04-13-17 CM Agenda PacketA G E N D A
Council/Manager Meeting
Golden Valley City Hall
7800 Golden Valley Road
Council Conference Room
Thursday, April 13, 2017
6:30 pm or immediately following the HRA Meeting
Security Training immediately following C/M Meeting (½ hour)
Pages
1. 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update - Land Use (continued) (15 minutes)2
2. 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update - Housing (20 minutes)3
3. 2016 Positive Performance-General Fund Transfer and Assignment of Fund
Balance (20 minutes)
4-6
4. Public Art Policy (20 minutes)7-14
5. Presentation on Results of Brookview Branding Focus Group (30 minutes)15-33
6. Presentation on Proposed Crisis Communications Plan (15 minutes)34-36
7. Campus Security (30 minutes)37-38
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.
Executive Summary
Golden Valley Council/Manager Meeting
April 13, 2017
Agenda Item
1. 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update - Land Use (continued)
Prepared By
Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager
Summary
Staff will update the City Council on the discussion and feedback received at the Comp Plan
Conversation held on March 27, which was a continuation of the Land Use conversation begun on
March 13. The second Land Use discussion focused on the Downtown West Planning District and
the Golden Valley Road Light Rail Station Area.
All Comp Plan elements will be addressed at meetings held throughout the spring and summer:
March – Land Use
April – Land Use (continued)
April – Housing
May – Sustainability and Resilience
June – Water Resources
July – Transportation
August – Parks and Nature Areas
September – Economic Competitiveness
Executive Summary
Golden Valley Council/Manager Meeting
April 13, 2017
Agenda Item
2. 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update - Housing
Prepared By
Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager
Summary
Staff will update the City Council on the discussion and feedback received at the Comp Plan
Conversation held on April 12, including reaction to the draft Goals and Objectives and initial
thoughts on the findings and recommendations of the Comprehensive Housing Study conducted
in late 2016.
All Comp Plan elements will be addressed at meetings held throughout the spring and summer:
March – Land Use
April – Land Use (continued)
April – Housing
May – Sustainability and Resilience
June – Water Resources
July – Transportation
August – Parks and Nature Areas
September – Economic Competitiveness
Executive Summary
Golden Valley Council/Manager Meeting
April 13, 2017
Agenda Item
3. 2016 Positive Performance-General Fund Transfer and Assignment of Fund Balance
Prepared By
Susan Virnig, Finance Director
Summary
The City of Golden Valley seeks to have a good balance in its General Fund in order to have sufficient
reserves for cash flow purposes, projects, and unexpected shortfalls or emergencies. In December
2011, the City established a formal policy on the level of fund balance that should be maintained in
the General Fund. The General Fund Balance Policy to assure adequate reserves indicates fiscal
prudence and maintains a high rating with bond-rating agencies, which prefer to see very strong and
healthy balances.
When the fund balance is greater than 60 percent, it should be reduced to 60 percent by using the
excess funds for specific one-time projects, acquisitions, transfers to capital funds to lessen the
future impact on the property tax rate or long-term debt reduction.
The one-time use protocol is important to ensure the City does not commit itself to expenditures
that may create deficits in future budgets. For instance, when the City experiences an excess fund
balance due to a one-time building permit revenue from a major commercial development, the City
should not expect that same revenue will be received from future building permits. Budgets should
be set using an average year of revenues and expenditures and not an exceptional year.
In 2016, Golden Valley was extremely fortunate once again to have a positive performance level.
Because the fund balance was over 60 percent of 2017 Expenditures by $1,000,000, staff
recommends making the following transfers:
Park Improvement Fund $300,000
General Fund transfers to the Park Improvement Fund should be at least $400,000 to maintain our
current park and open space system. The General Fund transfer amount for 2017 is at $250,000.
This one-time amount of $300,000 will help finance infrastructure improvements to the park and
open space system relating to tennis court improvements.
Storm Sewer Enterprise Fund $700,000
Capital Projects have increased due to level of needs with overall storm water ponds to prevent
flooding throughout the city. This amount will help finance infrastructure improvements to the
citywide storm water system and increase the amount available for potential matching grants. The
cash available decreased by 2.5 million in 2016.
TOTAL TRANSFERs $1,000,000
Staff will proceed with formal action on the April 20 Council Meeting.
Attachments
•Resolution Authorizing the Transfer of $1,000,000 from the General Fund to the Park
Improvement Fund of $300,000 and Storm Water Utility $700,000 Fund (1 page)
Resolution 17- April 20, 2017
Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE TRANSFER OF $1,000,000 FROM THE
GENERAL FUND TO THE PARK IMPROVEMENT FUND OF $300,000
AND STORM WATER UTILITY $700,000 FUND
WHEREAS, the General Fund Reserves meets 60% of 2017 expenditures; and
WHEREAS, the transfer of $300,000 to the Park Improvement Fund to help
maintain the current park and open space systems; and
WHEREAS, the transfer of $700,000 to the Storm Water Utility Fund would fund
needs for infrastructure improvements.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Golden
Valley to authorize the transfer of $1,000,000 from the General Fund to the Park
Improvement Fund for $300,000, and to the Storm Water Utility Fund for $700,000.
_____________________________
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
Golden Valley Council/Manager Meeting
April 13, 2017
Agenda Item
4. Public Art Policy
Prepared By
Tim Cruikshank, City Manager
Summary
Included in the Memorandum of Understanding that the City entered into with the Golden Valley
Community Foundation is a requirement to create a public art process. To that end, attached is a
draft public art policy that outlines the role and responsibly of the Golden Valley Foundation Art
Council and the City. The basic premise is that the Foundation/Art Council would be responsible for
fundraising and maintenance, and the authority of placement and art selection resides with the
City. Attached is the draft policy for your review and input.
Attachment
•Public Art Policy (7 pages)
1
CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY
PUBLIC ART POLICY
A.Purpose and Intent
The purpose of this Public Art Policy (“Policy”) is to enhance the City of Golden Valley (the
“City”) through the development of a Public Art Program. The intent of this Policy is to develop
processes, policies and procedures that will:
1.Provide a process by which the City and the Golden Valley Community Foundation
(the “Foundation”) can work collaboratively to advance more Public Art in the
community;
2.Guide the City’s approach to Public Art and provide a mechanism for the inclusion of
Public Art throughout the City;
3.Enrich the City’s public environment for its residents, business community, and visitors
by encouraging public participation and interaction with public spaces;
4.Ensure that stakeholders in the community are given a forum to share their
perspectives, input, experience, and knowledge;
5.Enhance community identity and pride; and
6.Provide high quality Public Art that promotes excellence and demonstrates diversity
and a variety of media.
B.Public Art
“Public Art” means works of craft or art, whether owned by the City or not, in any medium that
have been reviewed against adopted and standardized criteria, approved, and formally accepted
by the City for installation in public locations, in or on publicly owned buildings, on publicly
owned land, or in or on other locations leased or provided to the City through donation, easement
or other means. Public Art includes sculpture, murals, fountains, statues and any other form of
two or three dimensional work in any medium appropriate for the location otherwise meeting the
approval criteria.
All proposed Public Art must meet the following guidelines:
1.Public Art not owned by the City shall be subject to a License and Maintenance
Agreement between the owner of the Public Art and the City. The owner or provider of
the Public Art shall be responsible for all maintenance and repair costs associated with
the Public Art, unless otherwise agreed by the City and approved by the City Council.
2.Public Art shall be accessible to public viewing.
2
3.The City shall retain the right to transfer Public Art from one City-owned site to
another, as it deems necessary, or to remove or deaccession the Public Art if it no
longer desires to retain it as a component of the public art program.
4.Public Art shall not be approved where a condition of the approval requires permanent
exhibition.
5.In the judgment of the majority of the Public Art Panel and the City Council, the Public
Art must be appropriate for display to the general public.
6.If a proposal accepted by the City is a concept design for Public Art, then the final
product must match the approved concept design.
C.Process for Selection
Public Art selection shall be managed in cooperation with the Foundation. The Foundation shall
have the initial responsibility to solicit and develop proposals for Public Art and to secure and
develop funding for Public Art. All proposals shall subsequently be reviewed by the Public Art
Panel and approved by the City Council. The process for submitting proposals for approval by
the City is as follows:
1.Proposals for placement of Public Art shall be made by the Foundation in writing to the
City.
2.The Public Art Panel shall evaluate the proposed Public Art.
3.The Public Art Panel shall make an advisory recommendation regarding the proposed
Public Art to the City Council based upon the Public Art Panel’s perspectives, input,
experience and knowledge.
4.The City Council shall approve or reject the proposed Public Art, along with the
proposed License and Maintenance Agreement.
D.Public Review and Comment Period
Each Public Art proposal will be announced to the public at a regular City Council meeting and
then made available for public review and comment for a minimum of thirty days after the Public
Art Panel’s recommendation has been submitted to the City Council.
E.Required Information for Public Art Proposal
All written Public Art proposals submitted to the City must include the following:
1.A photo or drawing of the Public Art.
2.The appraised value of the Public Art.
3.A description of materials used to create Public Art, including materials needed to
display/secure the Public Art.
3
4.The dimensions of the proposed Public Art, including appropriate base materials
needed at the public site.
5.A description, including materials, dimensions, wording and location, of interpretive
signage for the Public Art.
6.A statement regarding the relationship of the proposed Public Art to the proposed site
including aesthetic, cultural, or historic ties.
7.Statement of probable lifespan of the Public Art and annual maintenance needed to
maintain Public Art integrity.
8.A statement as to whether the Public Art is unique or duplicates other work by the same
artist.
F.Composition of the Public Art Panel
The Public Art Panel is a standing committee of the City and shall be appointed by the City
Council. The Public Art Panel will consist of a minimum of ___ members. The ____ members
shall be as follows:
1.___ member(s) of the Golden Valley Community Foundation Arts Council (the “Arts
Council”), recommended by the Arts Council and appointed by the City Council;
2.___ City residents, appointed by the City Council; and
3.___ City staff members, appointed by the City Manager.
The Public Art Panel shall also include the following ad hoc members, as applicable:
1.When a project before the Public Art Panel involves Public Art on a site owned by a
non-public site owner, one member of the non-public site owner’s architect or design
team.
2.If the City hires an arts facilitation professional (an “Arts Facilitator”), the Arts
Facilitator shall be a member of the Public Art Panel when the project before the Public
Art Panel is within the scope of the Arts Facilitator’s contract. If the Arts Facilitator is
a firm, the firm shall select one representative to serve on the Public Art Panel.
Appointments under this provision shall specifically exclude dealers, agents or
representatives of artists applying before or working with the Public Art Panel.
3.When the site under consideration is located within or near a locally or nationally
designated historic property the City Council may appoint one liaison from the Golden
Valley Historical Society to serve on the Public Art Panel.
G.Duties and Responsibilities of the Public Art Panel
In all cases, a Public Art Panel decision is an advisory recommendation and final authority
remains with the City Council. The Public Art Panel shall work within parameters established
4
by the City Council including overall budget, site constraints and program goals. The Public Art
Panel’s duties may include the following:
1.Make recommendations to the City Council and City staff on matters pertaining to the
selection, acquisition, location, restoration and maintenance of Public Art.
2.Make recommendations from time to time to the City Council regarding the
engagement of the Foundation, an Arts Facilitator or other consultants.
3.Review and negotiate the terms of proposed License and Maintenance Agreements
related to Public Art.
4.Review, evaluate, and discuss credentials, proposals and/or materials submitted to the
City or Public Art Panel for review.
5.Via majority vote, recommend the award of Public Art projects or proposals or decide
to further investigate any chosen finalists. If further investigation of finalists is
required, draft a list of information and/or additional materials required. Conclude the
investigation as rapidly as possible, convene for further discussion and, via majority
vote, recommend the award of projects.
6.Inform the City Council in writing of the Public Art Panel’s advisory recommendation
and cite reasons for the decision. If the Public Art Panel cannot reach an agreement on
an advisory recommendation, the matter shall be referred to the City Council. The
Public Art Panel may chose not to make an advisory recommendation if, in its opinion,
there is insufficient merit among the submissions. If this occurs, the City Council shall
determine whether to recommend that the Public Art project should be abandoned or
whether some other action is required.
7.Assist City staff to coordinate physical and logistical components of Public Art
installation, including matters related to transportation and signage.
8.Serve as an information conduit for the Foundation, City staff, artists, property owners
and others for matters relating to Public Art.
9.Other duties, as determined from time to time by the City Council.
H.Criteria for Review
The Foundation shall be guided by and the Public Art Panel shall make recommendations based
upon the following criteria:
1.All visual art forms and materials will be considered. Artwork reflecting any school,
movement, method or style will be considered. Artwork may be functional or non-
functional, conceptual or tangible, portable or site-specific.
2.The proposed Public Art should be compared with the artists’ best work and the best
works of Public Art then displayed in the City.
5
3.Public Art should be enduring and diverse and the City should strive for diversity in
style, scale, media and artists. It should reflect the social, ethnic and cultural fabric of
the community as well as the values of the City and the community.
4.If the proposed Public Art is to be erected or displayed outdoors, the physical condition
of the Public Art should be considered in terms of durability in an outdoor setting. Any
requirements for immediate or future conservation should be noted.
5.Consideration should be given to structural and surface integrity and the use of
materials appropriate to the location so as to minimize or eliminate maintenance and
repair costs.
6.Public Art must not create unsafe conditions or otherwise increase public liability.
7.Public Art must add interest and meaning to the public location in which it is placed.
8.Public Art must be compatible in scale, material, form and content with its surrounding
and form an overall relationship with the public location. Public Art must conform to
any existing Master Plan for the site. The Foundation may request a specific site;
however, each placement will be evaluated based upon suitability of the Public Art for
the site. The Public Art Panel will make a recommendation to the City Council
concerning an appropriate site the Public Art.
9.The Public Art must have social, cultural, historical or physical connection to the
planned public location.
10.Public Art whose message is exclusively religious in nature will not be accepted.
11.Public Art whose message is exclusively political in nature will only be considered if
the political message is of a historical context.
12.The City is discouraged from approving Public Art when funds for the on-going
maintenance and repair of the Public Art are not secured and when, as a condition of
the installation or exhibition, the City is required to pay for the maintenance,
installation, framing, or restoration of the Public Art.
13.The on-going maintenance and repair anticipated throughout the lifespan of a project as
well as operating and maintenance budgets shall be considered.
The Public Art Panel may adopt other project-specific criteria to evaluate Public Art proposals.
I.Removal & Deaccessioning Public Art
Deaccession is a procedure for the removal and disposal of Public Art owned by the City. The
City may remove or deaccession Public Art when it finds such action to be in the best interest of
the public based upon the following:
1.As a means of improving the quality of the City’s exhibited Public Art when:
6
a.The Public Art has no relevance or serves no exhibition function.
b.The Public Art is duplicative of other Public Art.
c.The Public Art no longer meets the current standards for Public Art.
2.Due to concerns for public safety when Public Art becomes a hazard or a public liability.
3.The Public Art is in a seriously deteriorated condition.
4.Removal should not be based on current fashion or taste.
Recommendations for removal shall be made to the Public Art Panel, which will then make a
recommendation based upon the public benefit of the action to the City Council for approval.
Each request for removal shall be announced to the public at a regular City Council meeting and
then made available for public review and comment for a minimum of thirty days before action
is taken by the City Council.
J.Exemptions
This Public Art Policy shall not apply to art procured for or located at Brookview Commons or
the Golden Valley City Hall.
7
EXHIBIT A
LICENSE &MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
Executive Summary
Golden Valley Council/Manager Meeting
April 13, 2017
Agenda Item
5. Presentation on Results of Brookview Branding Focus Group
Prepared By
Cheryl Weiler, Communications Manager
Summary
The Brookview Branding team (City communications staff, Brookview staff, and two volunteer
consultants from the community) led two community focus groups on March 29, 2017, to gather
input and test two items related to branding Brookview’s new facilities and amenities: 1)
potential names for the new Brookview building, and 2) whether the marketing materials for
Brookview should identify it as a City facility. Staff will present the results of the focus groups.
Attachments
•Brookview Branding Focus Group Results (18 pages)
BROOKVIEW BRANDING
Focus Group Results
DRAFT
4/7/17
BROOKVIEW BUILDING NAMES
1. What is the first thing you feel when you see this name?
Response Number of
People
No connection with the building or marketing
Comments: “I think I rolled two or more and got to Boardwalk,” “I
thought of Park Place, doesn’t evoke much, ” “Too vague,” “Too
generic” (2) “Does not pop,” “Not exciting enough,” “Seems flat,”
“Meh,” “Some ‘place’ does not resonate” (2), “Not a fan”
16
Housing, apartment building, condo, subdivision, assisted living
Comments: Like, “I live at Brookview Place”
10
Office building, plaza, city building
Comments: “Downtown Chicago,” “New York”
6
Other
Comments: “Destination, a place to go,” “Seems formal,” “Neutral,”
“Encompasses what we’re trying to reach,” “Dated”
5
Response Number of
People
No
Comments: “For a wedding, doesn’t seem like it has the right
weight,” “Don’t connect with it, ” “Liked it until it sounded like an
apartment”
26
Maybe
Comments: “But still think of housing”
4
Yes
Comments: “But would like to see all of the options,” “For kids”
2
2. Going on what you know about Brookview, would you say this name is appropriate for
this facility?
3. How would you tell people to meet you here?
Response Number of
People
Brookview 9
Brookview Place
Comments: “Eventually would start using the new building name,
until then, “Brookview,” “It’s important to be specific,” “The building,
it would have to be learned”
5
The Place
Comments: “It has possibilities: The ‘Place’ to be, a gathering
‘Place’,” “Too hard, it would have to be learned”
4
Brookview Building or main building 4
More specific to the place inside
Comments: “Like at the Backyard at Brookview,” “At the Brookview
Golf Course,” “Go to Golf”
3
Brookview Golf Course 2
Brookview Community Center 2
New Community Center
Comments: “Because we know it’s going in place of the old”
1
4. After seeing this name, how likely are you to use this facility?
Response Number of
People
Probably
Comments: “75% would,” “Could be anywhere”
2
Yes
Comments: “Absolutely,” “Name has nothing to do with it,” “Defi-
nitely,” “It’s going to be a new building,” “Most likely will be meeting
there weekly regardless of the name,” “It is more about the design
of the place, not the logo,” “‘Place’ is growing on me,” “Seems down
to earth,” “Open to it” (2), “Forget the name, I like how it looks,” “As
long as it’s not atrocious,” “Generic but not generic enough, which
is a good thing,” “Look past it - The magazine ad alone would catch
their attention,” “Without the block treatment is better, looks higher
rent,” “Looks like a high-end destination”
23
Indifferent 3
No
Comments: “Place doesn’t seem like the place,” “Not consistent”
2
1. What is the first thing you feel when you see this name?
Response Number of People
Upscale, “hoity toity”
Comments: “Upscale and nice,” “Feels more elevated,” “Preppy,”
“Piques interest more - On an invitation, it is a lot better than
‘Place’,” “Like apex, a ‘point’ for all pieces to come together”
“Saw ‘Pinot’ right away instead of ‘Point’, thought of wine, high-
er end”
8
Water, Lake, Peninsula, Coast
Comments: “Waiting for lighthouse, ” “On a point, on a lake”
13
Resort
Comments: “Like Breezy Point,” “Brainerd,” “Up north - Split
rock visual, Minnesotan”
6
Likes ‘Place’ over ‘Point’
Comments: “Maybe it’s too fancy?” “Doesn’t have a sense of
community, like ‘Place’”
3
Restaurant
Comments: “Old restaurant off of Winnetka,” “The Point Bar/
Restaurant that used to be here”
3
Apartments
Comments: “Both ‘Place’ and ‘Point’ sound like apartments”
2
Other
Comments: “It’s a possibility,” “Make out place”
2
Response Number of
People
No
Comments: “Don’t like it,” “Don’t think so” “For an outdoor bar,
maybe. But no overall.”
15
Maybe/Possibly 8
Yes
Comments: “Absolutely,” ”It’s better for weddings” “I like it” (2), “It’s
a destination point, what Brookview stands for”
6
Better than ‘Place’2
2. Going on what you know about Brookview, would you say this name is appropriate for this
3. How would you tell people to meet you here?
Response Number of
People
The Point 11
Brookview 10
Other
Comments: “The Brookview Building,” “I’ll point you to the Place,”
“Go where google takes you,” “BV clubhouse, main building,” “The
Point at Brookview”
5
Brookview Point 3
More specific to the place inside
Comments: “At Three One Six at the Point”
2
Response Number of People
Yes
Comments: “For a banquet,” “Depending on what I was using
it for,” “But disappointed when there is no point or water when
I get there,” “Place over Point” (3), “Point over Place” (2), “But
always more visual,” “Reality is that it will be beautiful regardless
of the name”
22
Makes no difference/Indifferent
Comments: “But if had to choose, Point better than Place,” “Will
still go to Brookview,” “Place is more classy”
5
Not sure
Comments: “I’d look into it,” “Not sure if they are a fan of either”
3
No 1
4. After seeing this name, how likely are you to use this facility?
Response Number of People
University/College
Comments: “Cafeteria,” “Something from high school,” “Union
hall,” “Gathering,” “Food Court, Boston,” “Green area”
8
Like it
Comments: “Very inclusive,” “Green space with hanging out
area, pick-up games,” “But is it high end enough?” “Like how it
flows,” “Says community center without all of the words,” “Bos-
ton, higher expectations -- Of the three, it is better,” “Unique
feel, youthful, gathering -- So unexpected, never thought of this,
not as common as the others”
7
Not as elevated/Seems too common
Comments: “Compared to others, seems lower - not for wed-
ding,” “Not enough sizzle,” “We don’t want to be common,” “Not
for weddings,” “Seems to appeal to blue collar connotation as
opposed to Place”
7
Don’t like 4
Other
Comments: “‘Ah!’ Felt comfortable,” “Old fashioned/New En-
gland,” “Reminds me of GV Commons,” “No…it works I guess…
just the name…pass,” “Multiple phases/places coming together”
4
Apartments/restaurants/etc
Comments: “Place you go with apartments around it - not ap-
propriate,” “Senior high-rise,” “Think of shopping mall”
3
Space for people to meet
Comments: “Like the plural - encompasses all spaces”
2
1. What is the first thing you feel when you see this name?
Response Number of People
Yes
Comments: “Overpromises a little bit, like a collection of build-
ings, but like it the best,” “Better than the other two”
12
No 2
Maybe 2
2. Going on what you know about Brookview, would you say this name is appropriate for this
(One group skipped this question)
Response Number of People
Brookview 11
Broovkiew Commons
Comments: “It will be a learned thing”
9
The Commons 4
Brookview or Commons interchangeably 1
3. How would you tell people to meet you here?
Response Number of People
Yes
Comments: “It doesn’t turn me off,” “Comfortable with it,” “It has
no bearing on what happens”
#
Depends on the audience
Comments: “Dislike immensely, but it wouldn’t keep me away -
Pictures guide me more”
7
No
Comments: “Not so much,” “Not so much, especially for wed-
dings,” “Does not draw me in,” “Pass on ‘Commons’. Turns me
off.”
5
Yes for recreation/golf, no for weddings
Comments: “What this building represents is most important.
What is it about Community Center that got it pushed out of
the running?”
4
Maybe 2
4. After seeing this name, how likely are you to use this facility?
1. Which name most captures your attention?
3. Which name do you think would likely convince people to come to Brookview?
Answer Number
of People
Comments
Brookview Point 14 Struggle without the word community
Brookview Commons 9
Brookview Place 9 Community
Brookview 1
Answer Number
of People
Comments
Brookview Commons 22 “Hard to answer, none tell what the building
will do”
Brookview Place 7
Brookview Point 1 “After weight it, this best communicates,”
“Could use ‘Point’ for a specific part of the
building”
Answer Number
of People
Comments
Brookview Point 11
Brookview Commons 10 “Depends on the context,” “Least offensive”
Brookview Place 9
Brookview 2
2. Which name best communicates the amenities and benefits of the facility?
4. Please rank these names in order of preference, from most preferred to least preferred.
Rank Votes
1st 9**
2nd 14
3rd 8
*One person chose “Brookview Point” for 1st and
“Brookview Commons” for 2nd if voting “as a
high-end buyer” but would choose “Brookview
Commons” for first if voting as a resident
**One person voted “Brookview
Commons” and “Brookview Place”
as a tie for 1st
Overall Comments
• “Why label building at all?”
• “What about Brookview Gatherings?”
Rank Votes
1st 10**
2nd 9
3rd 12
Rank Votes
1st 13**
2nd 6*
3rd 12
CITY IDENTIFICATION
1. Although Brookview is a City-owned facility, it relies on customers from all over the metro
area to be financially successful. With this in mind, how important do you think it is for poten-
tial customers, such as brides, corporate event planners, golfers, restaurant customers, indoor
playground customers, etc., to identify Brookview as a City facility, and what is best for the
facility?
Response Number of
People
Not Important
Comments: “Like just Golden Valley - so it doesn’t show it’s a City run
facility.” “Think the City part is a negative, so just ‘Golden Valley’. Shows
the location, which is enough - it’s not about our city vs theirs.” “Most
know GV already. Another logo added is too much, better to simplify.”
“Just ‘Golden Valley—most know it’s a City. Golden Valley is a pretty
name, and it helps distinguish. ‘City of’ is too much.” “’Golden Valley’—
streamlined, less is more.” “’Golden Valley’. From graphic design stand-
point, it is the cleanest and easiest to read.” “’Golden Valley’. Don’t need
two logos.” “’Golden Valley’. Leave ‘City of’ out, maybe add the swoosh
in for printed materials?” “‘Golden Valley’. It stands out. But I also like
the swoosh.” “You forgot the Golden Valley logo, but I like ‘Golden Val-
ley’.” “When informational, GV is necessary, but for event places, it isn’t.
Promotional pieces will already have the address to the building on it.”
“GV may be redundant. It may be useful in a wedding magazine.” “Saw
dedication sign as a menu. Strongly disliked the plaque with City coun-
cil on it. Golden Valley on it would solve landmarking (for a sign), but
anywhere else would be a reach. This is an opportunity for fixing the
brand architecture.” “Like the sign, very good for a prototype. Like the
Golden Valley best.” “City-owned is a negative stigma. Look at another
courses, they don’t the city name attached. There may be a reason to
have some mention, like just Golden Valley, for directional purposes.”
”Golden Valley is enough. No need for city-owned. No selling feature.”
”Not needed for event targeting. Sign that gets a lot of views, like Hwy
55, but that’s it.” “The ‘Golden Valley’ would be great for T-shirts and
promo apparel. I think the building name should be the main sign.”
29
Important
Comments: “I like ‘City of Golden Valley’ with the swoosh.”
1
Other
Comments: “Didn’t like any of them, would like to see the swoosh with
the Golden Valley option.”
0
Additional Comments: “We should reach out to renters, wedding people/people getting mar-
ried soon, seniors or other users to do another focus group.”
2. Is it appropriate to have ‘City of Golden Valley’ on materials for this facility?
Response Number of People
No
Comments: “No need for two logos” (2), “’Golden Valley’—but
print shouldn’t have the city logo on it.” “’Golden Valley’, be-
cause it is biggest for when you drive by. Otherwise, increase
the font size.” (2) “Like ‘Golden Valley’, -- looks good.” “Like
‘Golden Valley’ best—but printed materials should be separate.”
“’Golden Valley’ -- it is appropriate and enough. Logomark is
too much.”
25
Only on signage
Comments: “Don’t have a problem with it, but just on outdoor
signage. Not on marketing materials.” “Some of signage would
be fine. Some cases, maybe include in marketing, but not need-
ed.” “Like ‘Golden Valley’—but signage should have swoosh.”
“Swoosh doesn’t work. ‘Golden Valley’ has larger print, and it
fits the simplicity theme.” “’Golden Valley’, no ‘city of’. Gold-
en Valley does seem a little large and bold and competes with
Brookview.” “’Golden Valley’. The city needs a better brand.
Having the City attached brings values you don’t want the buyer
to see.” “‘Golden Valley’. It is clean and simple.” “‘Golden Valley.
Feels more common. Appreciates the Golden Valley part be-
ing on it.” “‘Golden Valley’. ‘City’ attached is only useful for City
limit signs. Why would we need it, civic pride? No need for it.”
“Maybe bring the font size down of ‘Golden Valley’. Like it a lot,
it says elegance.” “‘Golden Valley’. Elegant. Adding in the City
becomes too municipal.” “Adding in the City becomes adver-
tising for the City. Font on the City arrangements are too small.
Don’t want the City involvement to be too overpowering.” “Add
MN after Golden Valley.”
3
Yes
Comments: “Large plaques should.” “‘Golden Valley’. I think the
City should be in it. It is part of Golden Valley, and we take pride
in our city.”
2
Doesn’t matter
Comments: “Not important to have, but not a detriment.”
1
3. Please rank these names in order of preference, from most preferred to least preferred.
Rank Votes
1st 29*
2nd 1
3rd 0
Overall Comments
• “There should not be any reference to ‘City’”
• “This isn’t the time to be tooting the City Council’s horn and celebrating their
‘success.’ It should be a welcoming place for the community as a whole.”
Rank Votes
1st 2*
2nd 10
3rd 14
Rank Votes
1st 0
2nd 12
3rd 12
*Four voted only for 1st
(one said for landmark
sign only, one said
“‘Golden Valley’ needs
to be smaller, please”)
*One person voted twice for 1st,
preferring “City of Golden Valley”
with the swoosh (above) for large
signs and “Brookview Golden Val-
ley” (upper left) for “most other
materials”
*Only if “City of Golden Valley”
is removed
BROOKVIEW BRANDING
Focus Group Results
Executive Summary
Golden Valley Council/Manager Meeting
April 13, 2017
Agenda Item
6. Presentation on Proposed Crisis Communications Plan
Prepared By
Cheryl Weiler, Communications Manager
Summary
In response to several high-profile critical incidents in the metro area, Golden Valley is one of
many cities reviewing the communications component of its emergency response plan. The
review indicated a need for a more thorough plan, improved staff training, and on-call support
from seasoned crisis communicators. Staff will outline the City’s current crisis communications
protocol and present a four-step proposal for implementing an updated plan that meets the
needs and expectations of today’s community stakeholders for an amount not to exceed
$20,000. A budget adjustment reflecting this amount will be presented to the City Council for
approval at a future meeting.
Attachments
•Crisis Communications (2 pages)
7800 Golden Valley Road • Golden Valley, MN 55427 • www.goldenvalleymn.gov
763-593-8004 • 763-593-8109 (fax) • 763-593-3968 (tty) • cweiler@goldenvalleymn.gov
Crisis Communications
Crisis communications is a crucial component of emergency planning, and how cities handle it can
positively or negatively impact public perception and the organization’s image. Cities must be able
to respond promptly, accurately, and confidently during and after a major incident or emergency.
This includes providing information geared to the specific interests and needs of a variety of
audiences. The League of Minnesota Cities recommends that cities develop and implement a
thorough crisis communications plan.
Current Plan
According to Golden Valley’s emergency operations plan, communications in a major incident/
emergency is handled in the following manner:
• The City’s official spokerperson is the City manager or designee.
• The City manager will meet with key staff to determine the spokesperson, key messages, and
dissemination plan.
• The news briefing room will be the City Council Chambers unless it’s necessary to designate
another location.
• The communications manager will coordinate dissemination of all information and updates, which
will be issued on a regular basis.
• The communications manager will coordinate communications mutual from neighboring cities
and/or the county.
While this plan has worked well in the past, it is not thorough enough for the fast pace of today’s
24-hour news cycle and the expectations of audiences who are increasingly getting news online
and from social media.
Proposed Additions
Needed updates include more detailed protocols and processes, a higher level of training for
spokespersons, and on-call 24-hour support from seasoned crisis communications responders.
These proposals can be outlined in four key steps: 1) development of a critical issues list, 2)
development of a detailed crisis communications plan, 3) training, and 4) on-call support. Each
step includes a brief description and a cost range based on information from other cities and
consultants that provide crisis communications services.
1. Critical Issues List
Staff will develop a list of emergency/critical issues most likely to require crisis communications
management and which could impact Golden Valley’s reputation and image. The list would include
potential scenarios in the areas of personnel, data, severe weather, public safety, infrasatructure,
public health, etc.
2. Detailed Crisis Communications Plan
Staff will work with a consultant to refine the critical issues list and use it to prepare a detailed
action plan to be used in a crisis. This plan would:
• define the crisis management team
• identify spokespersons
• identify alternate spokespersons and the conditions that would make them a spokesperson
continued on page 2
• create a crisis protocol flow chart of responsibility
• create templates and communications materials for each item on the critical issues list (key audiences,
key messages, standby statements, news releases, social media posts, etc)
• create resource lists for various scenarios (these may include media and social media policies; contact
lists for spokespersons, mutual aid communicators, media, law enforcement; etc)
Cost Range: $10,000 - $20,000
3. Training
The consultant will provide training to prepare potential spokespeople to respond to media and public
questions in a crisis situation. Training includes:
• understanding the needs of the media and other audiences during a crisis
• how to control interviews
• how to use your key messages to handle any question
• how to handle Q&A in front of difficult audiences
• controlling the flow of information during a crisis
Cost Range: $3,000 - $4,000 per half-day session for a group of around 15 with one to three trainers
4. On-Call Support
On an as-needed basis, the City would consult a team of seasoned crisis communications responders
(available 24 hours a day, seven days to week) to manage crisis response strategy and materials. Such
support could range from simple guidance and advice to full-fledged media management or social media
monitoring and response.
Cost Range: Approximately $275 per hour
City of Golden Valley • Crisis Communications • page 2
Executive Summary
Golden Valley Council/Manager Meeting
April 13, 2017
Agenda Item
7. Campus Security
Prepared By
Jason Sturgis, Police Chief
Summary
The 2017-2021 Capital Improvement Program includes a program in the Building Fund for
additional security projects within the city buildings. Future plans will be discussed at this
meeting that include adding three security cameras that will have remote viewing and recorded
activity retention, updating the current campus access entry system to adhere to software and
hardware updates and to change the routing of the emergency button activation signal to a local
destination. All of the above can be accomplished for less than the allotted $50,000 available in
the CIP for this project in 2017 and follow the recommendations laid out in the 2012 City of
Golden Valley Security System Assessment.
Attachment
•2017-2021 Capital Improvement Program - Building Fund (B-027) Installation of Building
Security Systems (1 page)
Capital Plan 2017 ti„„ 2021
Department Buildings
City of Golden Valley, Minnesota Contact
Type Improvement
Project# B-027 Useful Life
Project Name Installation of Building Security Systems Category Buildings
Description
Installation of building security systems in all City owned facilities.
Justification
The City has installed a security system for primarily the City Hall Campus.2017 security projects include installation of video suveillance.2018
projects include security systems in other buildings.
Expenditures 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Total
Other 50,000 50,000 100,000
Total 50,000 50,000 100,000
Funding Sources 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Total
Building Fund(5200) 50,000 50,000 100,000
Total 50,000 50,000 100,000