of 10%. Use of the City website dropped by a small four percent since the 2013 study; part of the loss in cable viewing of City Council meetings may be attributed to an increase in web-streaming those telecasts. To augment the reach of the current communications system, the City may wish to more broadly advertise its presence on Facebook and YouTube. 4. Significant majorities favor the City taking further action on several fronts. These include: •Reducing the average fire call response time, even if a property tax increase were required. •Continuing dialogues with residents in preparation for a change to an organized system of garbage collection. •Either charging fees in stores for the use of plastic bags or banning their use outright. •Reducing the number of city-maintained and city-operated tennis courts and reconstructing only those chosen for continued operation. •Changing to even-numbered years for city elections. In 2016, because of sound policies and well-defined plans for the future, many residents of the City of Golden Valley continue to be enthusiastic about their community. They feel informed, empowered, and confident. But, certain mid-course corrections or changes, particularly in communications, may be needed to continue, and even strengthen, that linkage. This will become even more critical in the future as the City confronts issues of a more Metropolitan nature. Sustaining the current high level of trust among the citizenry will allow decision-makers to make tough judgment calls based upon a solid foundation of popular consent. 10 The Morris Leatherman Company September, 2016 Methodology: This study contains the results of a sample of 400 randomly selected adult residents residing in the City of Golden Valley. Professional interviewers conducted the survey by telephone between July 26 and August 9 , 2016. The typical respondent took twenty-eight minutes tothth complete the questionnaire. The results of the study are projectable to all adult Golden Valley residents within ± 5.0 % in 95 out of 100 cases. 11 1 THE MORRIS LEATHERMAN COMPANY City of Golden Valley 3128 Dean Court Residential Survey Minneapolis, Minnesota 55416 FINAL JULY 2016 Hello, I'm ________ of the Morris Leatherman Company, a polling firm located in Minneapolis. We have been retained by the City of Golden Valley to speak with a random sample of residents about issues facing the community. This survey is being conducted because the City Council and City Staff are interested in your opinions and suggestions about current and future city needs. I want to assure you that all individual responses will be held strictly confidential; only summaries of the entire sample will be reported. 1. Approximately how many years have LESS THAN TWO YEARS....5% you lived in Golden Valley? TWO TO FIVE YEARS.....11% FIVE TO TEN YEARS.....19% TEN TO TWENTY YEARS...27% 20 TO 30 YEARS........17% OVER THIRTY YEARS.....21% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....0% 2. As things now stand, how long in LESS THAN TWO YEARS....2% the future do you expect to TWO TO FIVE YEARS......7% live in Golden Valley? FIVE TO TEN YEARS......8% OVER TEN YEARS........21% REST OF LIFE..........58% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....5% 3. How would you rate the quality of EXCELLENT.............48% life in Golden Valley -- excel- GOOD..................50% lent, good, only fair, or poor? ONLY FAIR..............2% POOR...................0% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....0% Many people talk about "quality" these days. They might say something is "high quality" or "low quality." I'd like you to think about the City of Golden Valley for a moment. 4. When you think about this community, DON’T KNOW/REFUSED.....0% what comes to mind, if anything, as NOTHING................2% being "high quality?" HOUSING/NEIGHBORHOOD..34% CITY GOVT/SERVICES....13% SCHOOLS...............13% PARKS AND TRAILS.......8% PEOPLE................17% NATURAL/OPEN SPACES...10% SCATTERED..............3% 2 5. And, when you think about this com- UNSURE.................8% munity, what comes to mind, if any- NOTHING...............39% thing, as being "low quality?" CITY COUNCIL/GOVT......2% STREETS...............15% JOB MARKET.............7% ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT...5% SCHOOLS................4% LOW INCOME HOUSING....14% LACK PUBLIC TRANSIT....4% SCATTERED..............3% 6. What do you think is the most seri- UNSURE................11% ous issue facing Golden Valley NOTHING...............27% today? HIGH TAXES............14% POOR CITY SPENDING.....5% RISING CRIME...........7% LACK OF JOBS...........5% LACK OF BUSINESSES.....2% TOO MUCH GROWTH........7% STREET MAINTENANCE.....6% GROWING DIVERSITY......8% LIGHT RAIL DEVELOPMENT.6% SCATTERED..............3% 7. All in all, do you think things in RIGHT DIRECTION.......88% Golden Valley are generally headed WRONG TRACK............9% in the right direction, or do you DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....3% feel things are off on the wrong track? Moving on.... As you may know, property taxes are divided between the City of Golden Valley and various other units of local government. Thinking about the amount going to the City.... 8. Do you think the city portion of VERY HIGH.............17% your property taxes, which funds SOMEWHAT HIGH.........45% City services in Golden Valley is ABOUT AVERAGE.........33% very high, somewhat high, about av- SOMEWHAT LOW...........0% erage, somewhat low or very low in VERY LOW...............0% comparison with nearby suburban DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....5% communities? I would like to read you a list of a few city services. For each one, please tell me whether you would rate the quality of the service as excellent, good, only fair, or poor? (ROTATE) 3 EXCL GOOD FAIR POOR DK/R 9. Police protection? 54% 44% 1% 1% 1% 10. Fire protection? 56% 38% 1% 0% 5% 11. Recycling service? 35% 58% 2% 0% 6% 12. Storm drainage and flood control? 37% 59% 0% 0% 4% 13. Park maintenance? 52% 45% 1% 0% 2% 14. City recreation facilities? 39% 58% 0% 0% 3% 15. City-sponsored recreation programs? 41% 52% 0% 0% 7% 16. Neighborhood Watch Programs? 28% 54% 4% 2% 12% 17. Animal control? 27% 64% 4% 1% 4% 18. Communications, such as news- letters, cable television, media coverage and web site? 39% 54% 1% 0% 5% 19. Street lighting? 32% 59% 7% 2% 1% 20. Code enforcement for property maintenance? 36% 58% 3% 0% 4% 21. Quality of city drinking water? 39% 57% 3% 1% 0% 22. Dependability of city drinking water? 47% 52% 1% 0% 0% 23. Quality of sanitary sewer service? 40% 60% 0% 0% 0% 24. Dependability of sanitary sewer service? 40% 60% 0% 0% 0% Now, for the next three city services, please consider only their job on city-maintained streets and roads. That means excluding interstate highways, state and county roads taken care of by other levels of government. Hence, Interstate 394, Highway 55, Highway 100, County Road 156 or Winnetka Avenue, should not be considered. How would you rate .... EXCL GOOD FAIR POOR DK/R 25. City street repair and maintenance? 23% 61% 10% 7% 0% 26. Snow plowing? 34% 64% 2% 0% 0% IF ANY SERVICE IS RATED "ONLY FAIR" OR "POOR" IN QUESTIONS #9 TO #26, ASK: (n=139) 4 27. Why did you rate ___________ DON’T KNOW/REFUSED.....0% as (only fair/poor)? SLOW SERVICE...........6% POOR STREET REPAIR....32% POOR WATER............10% LOOSE ANIMALS..........9% POOR QUALITY SERVICE...2% MORE LIGHTS...........15% WEEKLY RECYCLING.......2% MORE NEI WATCH........11% RUDE/UNHELPFUL.........2% MORE PROACTIVE........11% 28. When you consider the property EXCELLENT.............12% taxes you pay and the quality of GOOD..................80% city services you receive, would ONLY FAIR..............3% you rate the general value of city POOR...................1% services as excellent, good, only DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....4% fair, or poor? 29. Would you favor or oppose an in- FAVOR.................60% crease in city property taxes, OPPOSE................35% if it were needed to maintain DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....5% city services at their current level? 30. What should be the highest priority for city services? (ROTATE AND READ LIST) Creating community connections, such as neighborhood associations and community events.....18% Maintaining and improving infrastructure, such as roads, water and sewer..........................49% Improving public safety.................................15% Economic development....................................10% More housing development in high-traffic areas rather than neighborhoods...........................5% ELSE (VOL.)..............................................0% DON’T KNOW/REFUSED.......................................3% Continuing.... In an effort to improve snowplowing, two years ago the City passed a winter parking ordinance that restricts parking on City streets from midnight to 6 am from November 1 through March 31. 5 31. Would you favor or oppose changing STRONGLY FAVOR.........7% the ordinance to restrict parking FAVOR.................57% from 2am to 6am? (WAIT FOR RE- OPPOSE................22% SPONSE) Do you feel strongly that STRONGLY OPPOSE.......10% way? DON’T KNOW/REFUSED.....5% Thinking about city infrastructure, such as water and sanitary sewer systems, roads and parks.... 32. Are you concerned about the aging NO....................39% of the city’s infrastructure? (IF YES/VERY CONCERNED....10% “YES,” ASK:) How concerned are you YES/SOMEWHAT CONCERN..34% – very concerned, somewhat con- YES/NOT TOO CONCERN...15% cerned, not too concerned or not at YES/NOT AT ALL CONCERN.3% all concerned? DON’T KNOW/REFUSED.....0% Studies have shown infrastructure in mature cities across the United States needs major repair and replacement in coming years. For each of the following infrastructure projects, please tell me if you strongly support the City using property taxes or fees to repair and replace it, somewhat support, somewhat oppose or strongly oppose. STS SMS SMO STO DKR 33. Water and sewer pipes? 26% 54% 14% 6% 1% 34. City buildings and facilities? 26% 42% 18% 15% 0% 35. Sidewalks and trails? 29% 48% 14% 9% 1% 36. City roads? 46% 42% 8% 5% 0% Moving on..... I would like to read you a list of characteristics of a community. For each one, please tell me if you think Golden Valley currently has too many or too much, too few or too little, or about the right amount. MANY FEW/ ABT DK/ /MCH LITT RGHT REFD 37. affordable rental units? 20% 24% 49% 7% 38. luxury high amenity rental units? 21% 18% 50% 12% 39. Condominiums and townhouses? 13% 12% 69% 7% 40. Starter homes for young families? 8% 30% 57% 5% 41. “Move up” housing for families looking for a larger home? 15% 16% 65% 5% 6 42. Executive high-end housing? 20% 12% 59% 10% MANY FEW/ ABT DK/ /MCH LITT RGHT REFD 43. assisted living for seniors? 5% 26% 56% 13% 44. one level housing for seniors maintained by an association? 5% 25% 57% 13% 45. affordable housing, defined as a single family home costing less than $160,250? 8% 31% 54% 7% 46. Parks and open spaces? 14% 10% 76% 0% 47. Trails and bikeways? 12% 9% 79% 1% 48. Light manufacturing businesses and jobs? 7% 17% 72% 5% 49. Service and retail establish- ments? 11% 21% 68% 1% 50. Entertainment establishments, such as movie theaters and night clubs? 9% 28% 61% 2% 51. Restaurants? 9% 18% 73% 1% 52. How would you rate general econo- EXCELLENT.............14% mic development in the City of GOOD..................79% Golden Valley -- excellent, ONLY FAIR..............6% good, only fair, or poor? POOR...................0% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....1% 53. How would you rate the city’s ef- EXCELLENT.............14% forts to attract new businesses -- GOOD..................76% – excellent, good, only fair or ONLY FAIR..............5% poor? POOR...................1% DON’T KNOW/REFUSED.....5% As the City of Golden Valley continues economic development.... 54. Are there any types of development you would like to see in the city? (IF "YES," ASK:) What are they? UNSURE, 2%; NO, 15%; RESTAURANTS, 12%; SERVICES BUSINESSES, 3%; STARTER HOMES, 7%; HIGH-END MULTI-HOUSING, 5%; MOVIE THEATER, 5%; BIG BOX RETAIL, 13%; JOBS, 4%; ASSISTED LIVING, 11%; AFFORDABLE HOUSING, 6%; TEEN CENTER, 3%; WATER PARK, 6%; UPSCALE NIGHTLIFE BARS/CLUBS, 4%; SCATTERED, 4%. 7 55. Are there any types of development you would strongly op- pose? UNSURE, 4%; NO, 26%; APARTMENTS, 15%; PARKS, 2%; TRAILS/BIKEWAYS, 4%; SERVICE BUSINESSES, 3%; BARS/LIQUOR STORES, 8%; LOW INCOME HOUSING, 8%; HIGH-END MULTI-HOUSING, 3%; RESTAURANTS, 8%; HIGH-END SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, 8%; LIGHT RAIL, 3%; BIG BOX RETAIL, 3%; ADULT ESTABLISHMENTS, 3%; SCATTERED, 3%. Continuing.... 56. How would you rate the general EXCELLENT.............18% condition and appearance of indus- GOOD..................79% trial, commercial and residential ONLY FAIR..............3% properties in Golden Valley – ex- POOR...................1% cellent, good, only fair or poor? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....0% Current market trends have encouraged Golden Valley property owners to significantly remodel their residences, subdivide their lot to accommodate additional houses, and even tear down and reconstruct their current homes. Recent changes in City ordinances still allow property owners to subdivide their lots, but reduce opportunities to do so. 57. Do you support or oppose these STRONGLY YES..........12% recent changes to limit the YES...................54% subdividing of current residential NO....................16% lots? (WAIT FOR RESPONSE) STRONGLY NO............5% Do you feel strongly that way? DON’T KNOW/REFUSED....13% Thinking about another topic.... 58. In one or two words, what is your DON’T KNOW/REFUSED.....0% perception of the Golden Valley NOTHING................1% Police Department? EXCELLENT.............42% GOOD..................28% HELPFUL...............16% STRICT.................1% RUDE/ARROGANT..........3% LAZY...................1% NICE...................6% AVERAGE................3% 8 59. Prior to this survey, were you aware AWARE.................84% of Golden Valley Police Department UNAWARE...............16% community programs, such as Night DON’T KNOW/REFUSED.....1% to Unite, Police in the Park, the Citizen’s Academy, GVPD University, and open houses? 60. During the past year, have you YES...................40% or any member of your household NO....................60% had any contact with the Golden DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....0% Valley Police Department through these community programs? IF “YES,” ASK: (n=161) 61. How would you rate your exper- EXCELLENT.............36% ience with these community pro- GOOD..................61% grams – excellent, good, only ONLY FAIR..............3% fair or poor? POOR...................0% DON’T KNOW/REFUSED.....0% 62. In the past two years, have you YES...................26% had any other contact with the NO....................74% Golden Valley Police Department? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....0% IF "YES," ASK: (n=104) 63. Was the situation one involv- TRAFFIC VIOLATION.....42% ing traffic violations, in- INVESTIGATION.........18% vestigation of a crime, pro- EMERGENCY SERVICES....36% viding emergency services, SOMETHING ELSE.........3% or something else? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....1% 64. Would you say the way the Po- EXCELLENT.............43% lice Department handled the GOOD..................46% situation was excellent, ONLY FAIR..............4% good, only fair, or poor? POOR...................7% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....0% 65. Would you say the time it YES...................90% took the Police Department to NO.....................7% respond was prompt? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....3% 66. Would you say the Police De- YES...................89% partment personnel were NO....................11% courteous and acted in a pro- DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....0% fessional manner? 9 67. If you could choose the best way for you to receive information and updates from the Police Department, what would it be? UNSURE, 3%; NONE, 3%; MAILING, 33%; E-MAIL, 23%; LOCAL NEWSPAPER, 5%; PHONE/TEXTS, 9%; CITY NEWSLETTER, 19%; CITY WEBSITE, 2%; SOCIAL MEDIA, 2%; SCATTERED, 2%. 68. How would you rate the amount of TOO MUCH...............2% police patrolling in your resi- ABOUT RIGHT AMOUNT....94% dential neighborhood -- too much, NOT ENOUGH.............5% about right, or not enough? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....0% I would like to read you a short list of current criminal justice issues. 69. Please tell me which one you consider to be the greatest issue in Golden Valley? If you feel that none of these issues are serious in Golden Valley, just say so. (READ LIST) Juvenile crime, such as vandalism.................20% Domestic abuse.....................................5% Violent crime......................................8% Traffic safety....................................17% Drugs..............................................9% Business crimes, such as shop- lifting and check fraud.......................8% Residential crimes, such as burglary, theft and disorderly houses........................................8% ALL EQUALLY........................................1% NONE OF THE ABOVE.................................21% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.................................4% OTHER..............................................0% Golden Valley’s firefighters are paid on-call, meaning they are residents and corporate citizens of the City who are paid for the hours they spend training and responding to fire calls from work and home. 70. Would you or any members of house- YES...................32% hold ever consider becoming a fire- NO....................67% fighter in the city? DON’T KNOW/REFUSED.....1% IF "NO," ASK: (n=127) 10 71. What are the greatest barriers DON’T KNOW/REFUSED.....1% for you or members of your NO TIME...............14% household to consider becoming NO INTEREST...........45% a firefighter in the city? AGE/HEALTH ISSUES.....39% NOT HIGH PAY...........2% Currently Golden Valley’s response time to a fire call is around 8 minutes. 72. Is this response time acceptable? YES...................79% NO....................17% DON’T KNOW/REFUSED.....4% IF “NO,” ASK: (n=67) 73. Would you support a property YES...................72% tax increase to reduce the NO....................25% response time? DON’T KNOW/REFUSED.....3% Moving on..... 74. Have you participated in the City YES...................55% Brush Pick-Up, Leaf Drop or Mighty NO....................45% Tidy Day? DON’T KNOW/REFUSED.....0% IF “YES,” ASK: (n=220) 75. How would you rate the City EXCELLENT.............43% Brush Pick-Up, Leaf Drop or GOOD..................57% Mighty Tidy Day -- excellent, ONLY FAIR..............1% good, only fair or poor? POOR...................0% DON’T KNOW/REFUSED.....0% 76. How important are the City Brush VERY IMPORTANT........29% Pick-up, Leaf Drop or Mighty Tidy SOMEWHAT IMPORTANT....48% Day programs to you and your house- NOT TOO IMPORTANT.....15% hold – very important, somewhat NOT AT ALL IMPORTANT...7% important, not too important or not DON’T KNOW/REFUSED.....1% at all important? For each of the following waste removal services, please tell if you are currently using the service. For those you are not using, please tell me if you are very interested, somewhat interested or not too interested in that service. 11 YES VRI SMI NTI DKR 77. Curbside pick-up of composting organics? 26% 26% 18% 29% 0% 78. Curbside pick-up of yard waste and small brush? 42% 22% 15% 21% 0% 79. Yard waste drop-off site? 20% 28% 17% 35% 0% 80. Dirt and mulch pick up? 13% 26% 25% 36% 1% Most communities have one of two systems for garbage collection. In an open collection system, residents choose their hauler from several different companies serving the community. Other cities use an organized collection system, where the City contracts with one hauler for all or part of the city. In an open collection system, residents have the ability to choose, but many neighborhoods may have numerous trucks collecting garbage on their street at different times. In an organized collection system, all residents are assigned a specific hauler, but only that company's truck appears in the neighborhood on a specific day. 81. Would you favor or oppose the City STRONGLY FAVOR........17% of Golden Valley changing from the FAVOR.................34% current open system in which resi- OPPOSE................29% dents may choose from eight dif- STRONGLY OPPOSE........9% ferent haulers to an organized sys- DON’T KNOW/REFUSED....12% tem where the city chooses a hauler for all or part of the City? (WAIT FOR RESPONSE) Do you feel strongly that way? IF A RESPONSE IS GIVEN, ASK: (n=354) 82. Why do you feel that way? DON’T KNOW/REFUSED.....0% WANT CHOICE...........21% LIKE CURRENT HAULER...26% CHOICE IS CHEAPER......6% ORGANIZED CHEAPER.....14% LESS TRUCK TRAFFIC....23% LESS ROAD MAINTENANCE.11% I would like to read a list about garbage collection. For each one, please tell me if you think it is better under an open collection system or an organized collection system. (WAIT FOR RESPONSE) Do you feel strongly that way? If you have no opinion, just say so.... (ROTATE) 12 STO OPE ORG ST0 DKR 83. Cost for street maintenance and upkeep? 5% 40% 31% 16% 9% 84. Cost for garbage collection? 27% 26% 30% 8% 9% 85. Pollution from trucks? 18% 23% 27% 23% 10% 86. Customer service? 17% 33% 26% 10% 15% Some communities in the metro area have approved ordinances encouraging the reduction of plastic bag use, either by charging fees in stores or a complete plastic bag ban. 87. Would you support or oppose the City STRONGLY SUPPORT......17% of Golden Valley doing something SUPPORT...............47% similar? (WAIT FOR RESPONSE) Do OPPOSE................21% you feel strongly that way? STRONGLY OPPOSE........9% DON’T KNOW/REFUSED.....7% Continuing.... The Golden Valley park system is composed of larger community parks and smaller neighborhood parks, trails, and community athletic fields. Of these facilities, which have you or members of your household used during the past twelve months? YES NO DK. 88. Community and/or neighborhood parks? 67% 33% 0% 89. Summer concerts and special events? 39% 61% 0% 90. Community athletic fields? 29% 71% 0% 91. Open spaces and natural areas? 67% 33% 0% 92. Outdoor ice rinks? 14% 86% 0% 93. Brookview Community Center? 23% 75% 2% 94. Davis Community Center at Meadowbrook School? 21% 79% 1% 95. Brookview Park Picnic Shelters? 27% 74% 0% 96. Tennis courts? 13% 87% 0% 97. Brookview Golf Course and lawnbowling? 32% 68% 0% For each of the following, please tell me if you or members of your household use it. YES NO DKR 98. City sidewalks and trails? 72% 28% 0% 99. On-street bike routes and shoulders? 28% 72% 0% IF “YES” TO ANY QUESTIONS #98-#99, ASK: (n=301) 13 For each of the following activities, please tell me if you use the trails, sidewalks and bicycle routes. YES NO DKR 100. Walking or running? 95% 5% 0% 101. Recreational biking? 36% 64% 0% 102. Fitness training? 20% 80% 0% 103. Commuting? 18% 82% 0% 104. How would you rate the city’s trails EXCELLENT.............14% and sidewalks – excellent, good, GOOD..................81% only fair or poor? ONLY FAIR..............5% POOR...................0% DON’T KNOW/REFUSED.....1% IF “ONLY FAIR” OR “POOR,” ASK: (n=20) 105. Why did you rate them as (only fair/poor)? NOT ENOUGH SIDEWALKS, 70%; NEED MORE LIGHTS, 15%; TRAILS DON’T CONNECT, 15%. 106. If trails and sidewalks in your VERY LIKELY...........20% neighborhood were connected, would SOMEWHAT LIKELY.......51% you be much more likely, somewhat NOT ANY MORE LIKELY...29% more likely or not any more likely DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....1% to walk or bicycle to where you needed to go? For each of the following, please tell me if you would strongly support the use of city funding, support, oppose or strongly oppose the use of city funding. (ROTATE) STS SUP OPP STO DKR 107. On-street bicycle lanes? 9% 36% 34% 20% 2% 108. Off-street trails? 22% 47% 17% 13% 1% 109. Bicycle boulevards on neighborhood streets where pedestrians, bikes and motor vehicles share the road? 27% 27% 32% 14% 1% 110. Central community pedestrian plaza replacing Winnetka Avenue, near the creek and library? 20% 35% 23% 15% 8% 111. Community gardens? 29% 43% 18% 9% 1% 112. Tennis courts? 12% 29% 37% 21% 2% 113. Off-leash dog area? 27% 40% 19% 11% 3% 14 The City currently maintains and operates significantly more tennis courts than most neighboring communities. Most of these courts were built in the 1970s and 1980s, and can no longer be maintained for safe use and require complete reconstruction. 114. Which of the following comes STATEMENT A............8% closest to your opinion: STATEMENT B...........32% A) Fund the replacement of all STATEMENT C...........36% current tennis court facilities; STATEMENT D...........19% B) Reduce the number of tennis DON’T KNOW/REFUSED.....6% courts and reconstruct them; C) Reconstruct courts only needed for community tennis programs; OR D) Do not replace any of the tennis courts? During the past two years.... 115. Have you or members of your house- YES...................34% holds participated in any City of NO....................66% Golden Valley park and recreation DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....0% programs? IF "YES," ASK: 116. Which ones? DON’T KNOW/REFUSED.....0% SWIMMING...............6% BASEBALL/SOFTBALL.....15% HOCKEY.................3% SUMMER PROGRAMS.......26% MULTIPLE SPORTS.......18% ARTS/CRAFTS/HOBBY.....14% FITNESS...............10% SENIOR PROGRAMS........7% COMMUNITY EVENTS.......2% 117. Were you satisfied or dis- SATISFIED.............97% satisfied with your exper- DISSATISFIED...........1% ience? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....2% 118. Does the current mix of City park YES...................99% and recreation programming meet NO.....................1% the needs of your household? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....1% IF "NO," ASK: (n=2) 15 119. What program(s) do you feel SENIOR PROGRAMS.......50% are lacking? TEEN PROGRAMS.........50% 120. Do you or members of your household DON’T KNOW/REFUSED.....1% currently leave the city for park NO....................46% and recreation facilities or acti- LAKES/BOATING.........28% vities? (IF "YES," ASK:) What COMMUNITY CENTER.......4% would that be? PARKS..................7% TRAILS.................6% GOLF COURSES...........6% POOL...................3% Thinking about the environment.... 121. What do you think is the most important environmental issue that needs to be addressed in City of Golden Valley? UNSURE, 9%; NONE, 18%; LITTER, 14%; WATER QUALITY IN LAKES AND PONDS, 9%; AIR POLLUTION, 15%; QUALITY OF DRINKING WATER, 7%; LOSS OF TREES, 2%; PRESEVATION OF NATURAL HABITATS, 4%; HIGH DEER POPULATION, 2%; INVASIVE SPECIES, 3%; LAWN CHEMICAL RUN-OFF, 10%; BACKYARD FIRE PITS, 3%; MOSQUITOS, 2%; SCATTERED, 3%. 122. How would you rate the water quality EXCELLENT.............11% of lakes, rivers, streams and wet- GOOD..................75% lands in Golden Valley, would you ONLY FAIR.............10% say the water quality is excellent, POOR...................3% good, only fair or poor? DON’T KNOW/REFUSED.....2% 123. How concerned are you about invasive VERY CONCERNED........10% species, such as buckthorn, emerald SOMEWHAT CONCERNED....44% ash borer and garlic mustard in the NOT TOO CONCERNED.....32% City of Golden Valley – very con- NOT AT ALL CONCERNED..15% cerned, somewhat concerned, not too DON’T KNOW/REFUSED.....0% concerned or not at all concerned? Moving on... 124. How would you rate the ease of EXCELLENT.............15% getting from place to place within GOOD..................78% the City of Golden Valley -- ex- ONLY FAIR..............7% cellent, good, only fair or poor? POOR...................1% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....0% 125. Do you leave Golden Valley on a YES...................52% regular or daily basis? NO....................27% NOT EMPLOYED/RETIRED..22% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....0% 16 IF "YES," ASK: (n=208) 126. How do you normally commute to DRIVE ALONE...........87% to work -- drive alone, ride VAN OR CAR POOL.......11% ride in a van or car pool, BUS....................2% take the bus near home or from WALK/BIKE..............1% a park and ride lot, or walk or bike? 127. Have you used public transporta- YES...................28% tion during the past two years? NO....................72% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....0% IF "YES," ASK: (n=114) 128. How would you rate your ex- EXCELLENT.............15% perience -- excellent, good, GOOD..................79% only fair or poor? ONLY FAIR..............5% POOR...................1% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....0% IF "NO," ASK: (n=286) 129. Why don't you use public transportation? PREFER TO DRIVE, 79%; NOT CONVENIENT, 5%; ROUTES DON’T GO WHERE NEEDED, 2%; HEALTH ISSUES/DISABLED, 8%; NOT SAFE, 3%; DOESN’T FIT WORK SCHEDULE, 2%. As you may know, the Metro Blue Line Light Rail line was approved to run from downtown Minneapolis to Brooklyn Park with a stop near Theodore Wirth Park. It is scheduled to open in 2021. 130. How likely will you or members of VERY LIKELY............5% your household be to use the Metro SOMEWHAT LIKELY.......18% Blue Line when it is operational – NOT TOO LIKELY........27% very likely, somewhat likely, not NOT AT ALL LIKELY.....49% too likely or not at all likely? DON’T KNOW/REFUSED.....1% IF “VERY LIKELY” OR “SOMEWHAT LIKELY,” ASK: (n=90) 131. How will you get to the light WALK..................20% rail station – walk, bike, use BIKE..................23% a bus, be dropped off or use a USE A BUS.............13% park and ride lot? DROPPED OFF...........21% PARK AND RIDE LOT.....21% DON’T KNOW/REFUSED.....1% If bus rapid transit were available along Highway 55..... 17 132. How likely would you or members of VERY LIKELY............4% your household be to use this ser- SOMEWHAT LIKELY.......26% vice – very likely, somewhat likely, NOT TOO LIKELY........19% not too likely or not at all likely? NOT AT ALL LIKELY.....50% DON’T KNOW/REFUSED.....2% Changing topics.... 133. Other than voting, do you feel YES...................71% that if you wanted to, you could NO ...................23% have a say about the way the City DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....7% of Golden Valley runs things? 134. How much do you feel you know A GREAT DEAL...........9% about the work of the Mayor and A FAIR AMOUNT.........50% City Council -- a great deal, a VERY LITTLE...........33% fair amount, very little, or none NONE AT ALL............8% at all? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....0% 135. From what you know, do you approve STRONGLY APPROVE.......8% or disapprove of the job the Mayor APPROVE...............77% and City Council are doing? (WAIT DISAPPROVE.............9% FOR RESPONSE) And do you feel STRONGLY DISAPPROVE....2% strongly that way? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....5% IF A JUDGMENT IS GIVEN, ASK: (n=380) 136. Could you tell me why you DON’T KNOW/REFUSED.....0% feel that way? GOOD JOB..............40% LISTEN................18% NO PROBLEMS...........32% POOR JOB...............1% DON’T LISTEN...........6% POOR SPENDING..........2% 137. How much first hand contact have QUITE A LOT............4% you had with the Golden Valley SOME..................48% City staff -- quite a lot, some, VERY LITTLE...........37% very little, or none? NONE..................11% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....1% 138. From what you have heard or seen, EXCELLENT.............12% how would you rate the job per- GOOD..................75% formance of the Golden Valley ONLY FAIR..............7% City staff -- excellent, good, POOR...................1% only fair, or poor? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....6% IF A JUDGMENT IS GIVEN, ASK: (n=377) 18 139. Could you tell me why you DON’T KNOW/REFUSED.....0% feel that way? GOOD JOB..............35% LISTEN................17% NO PROBLEMS...........28% DON’T LISTEN...........4% POOR SPENDING..........3% HELPFUL...............13% Elections for the Mayor and City Council are held in odd-numbered years, to increase the focus on local issues and candidates. The City could change the elections to even-numbered years when voter turnout is higher and as well as providing cost savings to the City. 140. Would you favor or oppose changing STRONGLY FAVOR........14% to even-numbered years for city FAVOR.................53% elections? (WAIT FOR RESPONSE) Do OPPOSE................18% you feel strongly that way? STRONGLY OPPOSE........0% DON’T KNOW/REFUSED....15% Moving on...... 141. What is your principal source of in- DON’T KNOW/REFUSED.....0% formation about Golden Valley City NOTHING................5% Government and its activities? CITY NEWSLETTER.......56% CITY WEBSITE..........12% LOCAL NEWSPAPER.......13% WORD OF MOUTH..........5% CABLE TELEVISION.......3% STAR TRIBUNE...........6% SCATTERED..............1% 142. How would you prefer to receive in- DON’T KNOW/REFUSED.....1% formation about Golden Valley City NOTHING................4% Government and its activities? CITY NEWSLETTER.......48% CITY WEBSITE..........13% LOCAL NEWSPAPER.......12% WORD OF MOUTH..........1% CABLE TELEVISION.......2% STAR TRIBUNE...........4% E-MAIL................13% SCATTERED..............1% 143. During the past year, did you YES...................82% receive the "Golden Valley City NO ...................18% News," the City's newsletter? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....0% IF "YES," ASK: (n=329) 19 144. Do you or any members of your YES...................84% household regularly read it? NO ...................16% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....0% IF "YES," ASK: (n=277) 145. How would you rate the EXCELLENT.............27% content of the newslet- GOOD..................68% ter -- excellent, good, ONLY FAIR..............5% only fair, or poor? POOR...................0% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....0% 146. How would you rate the EXCELLENT.............24% format and appearance of GOOD..................70% the newsletter -- excel- ONLY FAIR..............5% lent, good, only fair, POOR...................0% or poor? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....0% 147. Are there any changes or DON’T KNOW/REFUSED.....1% improvements you would NONE..................57% make to the City's news- MORE DETAILS..........20% letter? BUDGET INFORMATION....13% PARKS AND REC..........2% CITY COUNCIL...........3% SCATTERED..............3% 148. Do you receive and read the New NO....................24% Hope/Golden Valley Sun Post news- YES/YES...............42% paper? (IF “YES,” ASK:) Do you YES/NO................34% read the city legal notices? DON’T KNOW/REFUSED.....0% 149. How would you prefer to receive city NEWSPAPER.............20% legal notices – newspaper, news- NEWSLETTER............47% letter, website, e-mail or text? WEBSITE................9% E-MAIL................18% TEXT...................6% DON’T KNOW/REFUSED.....0% 150. Does your household currently sub- CABLE.................49% scribe to cable television, sat- SATELLITE.............37% ellite television or neither? NEITHER...............15% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....0% IF "CABLE," ASK: (n=195) I would like to read you a short list of programs shown on Golden Valley Government Channels. For each one, please tell me if you frequently watch it, occasionally watch it, or do not watch it. 20 FRQ OCC DNT DKR 151. Bulletin Board listing of meetings, events and information? 3% 30% 67% 0% 152. Live or taped re-broadcasts of City Council meetings? 11% 20% 70% 0% 153. City programming, such as the State of the City, Mayor Minutes and city videos? 8% 26% 66% 0% 154. Do you have access to the Internet HOME ONLY.............27% at home only, at work only, at WORK ONLY..............2% both home and work, or at neither BOTH HOME AND WORK....45% place? NEITHER PLACE.........26% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....0% IF "HOME,""WORK," OR "BOTH," IN #154, ASK: (n=296) 155. Have you accessed the City's YES...................63% website? NO....................37% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....0% IF "YES," ASK: (n=186) 156. How would you rate the EXCELLENT.............23% city's website -- excel- GOOD..................68% lent, good, only fair, ONLY FAIR..............9% or poor? POOR...................1% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....0% 157. Were you able to find YES...................95% what you were looking NO.....................5% for? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....1% 158. Are you aware the City is web- NO....................36% streaming city meetings and YES/YES...............25% programs on the city's website? YES/NO................40% (IF “YES,” ASK:) Have you DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....0% viewed a city meeting or pro- gram on the website? 159. Are you aware the city pro- YES/YES...............19% vides e-mail updates to resi- YES/NO................46% dents who subscribe for the NO....................36% service called “GV Direct DON’T KNOW/REFUSED.....0% Connect?” (IF "YES," ASK:) Do you currently subscribe to this service? 21 I would like to ask you about social media sources. For each one, tell me if you currently use that source of information; then, for each one you currently use, tell me if you would be likely or unlikely to use it to obtain information about the City of Golden Valley. NOT USE USE DK/ USE LIK NLK REF 160. Facebook? 22% 45% 33% 0% 161. Twitter? 62% 18% 20% 0% 162. YouTube? 47% 25% 28% 0% 163. Podcasts? 78% 9% 13% 1% 164. Instagram? 74% 8% 17% 0% 165. Snapchat? 62% 12% 26% 0% Now, just a few more questions for demographic purposes.... Could you please tell me how many people in each of the following age groups live in your household. 166. Persons 55 or over? NONE..................61% ONE...................12% TWO OR MORE...........27% IF SENIORS ARE PRESENT, ASK: (n=155) 167. Have any household members YES...................27% participated in any senior NO....................73% programs offered by the City DON’T KNOW/REFUSED.....0% of Golden Valley? IF “YES,” ASK: (n=42) 168. How would you rate that EXCELLENT.............24% experience – excellent, GOOD..................74% good, only fair or poor? ONLY FAIR..............2% POOR...................0% DON’T KNOW/REFUSED.....0% 169. Do you feel there are any DON’T KNOW/REFUSED....12% programs lacking or miss- NO....................76% ing? (IF “YES,” ASK:) CARD LEAGUES..........12% What are they? 22 170. Adults under 55? NONE..................31% ONE...................21% TWO...................46% THREE OR MORE..........3% 171. School-aged children and pre- NONE..................73% schoolers? ONE...................15% TWO...................10% THREE OR MORE..........2% 172. Do you own or rent your present OWN...................76% residence? RENT..................24% REFUSED................0% 173. What is your age, please? 18-24..................5% 25-34.................15% 35-44.................20% 45-54.................21% 55-64.................19% 65 AND OVER...........21% REFUSED................0% 174. Gender. MALE..................48% FEMALE................52% 175. Precinct PRECINCT 1............12% PRECINCT 2............15% PRECINCT 3............11% PRECINCT 4............12% PRECINCT 5............10% PRECINCT 6............15% PRECINCT 7............13% PRECINCT 8............13% Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting October 18, 2016 Agenda Item 6. B. Acceptance of Donation and Grants for Ball Park Improvement and Play Structure Equipment for St. Croix and Medley Parks Prepared By Rick Birno, Summary As adopted in the Donation/Gift Policy, a gift of real or personal property must be accepted by the City Council by resolution and be approved by a two-thirds majority of the Council. A cash donation must be acknowledge and accepted by motion with a simple majority. We have prepared the attached resolution detailing the specific donors and their gift for your consideration. Attachments •Resolution Accepting Donation and Grants for Ball Park Improvement and Play Structure Equipment for St. Croix and Medley Parks (1 page) Recommended Action Motion to adopt Resolution Accepting Donation and Grants for Ball Park Improvement and Play Structure Equipment for St. Croix and Medley Parks. Resolution 16-67 October 18, 2016 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING DONATION AND GRANTS FOR BALL PARK IMPROVEMENT AND PLAY STRUCTURE EQUIPMENT FOR ST. CROIX AND MEDLEY PARKS WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution 04-20 on March 16, 2004 which established a policy for the receipt of gifts; and WHEREAS, the Resolution states that a gift of real or personal property must be accepted by the City Council by resolution and be approved by a two-thirds majority of the Council. A cash donation must be acknowledged and accepted by motion with a simple majority. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council accepts the following grants and donations on behalf of its citizens: Sod purchased by the Golden Valley Girls Softball Association for the improvement of Ball Field #3 at Wesley Park in the amount of $926.63. Play structure equipment in the form of a matching grant from Gametime, Inc. for the new play structure at St. Croix Park to be replaced in 2017. Total matching grant amount is $17,380.00. Play structure equipment in the form of a matching grant from Gametime, Inc. for the new play structure at Medley Park to be replaced in 2017. Total matching grant amount is $20,942.00. _____________________________ 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. Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting October 18, 2016 Agenda Item 6. C. Authorize the Purchase and Installation of Playground Equipment for St. Croix Park and Medley Park Prepared By Rick Birno, Director of Parks and Recreation Summary The 2017-2021 Capital Improvement Program Park Section includes $100,000 for New Playground Equipment at St. Croix and Medley Parks. Both the St. Croix Park and the Medley Park neighborhoods participated in a public meeting on October 10, 2016 to select one of the play structure proposal options designed by Minnesota/Wisconsin Playground with play equipment from Gametime, Inc. Staff applied for and was awarded matching grants in the form of equipment credits from Gametime, Inc. The City of Golden Valley has been awarded $17,380.00 for St. Croix Park and $20,942.00 for Medley Park. Installation of the new equipment is scheduled for spring and summer of 2017, all new equipment conforms to all ADA and Consumer Product Safety Commission Guidelines. Staff recommends the purchase of playground equipment from U.S. Communities buying group contract # 416005190 for Gametime paly structure equipment through Minnesota/Wisconsin Playground. St. Croix Park Project: Play Structure & Delivery $51,590.35 Less Grant ($17,380.00) Installation, Wood Base, Wear Mats, etc.$17,798.26 Project Total $52,008.61 Medley Park Project: Play Structure & Delivery $51,134.35 Less Grant ($20,942.00) Installation, Wood Base, Wear Mats, etc.$17,798.26 Project Total $47,990.61 Recommended Action Motion to authorize the purchase and installation of playground equipment from Minnesota/Wisconsin Playground through U.S. Communities buying group contract #416005190 for a project total of $99,999.22 at St. Croix and Medley Parks. Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting October 18, 2016 Agenda Item 6. D. 2018 and 2019 Pavement Management Program - Authorize Preparation of Feasibility Report and Professional Services Agreement with SEH, Inc. Prepared By Jeff Oliver, PE, City Engineer Summary The proposed 2018 and 2019 Pavement Management Program (PMP) includes the reconstruction of approximately 2.8 miles of local streets in the northwest corner of the City. Staff is recommending that the two PMP years be considered together during the preparation of the feasibility report and preliminary project design in order to address storm water issues that are common in both project areas. The streets included in the two proposed projects include: 2018 PMP Earl Street: Mendelssohn Avenue North to Flag Avenue North Duluth Street: Independence Avenue North to Gettysburg Avenue North Duluth Street: Flag Avenue North to Ensign Avenue North Elgin Place: Cul-de-sac to Decatur Avenue North Independence Avenue North: Earl Street to Duluth Street Hillsboro Avenue North: Earl Street to Duluth Street Gettysburg Avenue North: Earl Street to Duluth Street Flag Avenue North: Earl Street to Duluth Street Ensign Avenue North: Duluth Street to 23 rd Avenue North 2019 PMP Ensign Avenue North: 23 rd Avenue North to Medicine Lake Road Decatur Avenue North: Elgin Place to Medicine Lake Road Cavell Avenue North: Elgin Place to Medicine Lake Road Brogger Circle: Cul-de-sac to Medicine Lake Road Elgin Place: Decatur Avenue North to Cavell Avenue North 23rd Avenue North: Cul-de-sac to Cavell Avenue North Medley Lane: Cul-de-sac to Cavell Avenue North The reconstruction of the parking lot and Medley Park will also be considered as part of the 2019 PMP. The project administration for the 2018 and 2019 PMP will be performed by City staff. Staff requested a letter of proposal from the consulting engineering firm of SEH, Inc. to perform the preliminary project design, including survey, geotechnical review and recommendations, traffic and water resource engineering, public participation, and the preparation of project plans, specifications and bidding documents. The estimated cost to perform these services for the two projects is not to exceed $467,300 as outlined in the September 23, 2016, letter of proposal. The anticipated schedule for these projects is as follows: Order Feasibility Report: October, 2016 First Open Houses:Winter/Spring, 2016-17 Second Open Houses:Fall/Winter 2017 Public Hearing:Winter 2017 Project Bidding:January 2018 and 2019 Construction:Summer 2018 and 2019 Complete Construction: Fall 2018 and 2019 Attachments •Project Location Map (1 page) •Resolution Authorizing Preparation of the Feasibility Report for the 2018 and 2019 Pavement Management Program (1 page) •Letter if Proposal from SEH, Inc. to Jeff Oliver, City Engineer, dated September 23, 2016 (11 pages) Recommended Action Motion to adopt Resolution Ordering Preparation of Feasibility Report for the 2018 and 2019 Pavement Management Program. Motion to authorize entering into an agreement for professional engineering services with SEH, Inc. in an amount to exceed $467,300.00. I 1 I I i erre-t-ake----------------------------------------- vwrr:y-Rd 6----------------- Z Medley Rq� _ ! ° i Sedley C"'� ! N� Medley V-n Ro 5 Medley i z Park i > glish E209 PMP i o.� to _ lKin9 ,ayfair s 23rd Ave N � N �a ! Valley /2a m I n o� Q� 1 Z > Z >w — d y 201 S PMP Flg�r, P� w CD a - Marin Tr) 0 U 6 -Unimproved- Duluth StDUt4th Elgin PI Z �- I Z ; St I > Q Q 16- Z I O N > > 0 .a Earl St CIP Streets Duluth I m Golden Ridge 2018 1.30 miles local yell Nature Area i c �reoJa c 2019 1.51 miles local Z a E >; �U I R City(I, SourceDate:10/4/2016 e Sources: ^ld n, Hennepin County Surveyors Office for `J v�I l ev Exhibit 1 Propertyolden Valley o all Photography(2012). -City of Golden Valley for all other layers. o zoo aoo soo ,L2 Feet Resolution 16-68 October 18, 2016 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ORDERING PREPARATION OF FEASIBILITY REPORT FOR CITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 18-01 2018 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM CITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 19-01 2019 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM WHEREAS, it is proposed to reconstruct the streets listed below and to assess the benefited properties pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429 for the following streets: 2018 PMP Earl Street: Mendelssohn Avenue North to Flag Avenue North Duluth Street: Independence Avenue North to Gettysburg Avenue North Duluth Street: Flag Avenue North to Ensign Avenue North Elgin Place: Cul-de-sac to Decatur Avenue North Independence Avenue North: Earl Street to Duluth Street Hillsboro Avenue North: Earl Street to Duluth Street Gettysburg Avenue North: Earl Street to Duluth Street Flag Avenue North: Earl Street to Duluth Street Ensign Avenue North: Duluth Street to 23 rd Avenue North 2019 PMP Ensign Avenue North: 23 rd Avenue North to Medicine Lake Road Decatur Avenue North: Elgin Place to Medicine Lake Road Cavell Avenue North: Elgin Place to Medicine Lake Road Brogger Circle: Cul-de-sac to Medicine Lake Road Elgin Place: Decatur Avenue North to Cavell Avenue North 23rd Avenue North: Cul-de-sac to Cavell Avenue North Medley Lane: Cul-de-sac to Cavell Avenue North NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Golden Valley, Minnesota that the proposed improvements be referred to the City Engineer for study and that he is instructed to report to the Council with all convenient speed advising the Council in a preliminary way as to whether the proposed improvements are feasible and as to whether they should best be made as proposed or in connection with some other improvements, and the estimated cost of the improvements as recommended. _____________________________ 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. -` SEH Building a Better World for All of Us` September 23, 2016 RE: City of Golden Valley 2018/2019 Pavement Management Program SEH No. City Project No. 18-01 14.00 Jeff Oliver, PE City Engineer City of Golden Valley 7800 Golden Valley Rd. Golden Valley, MN 55427 Dear Jeff: Thank you for the opportunity to provide professional services to the City of Golden Valley for the reconstruction of streets in the 2018&2019 Pavement Management Program (PMP). The City is requesting a scope of work that includes preliminary, final design, plan preparation and bidding services. This letter serves as the Supplemental Letter Agreement in accordance with the Agreement for Professional Services between the City of Golden Valley and SEH. Background The City of Golden Valley proposes to rehabilitate approximately 2.8 miles of streets in Medley Park neighborhood located in the northwest part of the City. The project is bounded by Mendelssohn Avenue on the West, Cavell Avenue North on the East, Earl Street on the South, and Medicine Lake Road on the North. The following streets are included in the project: 2018 PMP • Earl Street, Mendelssohn Avenue North to Flag Avenue North • Duluth Street, Independence Avenue North to Gettysburg Avenue North • Duluth Street, Flag Avenue North to Ensign Avenue North • Elgin Place, Cul-de-sac to Decatur Avenue North • Independence Avenue North, Earl Street to Duluth Street • Hillsboro Avenue North, Earl Street to Duluth Street • Gettysburg Avenue North, Earl Street to Duluth Street • Flag Avenue, Earl Street to Duluth Street • Ensign Avenue North, Duluth Street to 23rd Avenue North 2019 PMP • Ensign Avenue North, 23rd Avenue North to Medicine Lake Road • Decatur Avenue North, Elgin Place to Medicine Lake Road • Cavell Avenue North, Elgin Place to Medicine Lake Road • Brogger Circle, Cul-de-sac to Medicine Lake Road Engineers I Architects I Planners I Scientists Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc.,3535 Vadnais Center Drive,St.Paul,MN 55110-5196 SEH is 100%employee-owned I sehinc.com 1 651.490.2000 1 800.325.2055 1 888.908.8166 fax Jeff Oliver, PE September 23, 2016 Page 2 • Elgin Place, Decatur Avenue North to Cavell Avenue North • 23rd Avenue North, Cul-de-sac to Cavell Avenue North • Medley Lane, Cul-de-sac to Cavell Avenue North • Medley Park, Parking Lot Public utilities such as water, storm sewer and sanitary exist in the right of way. The need for improvements to the existing public utilities as well as other private utility facilities such as underground power and gas will be identified as part of the scope of work, however, the extent of rehabilitation required will not be known until after the preliminary design phase. The project location is shown on the attached Exhibit 1. Scope of Work Preliminary Survey SEH will provide preliminary survey services for the streets included in the program. The proposed survey work will include obtaining vertical and horizontal control, available property corner and monument control, the gathering of topography, profile and cross-section information. In addition, a structure survey of the sanitary and storm sewer structures in the project area will be obtained. SEH will request Gopher One State field markings for private utilities and include them in the base map generated for the plans. Meetings/Project Communication We propose to attend a kick off meeting with Public Works staff at the beginning of the project. The purpose of this meeting will be to plan the public process, check in once more with the scope and schedule, receive direction and assign tasks. We have included a number of staff meetings in the scope, expecting to hold monthly progress meetings during the preliminary and final design phases of the project. We believe consistent monthly design team meetings will provide good timing for feedback and critical to keeping the design, schedule and design budget on track. We have also included one meeting for an on-site drainage design walk-thru with City staff to review and discuss the preliminary design, one on-site private utility meet to discuss the project with private utility companies prior to field marking private utilities, two private utility design meetings to discuss the design with the private utility companies, two meetings for special design issues that arise requiring additional attention, and one meeting for review of the plans and specifications with City staff. Public Involvement The public involvement approach to this project is expected to be similar in nature to those followed in previous City PMP projects. We expect to assist the City with an initial newsletter to introduce the project to the neighborhood and four evenings of open house format meetings. This includes two meetings at the beginning of the project design and another two meetings after the preliminary design is complete. In addition, SEH will provide both exhibits and staff at the public involvement open house. The exhibits for the open house will consist of City supplied aerial photography on which the project area is illustrated with preliminary design information prepared by SEH. We have also included time to prepare a set of large graphic boards. The City will provide sign in sheets, comment cards and other information in project folders. Sue Mason, Project Manager, Tim Wegwerth, Project Engineer and Mike Kotila, Traffic Engineer will be present at the open house. The purpose of the first round of open houses will be to present the project and address and questions and concerns prior to design. This meeting is expected to be held toward the beginning of the preliminary design phase of the project. The second open house will illustrate the preliminary design layout and answer any follow up questions. This meeting is expected to be held toward the end of the preliminary design phase, prior to the public hearing. Jeff Oliver, PE September 23, 2016 Page 3 For the purpose of this proposal,we have included time for the Project Manager, or another staff member (as needed)to attend two issue specific meetings that may be necessary for the project. We have also included time to prepare for and attend the public hearing. Geotechnical Street Analysis and Report Geologically, the majority of the streets exist in Des Moines Lobe till,which typically consists of sandy lean clay or clayey sand. Organic soils are anticipated near the Medley Park vicinity as that area appears to contain peat and swamp deposits. SEH's geotechnical engineers will be providing the geotechnical boring coordination, evaluation and technical assistance with the project. They will coordinate the boring locations and material testing program, sub grade and pipe bedding recommendations. SEH will review the subsurface materials and borings, identify potential problems, develop an additional boring program (if necessary)and make recommendations based upon the information that is available. The recommendations will be summarized in a memo for your information and project file. Soil boring drilling services will be performed by Raimonde Drilling Corporation(RDC)and Soil Engineering Testing, Inc. (SET)will be performing the Lab Testing, both will be subcontracted by SEH. The drilling program consists of 19 soil borings drilled to a penetration ranging from 10 ft to 20 ft, at approximately 400-foot intervals along the streets. Any debris impacted or potentially contaminated material discovered will be handled separately from this scope of work. Sub Watershed Water Quality Investigation A majority of the surface runoff in the southern portion of the project flows through the Medicine Lake Branch towards a series of ponds in Medley Park. The surface water in the northern portion flows directly to Medley Park. Eventually the water flows from Medley Park to the west under Highway 169 into Medicine Lake with exception to the south westerly portion of the project area which flows southerly into the Lakeview Park neighborhood. This Lakeview Park neighborhood drains westerly into Medicine Lake and was recently reconstructed with the 2015-2017 PMP projects. As part of the study, SEH will review and evaluate opportunities within the project area in which water quality improvements can be implemented. Specifically, SEH will review the potential opportunity for a water quality feature in Medley Park. Brogger Circle Drainage Study In 2008, the City requested that SEH complete a drainage study in the Brogger Circle area of the project. During larger rain events, the storm sewer system surcharges from an existing catch basin causing localized flooding. Information gathered in this report will be reviewed and analyzed during the design phase of this project. Flag Avenue Drainage and Geotechnical Investigation SEH performed a drainage study and geotechnical investigation for a portion of Flag Avenue in 2012, addressing some noticeable changes to ground water and surface water conditions in a smaller area. Information gathered in this report will be reviewed and implemented into the project design. Sidewalks and Trails The City's Existing and Proposed Trail System map identifies a sidewalk connection along Ensign Avenue North. This connection would tie into the existing sidewalk along the West side of Ensign Avenue and continue to the South where it would meet the existing bituminous trail entering Medley Park. The map also indicates a potential trail connection along Duluth Street from Mendelssohn Avenue to Flag Jeff Oliver, PE September 23, 2016 Page 4 Avenue, as well as a trail connection along Flag Avenue from Earl Street to Duluth Street. SEH will review and evaluate trails and implement into the final plans. Traffic/Intersection Improvements SEH will review the impacts and benefits of extending Duluth Street to the west from Independence Avenue to Mendelssohn Avenue. In addition, the design team will review the intersection geometry at the neighborhood street intersection as well and evaluate the options available for improvements. Additional time has been budgeted to assist the City with minor/miscellaneous traffic issues as they arise during the project. Preliminary, Final Design and Plan Preparation SEH will prepare preliminary street and utility design for both the 2018 and 2019 PMP projects. Existing profiles and alignments will be reviewed and optimized for drainage, storm sewer added as needed, and driveway grades reviewed and improved if possible. The condition of the water main and sanitary sewer is not know at this time, but we included time for complete replacement. The plans will be prepared according to City standards. Two separate sets of Final Plans are expected for 2018 and 2019 construction years and will be submitted to the City staff for review and approval. Project Team Sue Mason will be the Project Manager. Tim Wegwerth is assigned to the project as the Project Engineer, providing preliminary and final design along with technical production work. Brent Theroux will provide the geotechnical analysis and evaluation for the streets included in the program. Mike Kotila, Traffic Engineer will participate in the public involvement activities and other traffic related matters. Other technical experts may be called upon to participate in meetings, depending on the issues that are brought forth by residents and other stakeholders. Sue Mason, Tim Wegwerth, and Mike Kotila will attend the project staff meetings and neighborhood open houses as needed. Schedule We expect to begin working on the preliminary survey as soon as the contract is signed. The subsurface soils investigation field work will begin later this fall. The first rounds of open houses are expected to be held in the winter/spring of 2017, the second round of open houses to be held in the fall of 2017, feasibility report anticipated for fall/winter of 2017, public hearing in winter 2017,with final design and plans following. The bidding will likely be in January or February 2018 and January or February 2019. Compensation SEH proposes to be compensated for the scope of work proposed in the Agreement on an hourly basis. Compensation will be based on the hourly cost of personnel plus reimbursable expenses, including reproductions, mileage and equipment. We have estimated the services described above to cost a total of $467,300.00. The person/hour task budgets for each phase of the work are attached. The summary of engineering services is as follows: Preliminary Survey $ 37,400 Meetings and Public Involvement $ 72,500 Geotechnical Services $ 22,900 RDC Drilling and SET Testing Services $ 15,000 Preliminary Design & Feasibility Report $ 118,200 Final Design & Plan Preparation $ 201,300 2018-2019 PMP Estimated Engineering Fees $ 467,300 This agreement is an understanding of the project to date. If this document satisfactorily sets forth you understanding of our agreement, please sign in the space below and return one copy to our office. Jeff Oliver, PE September 23, 2016 Page 5 We look forward to working with you, your staff and the community on this project. Thanks for the opportunity to continue to work with the City of Golden Valley. Respectively submitted, SHORT ELLIOTT HENDRICKSON INC. a/Z I Susan M. Mason, PE Timothy J. Wegwerth, PE Project Manager Project Engineer Approved this day of 2016 City of Golden Valley, Minnesota By: c: Tim Wegwerth -SEH s:\fj\g\goldv\common\proposals\2018 pmp\_letter agreement 2018-2019 pmp.docx MEDICINE LAKE RD. -L z -Z�.. MEDLEY PARK I 23R0 AVE. - U zDULUTH ST. EARLST. z a IyI - 2018 PMP Q 2019 PMP o Z a N Z NAPER ST. D r x E � I : 250 0 250 500 - �t scale 125 feet OLYMPIA ST. _ E CITY PROJ. NO. 18-01 PROJECT LOCATION EXHIBIT ( 00 dol d en 2018/2019 PMP NO. 1 i 3535 VADNAIS AIS CENTERENTER DR. � DATE: i ST. PAUL, MN 55110-5196 �T�'j- l > GOLDEN VALLEY, MINNESOTA SEH www sehinc com 09/23/16 \ } \ § / \ / e § e / \ { » - ( } � } - � _ 2 koa \ ) / \ ( (ƒ ) ) ] \ § ) g \ \ ) &) \ ) » c + s > � csz + = z \ a ) \ } ( \ ) § 3! J� \ } , z 66 \ § \ ! § u \k � )} = a# - # y�) $ E { � ® - ; J ) %» < < ) �f + k « > ' ■ ®§ 2 ■ § ( ` ® ƒ} � ± a7 « ° ® ) y ] Z ƒƒ � e � � { « » 2 $ § ] / ) ƒ : E, c ; sz ® 2 & 3 ] ® ƒ ) ■ a § 2 � . © �� a � � � i ) �» , - - ` ® � ) ` ) \ \ ` • § ) y x 0 3 a a ol0 N1 00 O x x a 00 = c � O x x a 'c 0 6 z o a U v � w � d vi 'T x 00 N x 00 w w x x W _ c c _ U N -- � d' 7 rl •7 (•1 O rl � b c ,!q a 3 ° M 04. 7 -t •r' O al a � U i ?4 q O z O 6A M '30 F � 3 oto �o u to ° 'w a-- aVl cz y t o � p a W o w ° aSiE on o rl •r V a ,� ° •^pto o 'Ccn �! a a o RS i W y as c yo a a, o ❑ o Q � ° o 0 go NO a a c y $ V G a ° a AAC] aJ Qov a � °o r o m 8rwi a'6 N Qui A V] N c ) ) [ § { ( \ ) \ / ƒ / §! { f | ; \ ! } \ � � \ /\ :\ ; . . ;Z . � - ■ t t �/ �)} !^};/* • 72!! _ � %I� I;) k - �� ° ) .f ® - m ) & 2 ( ( / ( ( } � | ; \ { _ ! # ;,etz7:!) ; :«{ § � zza) ! _!!ƒ!}!!ƒ! #\\J\ ° f ) )) k § u / - 2 ° \ . _ k\)) l 2t tLZ - - - --- AGENDA Regular Meeting of the City Council Golden Valley City Hall 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Chamber November 1, 2016 6:30 pm 1.CALL TO ORDER PAGES A.Pledge of Allegiance B.Roll Call 2.ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS TO AGENDA 3.CONSENT AGENDA Approval of Consent Agenda - All items listed under this heading are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no discussion of these items unless a Council Member 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 October 18, 2016 B.Approval of City Check Register C.Licenses: 1. D.Minutes of Boards and Commissions: 1. Human Rights Commission - September 27, 2016 E.Bids and Quotes: 1. F. 4.PUBLIC HEARINGS A. 5.OLD BUSINESS 6.NEW BUSINESS A.Transfers from General Fund - Building Fund B.Announcement of Meetings 1. Future Draft Agendas: Council/Manager November 8, 2016, City Council November 15 and December 6, 2016 C.Mayor and Council Communications 7.ADJOURNMENT A G E N D A Council/Manager Meeting Golden Valley City Hall 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Conference Room Wednesday, November 9, 2016 6:30 pm Pages 1. Carver Governance (20 minutes) 2. Blue Line Open House Preview (30 minutes) 3. Master Fee Schedule (45 minutes) a. Sewer Access Charge (SAC) and Water Access Charge (WAC) b. Park Dedication Fee 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 November 15, 2016 6:30 pm 1.CALL TO ORDER PAGES A.Pledge of Allegiance B.Roll Call 2.ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS TO AGENDA 3.CONSENT AGENDA Approval of Consent Agenda - All items listed under this heading are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no discussion of these items unless a Council Member 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 November 1, 2016 B.Approval of City Check Register C.Licenses: 1. D.Minutes of Boards and Commissions: 1. E.Bids and Quotes: 1. F. 4.PUBLIC HEARINGS A.Public Hearing - First Consideration - Sewer Access Charge (SAC) and Water Access Charge (WAC) 5.OLD BUSINESS 6.NEW BUSINESS A.Comprehensive Plan - Approve Contract for Waste Water B.Resolution for Master Fee Schedule C.Announcement of Meetings 1. Future Draft Agendas: City Council December 1, 2016, Council/Manager and December 13, 2016 and City Council December 20, 2016 D.Mayor and Council Communications 7.ADJOURNMENT