The URL can be used to link to this page

07-05-17 CC Consent AgendaAGENDA Regular Meeting of the City Council Golden Valley City Hall 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Chamber Wednesday, July 5, 2017 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: 1. Council/Manager - May 9, 2017 2-3 2. City Council Meeting - June 20, 2017 4-8 B.Approval of City Check Register 9 C.Licenses: 1. Approve Requests for Beer and/or Wine at Brookview Park 10-11 2. Gambling License Exemption and Waiver of Notice Requirement - Good Shepherd 12-14 3. Gambling License Exemption and Waiver of Notice Requirement - The Church of St. Margaret Mary 15-17 D.Minutes: 1. Special Planning Commission - May 8 and June 12, 2017 18-35 2. Planning Commission - April 24, May 22 and June 12, 2017 36-49 3. Environmental Commission - May 22, 2017 50-51 4. Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission - April 20 and May 18, 2017 52-66 E.Authorize Contract with Corrective Asphalt Materials, Inc. for 2017 Pavement Preservation Project 67-73 F.Authorize License Agreement with Golden Valley Orchestra 74-83 G.Authorize Cooperative Agreement with the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services for Water Main Replacement 84-101 H.Authorize Joint Cooperation Agreement with Hennepin County for participation in the Community Development Block Grant program in Fiscal Years 2018-2020 17-40 102-113 I.Board/Commission Appointments 114 4.PUBLIC HEARINGS 5.OLD BUSINESS 6.NEW BUSINESS A.Review of Council Calendar B.Mayor and Council Communications 7.ADJOURNMENT UNOFFICAL MINUTES COUNCIL/MANAGER MEETING GOLDEN VALLEY, MINNESOTA May 9, 2017 The meeting began at 6:30 pm in the Council Conference Room. Present: Mayor Harris and Council Members: Clausen, Fonnest, Schmidgall and Snope. Also present were: City Manager Cruikshank, Physical Development Director Nevinski, Communications Manager Weiler, Parks and Recreation Director Birno, Public Works Specialist Eckman, Planning Associate/Grant Writer Goellner and Graphic Designer/Web Specialist Fuhrman. 1. 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update - Sustainability and Resilience Public Works Specialist Eckman provided feedback received from the Comp Plan Conversation’s open house and discussion regarding sustainability and resilience which included reactions to the draft goals and objectives and the results of the Vulnerability Assessment that was conducted by Great Plains Institute. Planning Associate/Grant Writer Goellner answered questions from Council regarding the timeline for the Comp Plan. The Council discussed the proposed sustainability and resilience goals and objective and the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. 2a. Open Space and Recreation Commission 2016 Annual Report Open Space and Recreation Commission Chair Mr. Cornelius presented the 2016 Open Space and Recreation Commission annual report and the projects proposed for 2017 and answered questions from Council. Parks and Recreation Director Birno answered questions from Council. The Council discussed the Open Space and Recreation Commission and thanked the Commission for their service. 2b. Environmental Commission 2016 Annual Report Environmental Commission Chair Ms. Gitelis presented the 2016 Environmental Commission annual report and the projects proposed for 2017 and answered questions from Council. The Council discussed the Environmental Commission and thanked the Commission for their service. 2c. Planning Commission 2016 Annual Report Planning Commission Chair Mr. Segelbaum presented the 2016 Planning Commission annual report and discussed issues related to planning for 2017 and answered questions from Council. City Manager Cruikshank and Physical Development Director Nevinski answered questions from Council. The Council discussed the Planning Commission and thanked the Commission for their service. Unofficial Council/Manager Minutes -2- May 9, 2017 2d. Board of Zoning Appeals 2016 Annual Report Board of Zoning Appeals Chair Mr. Perich presented the 2016 Board of Zoning Appeals 2016 annual report and answered questions from Council. Associate Planner/Grant Writer Goellner answered questions from Council. The Council discussed the Board of Zoning Appeals Commission and thanked the Commission for their service. 3. Human Rights Commission Guidance Mayor Harris introduced the item. City Manager Cruikshank provided background information on the item and discussed possible guidelines for the Human Rights Commission. The Council discussed the possible directions of the Human Rights Commission. The Council consensus was for the Human Rights Commission to propose in their annual plan items that the Commission would like to assume and for the annual plan to be brought to the Council for their approval. 4.Presentation on Proposed Public Input Process for Street Banner Design Communications Manager Weiler and Graphic Designer/Web Specialist Fuhrman reviewed the staff report including the current street banner process. Ms. Weiler reviewed the options for the new street banner design process. She said option 1 would be to use the City’s Public Art Policy and the second option would be to have city staff design the banners and use community focus groups to help select the final design. The Council discussed the street banners guidelines and the two different options presented to replace the current street banners. The Council consensus was to move forward with option 1 using the new Public Art Policy to guide the street banner replacement process. 5. Future Draft Agendas The Council discussed the future draft agendas including adding a future discussion of short- term rentals (Airbnb). The meeting adjourned at 9:55 pm. _______________________________ Shepard M. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: __________________________ Kristine A. Luedke, City Clerk UNOFFICIAL MINUTES CITY COUNCIL MEETING GOLDEN VALLEY, MINNESOTA June 20, 2017 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 and Steve Schmidgall. Also present were: City Manager Cruikshank and City Clerk Luedke. Absent: Council Member Andy Snope. 2. ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS TO AGENDA MOTION made by Council Member Fonnest, seconded by Council Member Clausen to approve the agenda of June 20, 2017, as submitted and the motion carried. 3. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA MOTION made by Council Member Clausen, seconded by Council Member Fonnest to approve the consent agenda of June 20, 2017, as revised: removal of 3F-Accept Donation from Golden Valley Federated Women’s Club, 3M1-Accept Resignation from Human Rights Commission, and 3O-Human Rights Commission Appointment and the motion carried. 3A1.Approve Minutes of the Council/Manager Meeting of April 13, 2017. 3A2.Approve Minutes of the City Council Meeting of June 6, 2017. 3B. Approve City Check Register and authorize the payment of the bills as submitted. 3C1.Approve the renewal of the respective liquor license for the applicant listed below for the license period of July 1, 2017 through June 30, 2018: On-Sale Wine and 3.2 Malt Liquor: Envision Catering & Hospitality. 3C2.Approve a temporary on-sale liquor license for Church of St. Margaret Mary, 2323 Zenith Avenue North, for their Fall Festival on September 17, 2017. 3C3.Approve a temporary on-sale liquor license for the Chester Bird American Legion, 200 North Lilac Drive, for their Rib Fest event on July 15, 2017. 3D.Accept for filing the Minutes of Boards and Commissions as follows: 1. Human Right Commission - April 25, 2017 2. Human Services Fund - May 8, 2017 3. Open Space & Recreation Commission - April 24, 2017 3E1.Approve purchase of an Xzalt V-Box Smart Spreader from Towmaster Truck Equipment Company for $54,233. 3E2.Approve the purchase of a diesel tank fuel sump and carrier pipe from Lube Tech, Incorporated in the amount of $34,800. 3F.Adopt Resolution 17-31, accepting a Donation from the Golden Valley Federated Women’s Club for the Summer Concert Series. 3G.Adopt Resolution 17-32,authorizing execution of a Flood Damage Reduction Assistance Grant Agreement. 3H.Adopt Resolution 17-33, authorizing the Purchase of 1601 Independence Avenue North for $222,000. 3I.Adopt Resolution 17-34, authorizing the Purchase of 1605 Independence Avenue North for $235,000. Unofficial City Council Minutes -2- June 20, 2017 3. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA - continued 3J.Authorize the City Manager and Mayor to sign the School Resource Officer Service Agreement with Independent School District 281. 3K.Adopt Resolution 17-35, Adopting Amended Public Purpose Expenditure Policy. 3L.Receive and file the May 2017 Financial Reports. 3M.Accept Resignation from Ms.Hattie Bonds from Human Rights Commission. 3N. Adopt Resolution 17-36, authorizing Reporting Requirements for the Local Performance Measurement Program. 3O.Approve the Board and Commission Appointment to Human Rights Commission: 3. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA 3F. Acceptance of Donation from the Golden Valley Federated Women’s Club for the Summer Concert Series. Council thanked the Golden Valley Federated Women’s Club for their donation. MOTION made by Council Member Fonnest, seconded by Council Member Clausen to adopt Resolution 17-31, accepting a Donation from the Golden Valley Federated Women’s Club for the Summer Concert Series upon a vote being taken the following voted in favor of: Clausen, Fonnest, Harris and Schmidgall, the following was absent: Snope, the following voted against: none and the motion carried. 3M. Resignation from Human Rights Commission Council thanked Ms. Hattie Bond for her service on the Human Rights Commission. MOTION made by Council Member Fonnest, seconded by Council Member Clausen to accept the resignation from Ms. Bonds from the Human Rights Commission and the motion carried. 3O. Human Rights Commission Appointment Council welcomed Ms. Carrie Yeager to the Human Rights Commission. MOTION made by Council Member Fonnest, seconded by Council Member Clausen to approve the Board and Commission Appointment of Ms. Yeager to the Human Rights Commission for a two year term and the motion carried. 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS 4A. Public Hearing - MS4 General Permit, Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program, 2016 Annual Report to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Water Resource Technician Hoffman reviewed the staff report and answered questions from Council. City Engineer Oliver answered questions from Council. Mayor Harris opened the public hearing. No one can forward. Mayor Harris closed the public hearing. MOTION made by Council Member Clausen, seconded by Council Member Fonnest to adopt Resolution 17-37, issuing a Negative Declaration of Need for Revisions to the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program upon a vote being taken the following voted in favor of: Clausen, Fonnest, Harris and Schmidgall, the following was absent: Snope, the following voted against: none and the motion carried. Unofficial City Council Minutes -3- June 20, 2017 4B. Public Hearing - Ordinance #622 - Amending Section 11.04 Temporary Uses regarding Mobile Food Vendors in Residential Zoning Districts Associate Planner/Grant Writer Goellner reviewed the staff report and answered questions from Council. City Manager Cruikshank answered questions from Council. Mayor Harris opened the public hearing. No one can forward. Mayor Harris closed the public hearing. There was Council discussion regarding the use of mobile food vendors within the Residential Zoning Districts. MOTION made by Council Member Schmidgall, seconded by Council Member Clausen to adopt Ordinance #622, amending Section 11.04 Temporary Uses regarding Mobile Food Vendors in Residential Zoning Districts upon a vote being taken the following voted in favor of: Clausen, Fonnest, Harris and Schmidgall, the following was absent: Snope, the following voted against: none and the motion carried. MOTION made by Council Member Schmidgall, seconded by Council Member Clausen to approve a Summary of Ordinance #622 for Publication and the motion carried. 5. OLD BUSINESS 6. NEW BUSINESS 6A. Douglas Drive Reconstruction Project Update City Engineer Oliver introduced the item. Hennepin County representatives Community Liaison Mr. Nick Kim and Project Engineer Mr. Dale Paulson provided Council with an update on the reconstruction of Douglas Drive. Council thanked the representatives from Hennepin County for their presentation. 6B. Authorize Issuance and Sale of: 1. $7,710,000 General Obligation Bonds, Series 2017A 2. $1,935,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds - Highway 55 West, Series 2017B Finance Director Virnig introduced the item and answered questions from Council. Mr. Doug Green, representative of Springsted Inc., reviewed the bids. City Manager Cruikshank answered questions from Council. MOTION made by Council Member Schmidgall, seconded by Council Member Clausen to adopt Resolution awarding the Sale of $7,710,000 General Obligation Improvement and Equipment Bonds, Series 2017A; Fixing Their Form and Specifications; Directing Their Execution and Delivery; Providing For Their Payment; Providing for the Escrowing and Investment of A Portion of the Proceeds Thereof; and Providing For the Redemption of Bonds Refunded Thereby upon a vote being taken the following voted in favor of: Clausen, Fonnest, Harris and Schmidgall, the following was absent: Snope, the following voted against: none and the motion carried. MOTION made by Council Member Fonnest, seconded by Council Member Schmidgall to adopt Resolution awarding the Sale of $1,935,000 General Obligation Improvement Tax Increment and Improvement Bonds, Series 2017B; Fixing Their Form and Specifications; Unofficial City Council Minutes -4- June 20, 2017 6B. Authorize Issuance and Sale of: Directing Their Execution and Delivery upon a vote being taken the following voted in favor of: Clausen, Fonnest, Harris and Schmidgall, the following was absent: Snope, the following voted against: none and the motion carried. 6C. METRO Blue Line Extension Update Planning Manager Zimmerman presented the staff report and answered questions from Council. MOTION made by Council Member Schmidgall, seconded by Council Member Clausen to receive and file METRO Blue Line Extension Update and the motion carried. 6D. Second Consideration - Ordinance #621 - Amending Section 5.42: Hours and Days of Liquor Sales to allow for Off-Sale of Intoxicating Liquor on Sundays City Clerk Luedke presented the staff report and answered questions from Council. City Manager Cruikshank answered questions from Council. MOTION made by Council Member Schmidgall, seconded by Council Member Fonnest to adopt second consideration Ordinance #621, Amending City Code Chapter 5: Alcoholic Beverages Licensing and Regulations Section 5.42: Hours and Days of Liquor Sales to Allow for Off-Sale of Intoxicating Liquor on Sundays upon a vote being taken the following voted in favor of: Clausen, Fonnest, Harris, Schmidgall, the following was absent: Snope, the following voted against: none and the motion carried. 6E. Review of Council Calendar Some Council Members may attend the Public Safety Open House on June 21, 2017, from 6 to 8 pm at Fire House 1. Some Council Members may attend the Urban Land Institute’s Navigating Your Competitive Future Session on June 21, 2017, from 6 to 8 pm at Brookview. Some Council Members may attend the Golden Valley Business Council meeting on June 22, 2017, from 7:30 to 9 am at Second Harvest Heartland. A Concert in the Park featuring the Robbinsdale City Band will be held on June 22, 2017, at 7 pm in Brookview Park. The Firefighters Recruitment meetings will be held on June 22, 2017, at 9:30 am and 6:30 pm at Fire Station 1. Some Council Members may attend the Golden Valley Fire Relief Association Street Dance on June 24, 2017, from 5 pm to midnight at Chester Bird American Legion. Some Council Members may attend the Market in the Valley on June 25 and July 2, 2017, from 9 am to 1 pm in the City Hall Campus Parking Lot. A Concert in the Park featuring the Stompin’ Dixie will be held on June 26, 2017, at 7 pm in Brookview Park. Unofficial City Council Minutes -5- June 20, 2017 6E. Review of Council Calendar - continued Some Council Members may attend the Picnic and Music in the Park event on June 30, 2017, from 11:15 am to noon at Brookview Park. The City Offices are closed on July 4, 2017, in observance of Independence Day. The next City Council Meeting will be held on July 5, 2017, at 6:30 pm. Some Council Members may attend the Golden Valley Human Service Fund Golf and Lawn Bowling Classic on July 14, 2017, from 8 am to 1:30 pm at Brookview Golf Course. 6F. Mayor and Council Communication Council Member Clausen thanked the committee, city staff, community organizations and residents that participated and attended the Pride Festival and stated it was a great event. Council Member Fonnest updated Council on the 2017 League of Minnesota Conference he attended. 7.ADJOURNMENT MOTION made by Council Member Schmidgall, seconded by Council Member Fonnest and the motion carried to adjourn the meeting at 8:29 pm. _______________________________ Shepard M. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: __________________________ Kristine A. Luedke, City Clerk Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting July 5, 2017 Agenda Item 3. B. 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 July 5, 2017 Agenda Item 3. C. 1. Approve Requests for Beer and/or Wine at Brookview Park Prepared By Kris Luedke, City Clerk Summary As per City Code Section 10.83, Subd. 2 I. “No person shall possess, display, consume or use alcoholic beverages on any City park property, unless permission is granted by the Council.” As part of the application process for a Facilities Use Permit to use the large and small picnic shelters at Brookview Park the applicant has the option to pay an additional $30 to be able to serve beer and/or wine. Attached is a list of the individuals and/or organizations who have requested that option. Attachments •Beer and/or wine request list (1 page) Recommended Action Motion to approve requests for beer and/or wine at Brookview Park as recommended by staff. BEER AND/OR WINE REQUEST LIST INDIVIDUAL OR ORGANIZATION DATE TIME SHELTER CC DATE APPROVED Kelsh, Terri 07-07 5pm-10pm Large 07-05-17 Olufe, Adewale 07-09 5pm-10pm Large 07-05-17 Matthews, Morris 07-13 11am-10pm Large 07-05-17 Kraemer, Carlye 07-13 5pm-10pm Small 07-05-17 Peterman, Becky 07-13 11am-4pm Small 07-05-17 Bloom, Mitch 07-14 11am-4pm Small 07-05-17 Kanna, Senthil 07-15 11am-4pm Large 07-05-17 Maclaugh, Doug 07-16 5pm-10pm Small 07-05-17 Ayuka, George 07-16 11am-4pm Large 07-05-17 Melnick, Susan 07-17 5pm-10pm Small 07-05-17 Perry, Sara 07-25 11am-4pm Large 07-05-17 Plager, Gary 07-30 5pm-10pm Small 07-05-17 Brackeen, Pam 08-01 5pm-10pm Large 07-05-17 Stout, Nicole 08-05 11am-4pm Small 07-05-17 Muelba, Kelsy 08-09 5pm-10pm Small 07-05-17 Wagner, Jill 08-15 5pm-10pm Large 07-05-17 Murrary, Diane 08-17 11am-4pm Small 07-05-17 Breher, Patti 08-18 5pm-10pm Large 07-05-17 Lovha, Brenda 08-21 5pm-10pm Large 07-05-17 Waibel, Karen 08-23 11am-4pm Small 07-05-17 Sapper, Laurie 08-23 11am-4pm Large 07-05-17 Parke, Gregory 08-24 11am-4pm Small 07-05-17 Johnson, Roy 08-28 5pm-10pm Large 07-05-17 Butler, Darla 09-08 11am-4pm Large 07-05-17 Tupy, Lynn 09-15 5pm-10pm Large 07-05-17 Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting July 5, 2017 Agenda Item 3. C. 2. Gambling License Exemption and Waiver of Notice Requirement - Good Shepherd Prepared By Judy Nally, Administrative Assistant Summary As per State Statute organizations that conduct gambling within the City limits have to submit an application for a lawful gambling permit to the State after the permit has been approved or denied by the City. Depending upon the timing of the permit the applicants may request the City to waive the 30-day waiting period. Attachments •Application for Exempt Permit (2 pages) Recommended Action Motion to receive and file the gambling license exemption and approve the waiver of notice requirement for Good Shepherd. MINNESOTA LAWFUL GAMBLING 4/17 LG220 Application for Exempt Permit Page 1 of An exempt permit may be issued to a nonprofit Application Fee (non-refundable) organization that: Applications are processed in the order received. If the application • conducts lawful gambling on five or fewer days, and is postmarked or received 30 days or more before the event,the • awards less than$50,000 in prizes during a calendar year. application fee is$100; otherwise the fee is$150. If total raffle prize value for the calendar year will be Due to the high volume of exempt applications, payment of $1,500 or less, contact the Licensing Specialist assigned to additional fees prior to 30 days before your event will not expedite your county by calling 651-539-1900. service, nor are telephone requests for expedited service accepted. ORGANIZATION INFORMATION Organization Previous Gambling Name: &od ego d Permit Number: Minnesota Tax ID Q 30�� ' Federal Employer ID Number, if any: T O Number(FEIN), if any: Mailing Address: 45 Z_ kve— 5 City: State: m fy Zip:6S 4/-Xf County: ALI'n"i rl Name of Chief Executive Officer(CEO): L& / '1LJI (,Lat Daytime Phone: 768-.s7'` — 7Email: NONPROFIT STATUS Type of Nonprofit Organization (check one): = Fraternal E3:Z Religious Veterans Other Nonprofit Organization Attach a copy of gm of the following showing proof of nonprofit status: (DO NOT attach a sales tax exempt status or federal employer ID number, as they are not proof of nonprofit status.) 0 A current calendar year Certificate of Good Standing Don't have a copy? Obtain this certificate from: MN Secretary of State, Business Services Division Secretary of State website, phone numbers: 60 Empire Drive, Suite 100 www.sos.state.mn.us St. Paul, MN 55103 651-296-2803, or toll free 1-877-551-6767 = IRS income tax exemption(501(c)) letter in your organization's name Don't have a copy? To obtain a copy of your federal income tax exempt letter, have an organization officer contact the IRS toil free at 1-877-829-5500. IRS-Affiliate of national,statewide,or international parent nonprofit organization(charter) If your organization falls under a parent organization, attach copies of b-Qth of the following: 1. IRS letter showing your parent organization is a nonprofit 501(c)organization with a group ruling, and 2. the charter or letter from your parent organization recognizing your organization as a subordinate. GAMBLING PREMISES INFORMATION Name of premises where the gambling event will beconducted /� 4/_ // o4,6 � / (for raffles, list the site where the drawingwill take lace : /` G( ^ II/(,tom! l y6 Physical Address (do not use P.O, box): 7601 r/l.��h 1 (�•1 (e 0- City or Township: C06 1 fteh Zip: 7-�7 County: /7 „L� _ Date(s)of activity (for raffles, /� indicate the date of the drawing): �cao — Check each type of gambling activity that your organization will conduct: =Bingo =Paddlewheels =Pull-Tabs =TipboardsrT<f1 Raffle (total value of raffle prizes awarded for the calendar year,including this raffle: $_ Gambling equipment for bingo paper, bingo boards, raffle boards, paddlewheels, pull-tabs, and tipboards must be obtained from a distributor licensed by the Minnesota Gambling Control Board. EXCEPTION: Bingo hard cards and bingo ball selection devices may be borrowed from another organization authorized to conduct bingo. To find a licensed distributor, go to www.mn.gov/gcb and click on Distributors under List of Licensees, or call 651-539-1900. 4/1'LG220 Application for Exempt Permit Pagezofz LOCAL UNIT OF GOVERNMENT ACKNOWLEDGMENT (required before submitting application to the Minnesota Gambling Control Board) CITY APPROVAL COUNTY APPROVAL for a gambling premises for a gambling premises located within city limits located in a township The application is acknowledged with no waiting period. =The application is acknowledged with no waiting period. The application is acknowledged with a 30-day waiting EDne application is acknowledged with a 30-day waiting period,and allows the Board to issue a permit after 30 days period, and allows the Board to issue a permit after (60 days for a 1st class city). 30 days. =The application its deniedy.� W-16-4 a application is denied. Print City Name: (U� �I Print County Name: Sign tur of Ci Perel: Signature of County Personnel: Title: Date: Title: Date: TOWNSHIP(if required by the county) On behalf of the township, I acknowledge that the organization is applying for exempted gambling activity within the township The city or county must sign before limits. (A township has no statutory authority to approve or submitting application to the deny an application, per Minn. Statutes, section 349.213.) Gambling Control Board. Print Township Name: Signature of Township Officer: Title: Date; CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER'S SIGNATURE (required) The information provided in this application is complete and accurate to the best of my knowledge. I acknowledge that the financial report will be completed and returnedto th d 'thi 3 ays oft event date. Chief Executive Officer's Signature: Date: ZS �(/ign s signatu ,designee may not sign) Print Name: /'r< (/ REQUIREMENTS MAIL APPLICATION AND ATTACHMENTS Complete a separate application for: Mail application with: • all gambling conducted on two or more consecutive days, or a copy of your proof of nonprofit status, and . all gambling conducted on one day. application fee (non-refundable). If the application is Only one application is required if one or more raffle drawings are postmarked or received 30 days or more before the event, conducted on the same day. the application fee is$100; otherwise the fee is$150. Financial report to be completed vilthin 30 days after the Make check payable to State of Minnesota. gambling activity is done: To: Minnesota Gambling Control Board A financial report form will be mailed with your permit. Complete 1711 West County Road B, Suite 300 South and return the financial report form to the Gambling Control Roseville, MN 55113 Board. Questions? Your organization must keep all exempt records and reports for Call the Licensing Section of the Gambling Control Board at 3-1/2 years(Minn. Statutes, section 349.166, subd.2(f)). 651-539-1900. Data privacy notice: The information requested application. Your organization's name and ment of Public Safety;Attorney General; on this form(and any attachments)will be used address will be public information when received Commissioners of Administration,Minnesota by the Gambling Control Board(Board)to by the Board. All other information provided will Management&Budget,and Revenue;Legislative determine your organization's qualifications to be private data about your organization until the Auditor,national and international gambling be involved in lawful gambling activities in Board issues the permit. When the Board issues regulatory agencies;anyone pursuant to court Minnesota. Your organization has the right to the permit,all information provided will become order; other individuals and agencies specifically refuse to supply the information; however,if public. If the Board does not issue a permit,all authorized by state or federal law to have access your organization refuses to supply this information provided remains private,with the to the information; individuals and agencies for information,the Board may not be able to exception of your organization's name and which law or legal order authorizes a new use or determine your organization's qualifications and, address which will remain public. Private data sharing of information after this notice was as a consequence,may refuse to Issue a permit. about your organization are available to Board given;and anyone with your written consent. If your organization supplies the information members,Board staff whose work requires requested,the Board will be able to process the access to the information; Minnesota's Depart- This form will be made available in alternative format(i.e. large print,braille)upon request. An equal opportunity employer Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting July 5, 2017 Agenda Item 3. C. 3. Gambling License Exemption and Waiver of Notice Requirement - The Church of St. Margaret Mary Prepared By Judy Nally, Administrative Assistant Summary As per State Statute organizations that conduct gambling within the City limits have to submit an application for a lawful gambling permit to the State after the permit has been approved or denied by the City. Depending upon the timing of the permit the applicants may request the City to waive the 30-day waiting period. Attachments •Application for Exempt Permit (2 pages) Recommended Action Motion to receive and file the gambling license exemption and approve the waiver of notice requirement for The Church of St. Margaret Mary. MINNESOTA LAWFUL GAMBLING 4/17 LG22O Application for Exempt Permit Page 1 of 2 An exempt permit may be issued to a nonprofit Application Fee (non-refundable) organization that: Applications are processed in the order received. If the application • conducts lawful gambling on five or fewer days, and is postmarked or received 30 days or more before the event,the • awards less than $50,000 in prizes during a calendar application fee is$100; otherwise the fee is$150. yea r. If total raffle prize value for the calendar year will be Due to the high volume of exempt applications, payment of $1,500 or less, contact the Licensing Specialist assigned to additional fees prior to 30 days before your event will not expedite your county by calling 651-539-1900. service, nor are telephone requests for expedited service accepted. ORGADIIZA'�I9N INFORMATION P"; Organization The Church of St Margaret Ma Previous Gambling Name: g Mary Permit Number: Minnesota Tax ID Federal Employer ID Number, if any: 8367661 Number(FEIN), if any: 41-0711491 Mailing Address: 2323 Zenith Ave No City: Golden Valley State: MN zip: 55422 County: Hennepin Name of Chief Executive Officer(CEO): Rev Thomas Ravar Daytime Phone: 763-588-9466 Email: frtom@smm-qv.org I�O � OIFITTATS r Type of Nonprofit Organization (check one): Fraternal = Religious Veterans Other Nonprofit Organization Attach a copy of one of the following showing proof of nonprofit status: (DO NOT attach a sales tax exempt status or federal employer ID number, as they are not proof of nonprofit status.) 0 A current calendar year Certificate of Good Standing Don't have a copy? Obtain this certificate from: MN Secretary of State, Business Services Division Secretary of State website, phone numbers: 60 Empire Drive, Suite 100 www.sos.state.mn.us St. Paul, MN 55103 651-296-2803, or toll free 1-877-551-6767 IRS income tax exemption(501(c)) letter in your organization's name Don't have a copy? To obtain a copy of your federal income tax exempt letter, have an organization officer contact the IRS toll free at 1-877-829-5500. IRS-Affiliate of national,statewide,or international parent nonprofit organization (charter) If your organization falls under a parent organization, attach copies of both of the following: 1. IRS letter showing your parent organization is a nonprofit 501(c)organization with a group ruling,and 2. the charter or letter from your parent organization recognizing your organization as a subordinate. GAMltS INFORMATION Name of premises where the gambling event will be conducted (for raffles, list the site where the drawing will take place): Parish Grounds Physical Address(do not use P.O. box): 2323 Zenith Ave No City or Township: Golden Valley zip: 55422 County: Hennepin Date(s)of activity (for raffles, indicate the date of the drawing): Sept 17 2017 Check each type of gambling activity that your organization will conduct: =Bingo Paddlewheels Pull-Tabs =Tipboards F✓ Raffle (total value of raffle prizes awarded for the calendar year, including this raffle: $5,000.00 ) Gambling equipment for bingo paper, bingo boards, raffle boards, paddlewheels, pull-tabs, and tipboards must be obtained from a distributor licensed by the Minnesota Gambling Control Board. EXCEPTION: Bingo hard cards and bingo ball selection devices may be borrowed from another organization authorized to conduct bingo. To find a licensed distributor,go to www.mn.gov/gcb and click on Distributors under List of Licensees,or call 651-539-1900. 4/17 LG220 Application for Exempt Permit Page 2of2 LOC,�1,1� UfVIT tits GOVERNMENT ACKNOWLEDGMENT (required before supmltX�r�,y�ppl�cait�on�o„ tt�e Minit�sota GainbYing Cpintirol Bt��rd) CITY APPROVAL COUNTY APPROVAL for a gambling premises for a gambling premises located within city limits located in a township The application is acknowledged with no waiting period. The application is acknowledged with no waiting period. The application is acknowledged with a 30-day waiting The application is acknowledged with a 30-day waiting period, and allows the Board to issue a permit after 30 days period,and allows the Board to issue a permit after (60 days for a 1st class city). 30 days. =The application ►► is denied. r p The application is denied. Print City Name: 1 a h ��Y li'] Print County Name: ign ture f City Pers I: J Signature of County Personnel: Titl Date: Title: Date: TOWNSHIP(if required by the county) On behalf of the township, I acknowledge that the organization is applying for exempted gambling activity within the township The city or county must sign before limits. (A township has no statutory authority to approve or submitting application to the deny an application, per Minn. Statutes, section 349.213.) Gambling Control Board. Print Township Name: Signature of Township Officer: Title: Date: The information provided in this application is complete and accurate to the best of my knowledge. I acknowledge that the financial report will be completed and retu he Board within 30 days of the event date. Chief Executive Officer's Signature: Date: (Signature must be CEO's signat e;de ' ee may not sign) Print Name: Rev Thomas Rayar EQRINEIyTS MAIL1PP,kIGA�tQN PIVD I�TT/i<� II�ET$ Complete a separate application for: Mail application with: • all gambling conducted on two or more consecutive days, or a copy of your proof of nonprofit status,and • all gambling conducted on one day. application fee (non-refundable). If the application is Only one application is required if one or more raffle drawings are postmarked or received 30 days or more before the event, conducted on the same day. the application fee is$100; otherwise the fee is$150. Financial report to be completed within 30 days after the Make check payable to State of Minnesota. gambling activity is done: To: Minnesota Gambling Control Board A financial report form will be mailed with your permit. Complete 1711 West County Road B, Suite 300 South and return the financial report form to the Gambling Control Roseville, MN 55113 Board. Questions? Your organization must keep all exempt records and reports for Cali the Licensing Section of the Gambling Control Board at 3-1/2 years (Minn. Statutes, section 349.166, subd. 2(f)). 651-539-1900. Data privacy notice: The information requested application. Your organization's name and ment of Public Safety;Attorney General; on this form(and any attachments)will be used address will be public information when received Commissioners of Administration,Minnesota by the Gambling Control Board(Board)to by the Board. All other information provided will Management&Budget,and Revenue;Legislative determine your organization's qualifications to be private data about your organization until the Auditor,national and international gambling be involved in lawful gambling activities in Board issues the permit. When the Board issues regulatory agencies;anyone pursuant to court Minnesota. Your organization has the right to the permit,all information provided will become order;other individuals and agencies specifically refuse to supply the information; however,if public. If the Board does not issue a permit,all authorized by state or federal law to have access your organization refuses to supply this information provided remains private,with the to the information; individuals and agencies for information,the Board may not be able to exception of your organization's name and which law or legal order authorizes a new use or determine your organization's qualifications and, address which will remain public. Private data sharing of information after this notice was as a consequence, may refuse to issue a permit. about your organization are available to Board given;and anyone with your written consent. If your organization supplies the information members,Board staff whose work requires requested,the Board will be able to process the access to the information; Minnesota's Depart- This form will be made available in alternative format(i.e.large print,braille)upon request. An equal opportunity employer Special Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 8, 2017 A special meeting of the Planning Commission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall, Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota, on Monday, May 8, 2017. Chair Segelbaum called the meeting to order at 6:30 pm. Those present were Planning Commissioners Baker, Blenker, Blum, Johnson, Kluchka, Segelbaum, and Waldhauser. Also present were Associate Planner/Grant Writer Emily Goellner, Public Works Specialist Eric Eckman, GreenCorps Member Hannah Garry, and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. 1. 6–6:30 pm: Open House (Resilience and Sustainability) 2. 6:30–7:30 pm: Presentation and Discussion (Resilience and Sustainability) Eckman stated that this Comp Plan discussion will focus on the Resilience and Sustainability chapter. He explained that the term resilience is the capacity to respond, adapt, and thrive under changing conditions such as weather and climate related events. The term sustainability aims to meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Eckman discussed the impacts of several climate trends and observations that the MnDNR Climatology Office has observed including: warming temperatures, higher winter (low/cold) temperatures with more freeze/thaw cycles and more winter rain, the increase in annual precipitation, and increasing extreme rainfall events. Garry referred to the vulnerability assessment completed by Great Plains Institute and stated that the following areas were analyzed: natural infrastructure, built infrastructure, vulnerable populations, and economic vulnerability. She stated that the assessment showed that the City has a healthy urban tree canopy coverage of 40%, the planting to removal ratio of public trees is 0.47 to 1 (the recommended ratio is 2:1), and 21.4% of public trees are ash trees susceptible to Emerald Ash Borer, however the City has an Emerald Ash Borer management plan in place. Garry referred to the built infrastructure portion of the assessment and stated that the Pavement Management Program (PMP) will ensure all roads meet City standards for 2022. She stated that the City has an aging underground infrastructure with 80% of the sanitary sewer lines, and 74% of the watermains being older than 50 years. Segelbaum asked if the underground infrastructure is replaced as part of the PMP. Eckman stated that all mains are evaluated and a portion of the watermains and sewer mains are replaced or rehabilitated with the project, based on priority and funding. Kluchka asked if data regarding the quality of the infrastructure could be added because just the age of the infrastructure isn’t a good qualitative evaluator of how good or bad it is. Eckman said staff would try to aggregate that data and added that age is usually a good indicator of quality given the pipe material and the soils in Golden Valley. Waldhauser asked if there is data Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 8, 2017 Page 2 showing how much of the underground infrastructure sits on private property. Eckman said there is a significant amount, but that the assessment focused more on public property than private property. He added that homeowners have been repairing and replacing their private lines as well with PMP projects and I and I point of sale. Garry referred to the vulnerable populations portion of the assessment and stated that over 20% of the City’s population is older than 65 and 33% of those residents over 65 live alone. 8.2% of the City’s population lives below the poverty line, and 20.6% of the population are eligible to receive heating assistance. Garry referred to the economic vulnerability portion of the assessment and noted that Golden Valley has a higher median income relative to Hennepin County, there is a diverse workforce with a low unemployment rate, and 40% of the Golden Valley workforce are within the sectors hit hardest during the Great Recession. Garry referred to the energy section of the assessment and stated that Golden Valley residents and businesses get their electricity from Xcel Energy. Residents make up the largest customer sector with more than 8,000 customers, and 62% of the energy in the City is consumed by its industrial customers. Garry discussed the community engagement strategies which include: the community survey done in the summer of 2016, the Comp Plan kick-off open house done in September of 2016, the ongoing Comp Plan survey, the resilience survey done in January and February of 2017, conversations with local businesses done in March of 2017, and two focus groups in March of 2017, one with people supporting vulnerable populations, and one with the Environmental Commission. Segelbaum asked if any of these channels are still open for public comment. Garry said yes, the Comp Plan survey on the City’s website will be available for the duration of the Comp Plan update process. Garry discussed the themes emerging from community input as well as the vulnerability assessment. These themes include: protecting and increasing green spaces and the tree canopy, enhancing water quality, mitigating impacts from flooding, investing in aging infrastructure, expanding the sidewalk and trail system, exploring options for solid waste management and yard waste management, expanding the recycling program to include composting/organics, increasing energy efficiency and renewable energy use, attracting and supporting small businesses, improving social connectedness and diversity, and encouraging sustainable practices and by informing and engaging the public. Eckman discussed each of the proposed goals and objectives. The first goal is to promote and develop clean, renewable energy. The second goal is to encourage energy efficiency in buildings, lighting, and infrastructure. The third goal is to encourage waste reduction, recycling, and composting. The fourth goal is to protect and enhance the natural environment. The fifth goal is to plan for resilient and sustainable infrastructure. The sixth goal is to increase community resilience and preparedness. He stated that he is looking for general consensus on the themes and priorities and feedback on the preliminary goals, objectives, and policies. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 8, 2017 Page 3 Kluchka asked where water use and/or reduction and efficiency fits into this. Eckman stated that water use and conservation could be part of goal four regarding protecting and enhancing the natural environment. He added that the Met Council has combined waste water, potable water, and surface water into one chapter titled water resources as a more integrated approach. Kluchka suggested elevating water conservation to the first goal by stating that the goal is to promote and develop clean, renewable energy and resources. He added that he wants to consider water as utility in the same context as renewable energy. Eckman suggested adding language regarding water to goal five and think about it as a part of the City’s infrastructure. Segelbaum asked if the Climatology Office takes future rain events into account. Eckman stated that the City uses NOAA data which has the most up to date precipitation models for this region. Kluchka asked if goal five regarding resilient and sustainable infrastructure includes community solar. Eckman said yes, that is distributive power that feeds the grid. Kluchka asked if the City is proactive in burying power lines or requiring conduits with future capacity during PMP projects. Eckman said yes, there are a few examples of this, and added that the City also encourages the utility companies to use the right-of-way wisely. Kluchka asked if it is fair to say the City is prioritizing larger undergrounding projects and not residential projects. Eckman said there are some ideas for residential properties woven into the policies, and that staff is still formulating strategies, but generally new power lines and other facilities are required to be buried underground. Segelbaum asked if the Environmental Commission has provided feedback. Eckman said they have seen other versions of the proposed goals and objectives, but they will be reviewing a more refined version soon. Goellner added that this chapter will be brought back to the Planning Commission for more specific discussion in the fall. Segelbaum opened the meeting to public comments. Steve Pesavento, 1701 Valders Avenue North, said he is very interested in renewable energy and he wants the City to be very proactive and not restrictive when it comes to solar, wind, geothermal, etc. Segelbaum asked how the City can encourage these types of things. Pesavento said the City shouldn’t be as restrictive as it currently is and wind energy is not being looked at as strongly as it could be. Marcia Anderson, 130 Edgewood Avenue North, asked if the Comp Plan is supposed to be very general with very broad goals because that is the way it reads. She said she thinks the notion of goals is to be broad, and the proposed goals are great, but very unspecific. She agreed that the City should consider being much more proactive and questioned what the metrics and targets are because she hasn’t heard anything specific. Segelbaum stated that the hierarchy starts with a goal, then gets more specific in the objectives then even more specific in the policies. Goellner agreed and stated the implementation language is specific about costs, targets, etc. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 8, 2017 Page 4 Marti Micks, 90 Louisiana Avenue South, said it takes longer to fix power outages when the lines are buried underground. She noted that there is nothing in the proposed language about enhancing the existing power grid. She suggested having a parade of homes type of event showing energy efficient homes and ideas and said another issue that should be addressed is not allowing the amount of impervious pavement to increase with new developments. Jeanne Francis, 8025 Plymouth Avenue North, said she is concerned about pesticides and herbicides. She questioned what Golden Valley can do as a community to be more aware and educated about these health hazards because it would be great to be a pesticide free community. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Segelbaum closed the public comment period. Segelbaum referred to the comment regarding the City being less restrictive on renewable energy items. He said goal number one is to promote and develop clean, renewable energy and asked if there are other places in the chapter where renewable energy is addressed. Kluchka stated that the second objective in goal one discusses supporting renewable energy projects. Waldhauser said the standards to encourage renewable energy are in the proposed language and suggested being more specific as it relates to private property. Baker stated that ordinance changes could be done in order to reduce barriers. Kluchka asked how the City ensures accountability and how the Met Council enforces the goals that the City is trying to accomplish. Goellner stated that the Met Council only requires cities to have a Comp Plan that meets their minimum requirements and doesn’t push cities to meet their own goals. Waldhauser said that most of the proposed goals don’t read like goals to her. She suggested not using the word encourage and instead using action verbs such as promote, implement, and improve. She said she would like the goals to be more understandable and stronger, and not so vague. Baker said the goals should be vague and more umbrella in nature. He stated that more specific language will be in the implementation language which will lead to actionable items. Kluchka agreed that the goals should be more actively phrased because they will have a more substantial impact and having overlapping policies and objectives isn’t as helpful. Blum referred to the community feedback summary document that was in the agenda packet. He noted that there were three different tools used that were intended to help the City solve the issue of how to prioritize the goals. He said he doesn’t think the prioritization of the goals has been vetted, they’ve only been discussed in a preliminary fashion. He referred to the Comp Plan kick-off open house and said while he thinks that was a good idea and a good effort at community engagement, he questions some of things the City did to get a measurable prioritization such as the stickers residents put next to the goals. His recollection is that everybody who participated was given five stickers so if a goal got 20 stickers that would be a minimum of four people out of 20,000 Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 8, 2017 Page 5 who commented on a particular goal. He said the City fed people pre-generated answers as possible goals that they could support. He questioned how much weight should really be given to those results as much as it was a great effort and it generated a lot of conversation, he is not sure there was a measurable result that should be given a lot of weight or prioritization. He referred to the general themes that are emerging from the online Comp Plan survey and said he thinks those reference a very open ended survey without feeding people the answers. He said the survey asked people what they think is great about this community and what they wanted to promote. The biggest priority from that survey is “green” both aesthetically and scientifically. He said that was the highest priority and should be given more weight than the others. He said the survey was insightful in showing what residents actually want to see the City do. He said the theme of more trees and green in general didn’t translate priority-wise to the goals and objectives and he thinks that should be the number one goal because residents are spontaneously telling the City that is the most important thing to them out of all other priorities. He referred to the Great Plains assessment and said the City has contracted with them to get an objective review of issues in the community. He noticed the statistic in the report that the City plants .5 trees for every one removed. He said it makes more sense to him to plant 2 or more trees for every one removed. He referred to another statistic in the report that states the City only plants 50 to 75 trees every year. He said he realizes that it may not be feasible to plant a lot of trees on City property but he thinks if people really want to “green” this community there could be a public-private partnership that would get subsidized trees to people. He said he knows there are organizations that do that which would take away some of the administrative difficulty and costs for the City. He stated that he knows the Tree Trust does similar work and they say they have planted approximately one tree a day for the past decade in St. Louis Park, which is impressive, and Golden Valley isn’t even close to that. He said he thinks this is an area for improvement and will match the priorities of the residents and bring the City forward in living up to the words “sustainability” and “resilience.” Baker referred to the community feedback document and asked if the themes listed there are in order of priority. Goellner said no, but that the goals could be listed in order of priority. Blum said he looked word for word at the survey responses and “green” either scientifically or aesthetically was a high priority for residents. Kluchka asked how the removal of ash trees has affected the numbers listed in the vulnerability assessment. Eckman said the tree replacement numbers in the assessment seem a little low to him. He explained that during a pavement management project the City typically replaces trees at a two to one ratio. He stated that trees are also removed to install ponds or restore streambanks in order to benefit water quality or for property protection. Also, Cottonwood, Ash, Boxelder trees are sometimes removed and storms occur where not as many trees are replaced. He added that it is not feasible to plant every square inch of public property because there are utilities and other factors to consider. He noted that the City has 40% tree coverage which is more than in the past. He stated that the City could do more, but it is good to understand how we got to the numbers referred to in the assessment. Kluchka said that context is important and asked about the success of the Plymouth tree sale held every year. Eckman said the forestry staff would have a better sense of those numbers. Baker said he agrees with Blum Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 8, 2017 Page 6 regarding the low tree replacement rate, but what Eckman said is true and trees don’t belong everywhere. He said in many places he’d rather see wild flowers, pollinators and nectar sources planted instead. Segelbaum referred to the question during the public comments regarding the reduction of power outages. Waldhauser said she thinks more could be done at a regional level than at the City level. Segelbaum referred to the question during the public comments about pesticides and herbicides and noted that the policies in goal four address those issues. Waldhauser noted that part of the resident’s comment had to do with the effect on peoples’ health so that could probably be reflected in the goals and objectives. Blenker stated that public health is missing from the goals. She stated that most of the goals are directed toward sustainability and are not as much about making us stronger and able to bounce back when something bad happens. She added that she would also like to see more about herbicides and pesticides in the Comp Plan which could include education efforts about herbicides, pesticides, and lawns. Baker stated that it is difficult to plant wildflowers in this City and alternatives to lawns need to be made easier. He added that there is push back from people but the City needs to enhance the perception that things other than grass are desirable. Blenker agreed and added another issue is phosphorus and the question of something being bad if a person can buy it in a store. Segelbaum referred to the comment regarding showcasing energy efficiency. Waldhauser said she thinks the City newsletter is a great education point which can also provide resources. Baker said this chapter is really well done and he feels good about it. He said it is easy to go after the low hanging fruit and he hopes the City will go after some of the harder issues that really affect change like financial incentives and tax breaks. He said the ideas may not be popular, but when he looks at all of the new homes being built and none of them have solar he sees a missed opportunity. Segelbaum said the recently adopted PUD amenities language addresses some of these issues as well. Johnson said the proposed Comp Plan language is pretty heavy on what the City will do but he would like to do more to encourage residents to be more energy efficient. Kluchka said there might be stronger ways to encourage residents to be more energy efficient through Zoning Code changes and the building permit process. Kluchka said he would go as far as saying public health should be goal number seven as a resilience goal and a way to prepare people. Waldhauser agreed that that it is worth emphasizing. Kluchka asked the Commissioners if they feel like invasive species removal is being given enough attention. He said there may be opportunities to regain the forest environment but the City has got to step it up. Waldhauser agreed that there needs to be a strategy. Blum said he thinks it is important to prioritize educating people about invasive species. He said the City really needs to have a policy that does more than encourage people to remove Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 8, 2017 Page 7 them. He suggested that as property turns over homeowners could be required to remove Buckthorn. Kluchka said he is interested in being more proactive regarding community solar programs. Segelbaum stated that there could be people with preferred rates like with garbage haulers. Baker stated that the City could partner with a solar project. Blum referred to underground versus aboveground utilities and stated that a lot of people with aboveground utilities can’t plant trees within 10 feet of the power lines. Segelbaum said he doesn’t think they can really address how power is distributed. Blum said power lines can be buried, or perhaps during new construction or teardowns the City can think about how it wants the distribution to look. Johnson referred to the vulnerability assessment and stated that there are some contradictory statements in it so he is suggesting being critical when reading it. For example it states that the City needs more tree canopy, but in another location it stated that more canopy means more ticks and invasive species. Segelbaum stated that the City has a 40% tree canopy coverage and the assessment stated that a healthy tree canopy coverage is 30% so maybe that shouldn’t be their focus. Segelbaum stated that he thinks the Commission has general consensus on the themes and priorities and preliminary agreement on the proposed goals and objectives. The Commissioners agreed. The meeting was adjourned at 8:48 pm. __________________________________________________________ John Kluchka, Secretary Lisa Wittman, Administrative Assistant Special Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 12, 2017 A special meeting of the Planning Commission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall, Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota, on Monday, June 12, 2017. Those present were Planning Commissioners Baker, Blenker, Blum, Johnson, Kluchka, Segelbaum, and Waldhauser. Also present were Associate Planner and Grant Writer Emily Goellner, Planning Manager Jason Zimmerman, Utility Engineer R.J. Kakach, City Engineer Jeff Oliver, and BARR Engineering Consultants Karen Chandler and Greg Williams. Chair Segelbaum called the meeting to order at 6:34 p.m. 1. Presentation and Discussion (Water Resources) Goellner introduced the Water Resources chapter of the Comprehensive Plan and stated that the public values their water resources. She said the public has emphasized that they want to maintain parks and green space, embrace sustainability, be inclusive of diversity, accommodate an aging population, and make improvements to infrastructure. Goellner introduced the goals outlined in the Water Resources memorandum. R.J. Kakach, Utility Engineer, presented on wastewater and water resources. He said that only ten percent of Golden Valley’s sewer system has been lined and rehabilitated, but that fifty-five percent has been inspected at point of sale. Typically corrections are needed before the house can be sold, which has improved inflow and infiltration compliance in the city. He said that Golden Valley’s sewer mains run into a system managed by the Metropolitan Council and that studies done by the Metropolitan Council have detected a reduction as a result of the Point of Sale program. Segelbaum asked for more information about inflow and infiltration. Kakach explained that inflow is when rainwater enters through things such as manholes and private property sump pumps that feed into sanitary sewer system and that infiltration is when groundwater seeps into the pipes. He stated that Golden Valley is losing capacity in the sewer system as a result, and the goal is to maintain capacity and reduce inflow and infiltration. Waldhauser brought up the fifty-five percent inspection rate and asked if that included both residential and commercial properties. Kakach confirmed that it did. He explained that the other forty-five percent has not been inspected because it is a voluntary program and corrections are not required until Point of Sale. He said that 47% of the city is compliant. Waldhauser asked how the city knows a property is compliant if not all properties are inspected. Kakach clarified that the properties not listed as compliant are either noncompliant or unknown. Special Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 12, 2017 Page 2 Kakach brought up challenges facing the City’s system, which are inflow and infiltration, failing clay pipes from the 50s and 60s damaged by freeze-thaw conditions, and root intrusions which back up pipes. He said that the average cost per mile to repair the sanitary sewer is half a million dollars, and the challenge facing the city is how to prioritize the necessary repairs. Segelbaum asked what the difference was between wastewater and the sanitary sewer. Kakach said that they are the same system, but that the term “sewer” refers to both sanitary and storm sewers. Kakach clarified that this presentation refers to the sanitary sewer and that stormwater would be discussed later. Baker asked what the difference was between the cost of repairing the pipe and replacing it. Kakach said the cost he has referenced is an average for all rehabilitation but that repairing costs slightly less than replacing the pipe. Blum asked if rehabilitation mitigated root intrusion into the pipes. Kakach said that they could insert a grout into the pipes which would prevent root intrusions. Kakach outlined sanitary sewer and wastewater goals, which were to ensure adequate capacity, reduce or eliminate sanitary sewer overflows, and reduce inflow and infiltration to a manageable level. Kluchka asked what the frequency of sanitary sewer overflows are. Kakach said that they are rare and occur mostly during high intensity rainfall. Baker requested information on what would be considered a manageable level of inflow and infiltration. Kakach said inflow an infiltration can be tracked based on meters, but is difficult to measure. He stated that a manageable level would reduce it across the board and they are trying to line or replace as much pipe as possible. Kakach began the water supply presentation on drinking water. He explained that New Hope, Crystal, and Golden Valley purchase water from Minneapolis together and that some of the water main is owned by the joint commission but most is owned by Golden Valley. Kakach said that a challenge facing the city is water main breaks because they are difficult to predict even though water main breaks are tracked. He said that the average cost to rehabilitate the water mains is 1.4 million per mile, much more than the sanitary sewer. Kakach outlined the goals for the city, which are to limit residential demand, limit daily demand, limit peak purchases from Minneapolis, and limit unaccounted for water, which is the difference between what is bought and what is sold to residents. He said the city wants to maintain the current level of service of the system while eliminating large breaks. Kluchka asked what the difference was between Golden Valley’s capacity and peak usage. Kakach said that data indicates peak usage was over seventeen million gallons Special Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 12, 2017 Page 3 per day and that is has now decreased to five or six million. He said Golden Valley has even eliminated a pump in the reservoir because demand had decreased and that he feels comfortable with the capacity of the system. Kakach said he believes there is enough for current uses and possibly for some expansion. Kluchka asked whether limiting purchases has an impact on the system. Kakach said that it is considered best practice and good for sustainability to limit water, but it is also likely easier on the system to not have as much water passing through it. Waldhauser asked if there was information specifically on commercial water usage. Kakach said that records are broken down by land use, but he did not have the information with him. Waldhauser brought up the issue of water waste in industrial and commercial uses, and Kakach agreed that would be a good place to look into conservation. Segelbaum wanted clarification on what was meant by the word “limit” and whether it referred to reduction in general or if there was a specific goal. Kakach agreed that “reduce” might be a better word. Segelbaum then asked why demand for water has decreased. Kakach explained that water fixtures have grown more efficient, and there has been education on water conservation. Blenker asked what causes water main breaks and how long they typically last. Kakach said they are the result of freeze-thaw conditions, loading on top of water main, pressure variation, and corrosive soils. He said that there is variation in how long they are estimated to last, but in Golden Valley’s soils, water mains have failed earlier than anticipated. Kluchka asked if there was data on trends in water main breaks and if that data tracks breaks related to age. Kakach said the he would estimate twenty to thirty breaks a year with an upward trend and that suspected causes are tracked. Waldhauser asked about the lining and replacing of water mains. Kakach explained that it can be done but is more expensive than the sanitary sewer because it is a pressurized system and requires more work. Waldhauser wondered if anyone was looking at separating potable water from other types of water. Kakach said that in a commercial setting, some people look at recycling water, but at a City level there is limited research on the subject. Blum said that someone at an open house had mentioned to him that the City runs wells and he wanted to know if that was a program at one point. Kakach said he was unaware of any City run wells at this point. There are three emergency backup wells owned by JWC located in New Hope and Crystal that could supply minimal use in an emergency. Segelbaum asked how long the contract to buy water from Minneapolis is. Kakach stated that the contract was renewed for 20 years in 2004 and that Minneapolis has been selling water to other cities and appears comfortable with their capacity. Special Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 12, 2017 Page 4 Kluchka asked what the goal for inflow and infiltration is. Kakach said that there is not a specific goal but that the Metropolitan Council monitors inflow, as does the City of Golden Valley. The goal is to specifically address high volume areas and then reevaluate because measuring inflow and infiltration is difficult. Kluchka wanted to know how Golden Valley’s inflow and infiltration compares to other cities. Kakach said that the inflow and infiltration program has been successful, although it is difficult to find comparable cities. He stated that the water main breaks may be slightly worse than comparable cities. Segelbaum said he was concerned about the age of the system and the financing of the repairs. He wanted to know if there was a timeline for repairs. Kakach said that it is early to answer these questions, but that options for financing are being explored, and problem areas are being prioritized. He said that by 2040 the system will be past its designed life and there is uncertainty about how to fund the needed repairs. He said there is a chance it may need to be repaired before 2040 but that it is difficult to predict an exact timeline. Kluchka asked how many miles of pipe have been lined or replaced. Kakach stated that there has been limited funding and repairs have been administered based on priority. Slightly over 10 miles of sanitary sewer have been lined and that he would estimate five to ten miles of water mains have been replaced. Kluchka recommended discussing what has been rehabilitated in the future draft of this chapter. Baker inquired about the life expectancy of a lining. Kakach said that the lifespan is fifty to 100 years, similar to a new pipe. Water main lining, which is a new technology, has a longer projected design life. Baker asked if, with that in mind, the focus would be more on rehabilitation than replacement. Kakach said that the sanitary sewer focus is mainly lining. The water main uses both but they are moving toward lining. Baker asked if there was potential for saving money by doing multiple linings at the same time. Kakach said there was some potential for savings if nearby parts were done simultaneously. Baker asked about the safety of the water main linings. Kakach said that the Minnesota Department of Health signs off on the epoxy resins that are used. Oliver added that the linings being used have been certified as safe for consumption by the National Science Foundation. Baker asked if a replacement is higher quality than a rehabilitation. Oliver said there are testing protocols that are used to ensure safety in 100 years to meet National Science Foundation ratings. Based on what is known today, he said he is confident in the lifespan of the system because the materials used today are higher quality than they were when the mains were installed. Blum asked if the city had looked into the value of using plants to control stormwater. Kakach said he was not presenting on stormwater and thought that the next presenter could answer the question better. Blum asked whether the effects of permeable and non-permeable surfaces had been measured. He also wanted to know what kind of impact the use of pesticides and herbicides had on the system and how much it costs to remove it. Kakach said that Special Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 12, 2017 Page 5 there were requirements for herbicide and pesticide use. He said other people might be able to answer the question better. Kakach concluded his presentation. Goellner introduced consultants Greg Williams and Karen Chandler to present on surface water management. Williams began his presentation by outlining the focus of this section in the Comprehensive Plan. He said some of the things that were most important to residents were wetlands, habitats, shoreland, and stormwater runoff, but that other concerns such as infrastructure and water quality were very important to the City but might not be on residents’ radars. For wetlands, habitats, and shoreland, Williams explained that the City is the Local Governmental Unit responsible for administering the Wetland Conservation Act. The City may partner with County and watershed organizations to manage aquatic invasive species. The City has development and redevelopment standards that regulate storm water runoff. There are also retrofit and redevelopment opportunities. In a developed city there is little room to implement new best practices, so redevelopment is often the best opportunity to improve infrastructure. Williams said things like Minimal Impact Design Standards had been used to help limit stormwater runoff. Williams referred to Blum’s question about vegetative management of stormwater runoff. Williams explained that the scale of precipitation events is an issue. The tree canopy provides interception for a fraction of an inch, but stormwater management is designed to deal with much larger precipitation events. Williams said vegetative swales that help slow the runoff once it is on the ground may be a better practice. Williams moved on to lake and stream water quality, which is another focus for surface water management. He said some water bodies in the City are listed as impaired by Minnesota Pollution Control Agency because they don’t meet state water quality standards, including Bassett Creek, Sweeney Lake, and Wirth Lake, which does not meet chloride standards. Baker asked what the source of chloride was. Williams said that in the metro area, it typically comes from winter road management. Blum asked what type of precipitation events were typical for infiltration. Williams says that infiltration practices are best for smaller events because it varies so much depending on the type of soil. He explained that Golden Valley has a lot of clay soil, which limits infiltration opportunities. Williams said filtration is another option that is helpful but difficult and operates by binding pollutants in the soil. Williams said that, as well as restoring impaired water quality, it is also important to maintain areas with high water quality. Williams moved onto the topic of education and public involvement, the goal is to promote positive behaviors. He recommended educating residents about best practices methods for herbicide and pesticide use. Williams stated that it is important to develop Special Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 12, 2017 Page 6 community capacity for educating people who will be good stewards. He emphasized cooperation with other organizations such as the Bassett Creek Watershed Commission. Williams said the next topic, water quantity and flooding, is a significant issue because it can effect public health and safety. He emphasized the need to minimize risk of floods and minimize impact of floods. He said there was a need to adapt to changing precipitation patterns because a trend toward larger and more frequent precipitation events increases the need for stormwater management, which is exacerbated by tight soils. Williams explained that erosion and sedimentation from stormwater runoff can carry dirt and pollution and can be combatted through permitting programs and implementing best management practices on City projects. For Infrastructure and Operations, Williams said that the City needs to maintain storm water infrastructure, including scheduled infrastructure replacement identifying funding for replacing storm water systems. Williams said he will be detailing these issues in the separate Surface Water Management Plan to identify issues and create an implementation plan to achieve the City’s goals. Referring back to Blum’s question about fertilizer and pesticide use, Williams said that the impact depends on how they are applied and what the chemicals are. Some of what is washed away is treated through storm water management, but there is no chemical treatment to remove them from the water. Residues from fertilizer or pesticides either settle or are washed downstream, which may create problems in other places. Kluchka asked if phosphorous was currently being treated. Williams said that phosphorous was being treated through filtration and infiltration, binding the phosphorous to soil particles so it does not pollute the water. Blum asked if vegetative systems reduce the amount of phosphorous. Williams said that it may reduce the concentration. However, some does dissolve, and that is much more difficult to treat. Infiltration is the preferred practice because it does not show up in lakes if it goes into the ground. Alum can also be added to lakes and storm water flow, which will bind dissolved phosphorous. Williams said that Twin Lake has received an alum treatment in the past. Blum wanted to know if there was a metric to measure costs and effects and identify the impact over time. Williams said that concentration of nutrients in water bodies is commonly used as a metric to measure water quality and compare it to state standards. Models can also be developed to estimate how much pollutant loads are being reduced, which has been done on a project specific basis in Golden Valley. Blum asked if that was done every time a lot was developed. Oliver clarified that larger developments are required to implement best practices, but that as a fully developed first ring suburb Golden Valley has adopted a regional approach in stormwater management, conducting studies mainly on larger projects. He said that Golden Valley implements best practices strategically, where and when possible, like the constructed ponds by the Holiday Inn and on Xenia Avenue. Special Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 12, 2017 Page 7 Blum expressed concern about herbicide and pesticide use and said that he does not feel the City communicates well with residents about the issue. Oliver said that regulating individual properties and pesticide, herbicide, and fertilizer use is difficult and best approached through education. Oliver said there is not a metric to measure it but that continued education is key, and he feels that Golden Valley’s education program is very strong. Blum asked Williams to address the impacts of permeable and non-permeable surfaces and whether there was a way to monitor it. Williams explained that there are development standards that limit the rate of water coming off a property, and the best way to meet that is to limit the impervious surface. He said that there are policies to promote permeable surfaces and reduce runoff, which can be done partly by informing developers of best practices and indirectly through City regulations. Chair Segelbaum opened the floor for public comments at 8:00 p.m. Dawn Hill, resident of the City and Environmental Commissioner asked about drinking water and whether a situation like Flint, Michigan, could happen in Golden Valley. She wanted to know whose responsibility it would be to fix that and asked whether drinking water safety should be included in the Comprehensive Plan. She also wanted to know whether lining the pipes would reduce capacity. Marty Micks, 90 Louisiana Ave S, asked about Twin Lake. She said it was pristine in the 1990s and wanted to know how it went from being pristine to needing an alum treatment. She said she does not think residents are penalized for using additional water and that she thinks there should be some type of penalty to encourage residents to keep their water usage down. She also wanted to know what trees are best to plant near water pipes to avoid root intrusions and whether the City has looked into how the lining placed in Winnetka Avenue in 1994 is doing. Seeing no one else come forward, the floor was closed for comments. Answering the question about trees, Oliver said that forestry staff have a list of tree species that will do well. He said that trees with deep roots may impact pipes, but that there has not been a need for tree removal. Referencing Hill’s question about whether lining water mains might reduce capacity, Oliver explained that friction is a factor in capacity, and the new lining is smoother. Even though the diameter is smaller the capacity remains the same or improves. He clarified that the sewer mains on Winnetka were replaced, not lined. Lining is a newer approach that was not in use at the time. He said some liners have done very well and that they are moving in the right direction. Referencing the comment on incentives to reduce water use, Oliver explained that the City has a tiered rate based on usage of water for bills, with a slight increase with more water use. However, the low range of a tier may pay as much as the high range of a tier. It is not charged per gallon. Special Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 12, 2017 Page 8 Waldhauser brought up the question on drinking water quality. Oliver explained that the lead poisoning in Flint, Michigan was a unique combination of water chemistry and lead service pipes and that Golden Valley does not have those types of pipes. The water chemistry is consistent throughout the City of Minneapolis, and widespread contamination of water, like what happened in Flint, Michigan is not anticipated. Returning to the alum treatment in Twin Lake, Chandler explained that the alum treatment was actually a positive case. The Basset Creek Watershed Commission had a goal to protect bodies that have good water quality. Some phosphorous seemed to be causing water quality to decline in Twin Lake, so the alum treatment was used to address the phosphorous coming into water from the sediment. There was budget set aside for two treatments, but the second treatment has not been needed yet. Chandler emphasized that this was a positive story in which a potential issue was addressed right away and did not become a big problem. Baker wanted to know what the source of phosphorous from sediment was in the Twin Lake case. Chandler said it may have been as a result of higher temperatures in the summer. Oliver said that phosphorous in the sediment comes from natural sources and reminded the commission that the peninsula was a pasture for a long time, which may be a contributing factor in the increased phosphorous. Chair Segelbaum closed the public hearing at 8:15. Chair Segelbaum asked if the Planning Commission should table the discussion of the goals for the Comprehensive Plan Water Resources Chapter until the next meeting since there was also a Regular Meeting Planned for the same night. Goellner recommended tabling the item on the agenda for the Regular Meeting instead since it was less time sensitive than the Comprehensive Plan discussion. She also suggested not focusing on specific language in the Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives but focusing instead on broader topics and solutions. Segelbaum pointed out that Goals 4, 5, 6, and 7 and said that they seemed to relate to the sanitary sewer and water mains, whereas Goals 1, 2, 3, and 4 seemed to relate to surface water. He proposed beginning with the second half of the Goals and Objectives. Segelbaum brought up an element that had already been discussed: the word “limit” used in Goal 6, where the intent was “reduce”. Waldhauser asked what a realistic improvement would be and how that would be implemented in the planning process. Segelbaum expressed that he would like to see a more quantitative approach. Goellner clarified that this is a policy plan which does not generally have specific number targets, but that the implementation section of the chapter would have specific targets. The Commission agreed to wait and see what the specific targets in the chapter were. Baker brought up the idea of a metric to measure these things better. He said that seemed especially suitable for Goals 1-3, and that they should be measuring and Special Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 12, 2017 Page 9 reporting to the community. He pointed out that in other chapters there had been metrics and measurements provided. Segelbaum brought up the phrasing “manageable level”. Baker said he would like that to be defined more specifically. Blenker asked about suggested implementation steps and said that she had seen those provided in other chapters. Segelbaum agreed that previous chapters had implementation steps listed and wanted to know why this one did not. Goellner said that working with three consultants on this chapter had complicated coordination and that that the strategies are likely to be similar now to what they were ten years ago. Baker brought up the second objective of Goal 5 and wanted to know what strategies it was referring to. Oliver said that when it comes to stormwater management the system is so large and so expensive that upgrades are often implemented when the opportunity arises rather than based on objective goals. He said that the current information is incomplete, which makes it difficult to set goals. With precipitation the focus will be on flood storage and minimizing property damage, which is already being done. Segelbaum asked for clarification about Goellner’s earlier comments on implementation. He said hearing that the same strategies are being used as ten years ago worried him and that it sounds like the City is not making progress. Oliver said he agreed with Goellner’s comment. The goals laid out in the last Comprehensive Plan remain the same because they are still applicable. He said the trend throughout the region has been to move away from reliance on groundwater to surface water, which Golden Valley already does. He emphasized that the goals are viable but very difficult to measure and that he believed Golden Valley is ahead of many comparable cities in dealing with these issues. Segelbaum asked whether the City was pushing off necessary infrastructure repairs and what should be done to ensure that future residents are not burdened by lack of action now. Oliver agreed that the condition of infrastructure is important and that if the Commission thinks so they should rank that priority accordingly. Goellner added that there are more policies in the water resources chapter than any other chapter, totaling 22 policies. She said she thought it would be better to focus on prioritizing which goals are most important during this night’s meeting. Blum said he thought that to choose what is most important he needed some type of concrete measure to see what is being done over time. Johnson said there seemed to be a lot of data and was not sure what Blum was looking for. Blum said that he thought staff understood the metrics best and would like more guidance from staff about what is being done. Baker suggested that objectives for some of the goals be to provide or develop monitoring metrics. Oliver emphasized that there is regular monitoring by the Bassett Creek Watershed Commission and required standards that must be met. He said that there is continued progress on Sweeney Lake and Wirth Lake. He said that while not every project and goal is outlined in the Comprehensive Plan they were being worked on consistently. Special Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 12, 2017 Page 10 Segelbaum asked whether they should request that staff report these measurements, and the Commission agreed. Baker said that he thought there could be better integration of the goals. He said the integration of what used to be three chapters into one chapter did not seem effective and he thought staff could improve that. Waldhauser pointed out that Goal 4 effectively mentioned all components of water resources. She mentioned that many of the potential problems relate to Goal 4 and infrastructure. Segelbaum said that some of the goals do not pull all the aspects of water resources together. Segelbaum asked if any commissioners had further comments on Goals 4-7. Johnson brought up the third objective of Goal 5 and wanted to know that the data in the forecasts was legitimate. He also said he thought there needed to be a plan to pay for the cost of rehabilitating the pipes and that the goals and objectives should address this. Segelbaum agreed and said it was important to the community to show that steps are being taken to improve the situation. Waldhauser brought up Goal 7. She said she thought there was a public education component to all of the goals and that education did not necessarily need to be its own goal. She said she would rather see an objective for each goal addressing the public education component. Baker agreed that there is a public education component in each goal and suggested leaving the education goal but crafting an education policy for each goal. Blum suggested changing Goal 7 to “incentivize” the public rather than “involve”. Segelbaum said he believed incentives could be built into the other goals. Goellner agreed that “involve” was a loose verb and that she liked the idea of incentivizing. Baker said that being more educated on a topic should incentivize people to do the right thing. Kluchka recommended that incentives be a policy and that the incentives be used to achieve a goal. He said he also believed that incentives should be addressed across the chapters of the Comprehensive Plan. Moving onto Goals 1-3, Segelbaum asked if any of the other commissioners had input on those goals. Blum said that rather than achieving standards, he thought residents might like to see Golden Valley exceed the standards. He proposed more positive language like “exceed” rather than achieve. Segelbaum asked engineering staff if exceeding those standards was realistic. Oliver said that it is very difficult just to meet the minimums, and that while exceeding them would be admirable, he thought it would be very difficult. He said staff will discuss the desire and incorporate it in a way that makes sense. Segelbaum said that, where realistic, he thought the city should aim high. Baker said that knowing when exceeding was reasonable should be up to staff. Blum pointed out that Comprehensive Plans are aspirational, and that not all goals would be achieved. Johnson pointed out that the last bullet from Goal 1 was replicated in Goal 5. Goellner explained that had been done in an attempt to integrate more, but that using the same language may not have been an effective way to do that. Special Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 12, 2017 Page 11 Baker said he thought there should be an objective under Goal 1 to reduce the use of chloride in street maintenance. Segelbaum asked if there were other options, and Baker said that they could let staff deal with that since the Comprehensive Plan is aspirational. Segelbaum suggested adding it as a policy instead of an objective. Blum suggested generalizing it to say “reduce the use of harmful chemicals in maintenance”, and Segelbaum agreed that sounded good. Waldhauser wanted to know what “minimize hydrological alterations to Bassett Creek” means. Williams clarified that referred to anything that might change the velocity or flow of water and have unintended negative environmental consequences. Baker asked if that could be framed in a more aspirational way to enhance the creek. Williams replied that he thought that had been addressed in other goals. Segelbaum asked whether the language could be changed to make more sense to laypeople. Waldhauser said she was surprised to see it there because there had been alterations to Bassett Creek that seemed positive. Williams said that recent alterations had been done to undo previous changes, which has been prioritized by the Minnesota Division of Natural Resources. He clarified that the language is in the spirit of maintaining things as they would occur naturally. The commission agreed they thought that point needed revision. Waldhauser said she liked Goal 2 and appreciated the emphasis on water as a desirable amenity. Segelbaum asked if she thought it was emphasized sufficiently, and Waldhauser said that she thought Goal 2 was very well done. Baker said he liked the second-to-last objective on Goal 2 and hoped to build on that as an opportunity to improve shoreland protection. Blum said that he frequently hears questions about pest control for mosquitoes and wanted to know if that should be addressed in this chapter. Segelbaum said that he agreed some of these items should be balanced with the livability of the community since it is difficult to enjoy the community with the mosquitos. Blenker state that the city is not involved in mosquito control. Goellner replied that there is a regional body that dealt with the mosquito population. Baker said he thought that the regional mosquito control body does a good job and he was not worried about it. Goellner suggested raising the question to the environmental commission. Segelbaum asked what the next steps would be for this chapter. Goellner said that the document would be presented to the City Council the next day, after which the consultants would begin work on writing the chapter. She said a completed document would be presented to the Planning Commission in the fall with a full detailed policy plan that they would be able to give feedback on. The meeting was adjourned at 9:09 pm. ________________________________ John Kluchka, Secretary __________________________ Kayla Grover, Community Development Intern Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 24, 2017 A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall, Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota, on Wednesday, April 12, 2017. Chair Segelbaum called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Planning Commissioners Baker, Blenker, Blum, Kluchka, Segelbaum and Waldhauser. Also present were Planning Manager Jason Zimmerman, Associate Planner/Grant Writer Emily Goellner, and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. Commissioner Johnson was absent. 1. Approval of Minutes April 12, 2017, Special Planning Commission Meeting MOVED by Waldhauser, seconded by Kluchka and motion carried unanimously to approve the April 12, 2017, Special meeting minutes as submitted. April 12, 2017, Regular Planning Commission Meeting MOVED by Waldhauser, seconded by Kluchka and motion carried unanimously to approve the April 12, 2017, Regular meeting minutes as submitted. 2. Discussion – Outdoor Storage Zimmerman reminded the Commissioners that they’ve had several discussions about outdoor storage over the last several months. The discussions have focused on auto dealership inventory storage, front yard and side yard storage in the R-1 Single Family Zoning District, and the regulations in other zoning districts. He stated that staff discussed the Planning Commission’s recommendations with the City Council in January and based on all of the feedback, staff will draft new zoning language to consider this summer. He added that he is bringing this item to the Commission in order to update them on where staff is in the process of amending the outdoor storage regulations. Zimmerman stated that the concerns regarding auto dealership inventory storage include: the storage of inventory in parking ramps, the storage of inventory on vacant and/or underutilized surface parking lots throughout the City, and the storage of inventory on dealer-owned properties that aren’t a dealership lot. He showed the Commission some photos of inventory storage in various locations and stated that the City Council direction was to allow inventory storage in parking ramps if it does not impact parking needs for the office use. For other lots, the City Council’s direction was to allow stand-alone inventory storage only in Light Industrial or Industrial zoning districts and to require screening if the lots abut Residential, Institutional, Commercial, or Office uses. He added that the City Council was also supportive of requiring a Conditional Use Permit to allow inventory storage. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 24, 2017 Page 2 Zimmerman stated that the concerns regarding outdoor storage in front yards in the R-1 Zoning District include: what to allow, and how to define the word “items.” He stated that one-third of the code enforcement violations in 2016 were regarding storage in a front yard and another one-third of the violations were vehicles parking in the front yard. He stated that concerns regarding storage in side yards include: screening from neighbors and the street, and if items stored in a side yard should be required to be on a paved surface. He stated there are erosion issues if items are stored on grass, but that there are also water quality and run-off issues with requiring additional paved areas. Segelbaum asked if pavers, or gravel would be allowed. Zimmerman stated pavers are allowed, but staff doesn’t support gravel because the area tends to expand over time. Waldhauser added that gravel also ends up in the street and storm water system. Waldhauser said that she would like to limit outdoor storage to the bare minimum. She added that requiring a Conditional Use Permit for dealership inventory seems like a lot of work for applicants and staff. Zimmerman agreed, but added that requiring a Conditional Use Permit might discourage the storage of dealership inventory, and it would also be a way for the City to regulate it. Zimmerman stated that another concern that will be addressed is the storage of items in other zoning districts that are unrelated to the business occurring, and the screening of items that are related to a business. He added that staff is recommending that all of the outdoor storage and screening requirements be moved from the various zoning districts into one section in the Zoning Code. Segelbaum said he recalls there being some hesitation regarding security and screening. Zimmerman said there was conversation regarding the security of dealership inventory if it is screened. He stated that staff would work with the Police Department regarding security and screening. Blum stated that the themes that came out of the City survey were green, clean, safe, etc. and allowing dealership inventory storage doesn’t seem like a high value use for Golden Valley. He said he is concerned about being permissive about this use and doesn’t want the Conditional Use Permit process to just be a rubber stamp. He referred to the proposed language in the R-1 Zoning District and said he is happy to see the storage of construction materials limited to 30 days but he is concerned about allowing a hulking recreational vehicle to be stored 3 or 5 feet away from a neighbor’s lot line. He added that they can also leak gas and oil which is bad for the environment and not very safe. He said he thinks it would be better to not allow storage along the side of a house or garage because it is not visually appealing to the neighbors who have to look at it. Kluchka said he is confused about the priorities between allowing additional impervious surface and requiring items to be stored within the building envelope. He said if the City doesn’t want to encourage additional impervious surface, an RV or a boat will have the same amount of run-off as a paved area. Baker stated that there could be some pervious surface under a boat or RV. Kluchka stated that the Planning Commission spent a lot of time establishing requirements for building envelopes so he is confused about the Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 24, 2017 Page 3 priorities. Blum stated that the City has been liberal on allowing people to expand their garages which doesn’t jibe with letting people park giant vehicles in plain view. Waldhauser asked about other options for storing recreational vehicles. Kluchka said they can be stored at a storage unit. Segelbaum said he would guess that people would like to have their recreational vehicles at their homes during the season. He questioned if a car parked in a side yard could be considered storage if it is being used. Zimmerman stated that the next step in the process will be drafting ordinance language for the Planning Commission to review followed by a public hearing. 3. Comp Plan Discussion – Future Land Use Map Zimmerman noted that the Planning Commission has had two previous discussions about the Land Use section of the Comp Plan. He stated that in addition to the proposed planning districts and correcting the existing land use/zoning inconsistencies, there are two additional topics he would like to discuss which include senior density bonuses and mixed income housing. Zimmerman stated that the existing R-3 and R-4 Zoning Districts allow a bonus of two additional units per acre for senior housing and that it makes sense to continue using that language regarding density bonuses. Waldhauser stated that the City has heard from residents that they don’t really care about the density for senior housing, but they do not want exceptions to the height limits. Zimmerman said it is difficult to get additional density without building up. Baker asked if the density bonus is supposed to be an incentive to get additional senior housing units. Zimmerman said yes. Baker asked if incentivizing has worked. Zimmerman stated that all of the senior housing projects have been done using the PUD process so there aren’t any good examples of projects that have used the density bonus. Zimmerman referred to the issue of mixed income housing. He referred to the housing report recently done by a consultant and stated it suggests that if the City wants to get more affordable housing units a requirement could be added that requires projects of a certain size to have a certain number of the units be affordable. He said there are some challenges in putting that language in the Code for rental housing unless the project has to go through some sort of zoning approval. He showed the Commissioners a chart of all of the City’s current R-3 and R-4 properties, along with their densities and current and proposed zoning. He discussed the densities and land use categories of the various zoning categories and stated that staff is working on proposed language for these categories to make sure the zoning and land use categories work together. Waldhauser asked that the addresses of the properties be included on the chart. Zimmerman showed the Commissioners a draft of the future Land Use Map and compared it to the existing Land Use Map and asked them for feedback. Waldhauser referred to the Flexible Use category and asked if there are any uses that will not be allowed in that district. Zimmerman said yes, the idea is that the Flexible Use district would focus on small scale, neighborhood commercial uses. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 24, 2017 Page 4 Zimmerman highlighted several areas of the City and noted that the southeast corner of Highway 55 and Winnetka is proposed to be Medium Intensity (up to 20 units per acre). He referred to the I-394 Corridor area and stated that currently the whole corridor is guided for Mixed Use. However, staff is proposing that the area along I-394 be designated Commercial Retail-Service and the areas along the edge of the district be designated Flexible Use. He referred to the Downtown area and stated that staff is also proposing to designate that area Flexible Use. Waldhauser asked if the properties along Boone Avenue would also be guided for Flexible Use. Zimmerman stated that the proposed designation for those properties is Light Industrial and Industrial but staff will consider what will be permitted or allowed with a Conditional Use Permit in the Zoning Code language in order to expand the types of uses that could occur in those districts. Blum asked if the Downtown area would have an overlay district to encourage walkability. Zimmerman said an overlay district can be used if needed, but if the current language in the Mixed Use Zoning District is used many of the design standards are already addressed. Segelbaum asked if different mixed use language is being contemplated for the proposed new Flexible Use category. Zimmerman said he envisions making the I-394 Mixed Use zoning language more general and not so specific to the I-394 area and maybe allowing multiple uses within a block instead of within one building. Segelbaum said the sense he got from the public comments is that people want more retail uses so he thinks it is going to be important for the Planning Commission to review the new Mixed Use and Flex Use language. Zimmerman explained that zoning follows land use. The language regarding land use is more broadly defined in the Comp Plan and is more specific in the Zoning Code. He added that the goals from the existing I-394 Mixed Use category will probably remain the same. Zimmerman referred to the Douglas Drive area and noted that staff is proposing that the north end be guided Moderate Intensity to allow for more density with more flexible nodes as it gets closer to Highway 55. Zimmerman stated that staff has not proposed any changes for the Light Rail area yet because of the uncertainty of funding at the state and federal level. He said the City should know more in regard to funding within a few months so rather that reguiding the properties in that area now staff is proposing to wait. Baker questioned if the City would be too far behind in the planning process to catch up if they wait for certainty regarding funding. Zimmerman said there is a huge amount of reluctance for change in this area. He stated that if the funding moves forward the City will have to plan for this area. If the funding doesn’t materialize no changes will need to be made in order to meet the Met Council’s minimum density requirements. He added that language could be put in the Comp Plan goals stating that a small area plan will need to be done in the future for this area. Blum referred to the northwest end of Winnetka Avenue and said that it seems appropriate to explore other uses in this area. Zimmerman stated that there are only two non-residential properties in that area. One is the cemetery and the other is the small office building south of the Cemetery. He reminded the Commission that there was a Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 24, 2017 Page 5 proposal in the past to rezone the office building but there wasn’t consensus from the Planning Commission on what to allow there. Waldhauser asked if the City has places that would be suitable for a small coffee shop or breakfast place. She said she sees them everywhere except in Golden Valley. Baker stated that in other cities those types of uses may have already been in place before residential uses were built. He added that it would be hard to impose those types of uses on an existing neighborhood. Kluchka agreed that if there were an opportunity it probably would have presented itself already. He stated the Flex Use category could help jumpstart those types of uses, but it’s difficult without higher density. He added that the area near the Hello apartments and the area along Plymouth Avenue with the bike trails might good for more flexible uses. Segelbaum stated that Douglas Drive would also be a good area for flexible uses. Zimmerman agreed and said the south end of Douglas Drive is proposed to be guided Flexible Use. Blum asked if the City could require an additional level of buffering or screening if these flexible uses are next to R-1 properties. Zimmerman said yes. Kluchka suggested adding flexible use designations near park adjacent amenities in order to find places where people already are. Zimmerman stated that the proposed land use map will be reviewed by the transportation and wastewater consultants and brought back to the Planning Commission for review. He added that the next Comp Plan Conversation will be on the Sustainability and Resilience Chapter of the Comp Plan and will be held on May 8. 4. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings Segelbaum stated that he will be presenting the Planning Commission Annual Report at the May Council/Manager meeting. Zimmerman stated that he has made some revisions to the Annual report and that he would email the updated report to the Commissioners. 5. Other Business •Council Liaison Report Council Member Schmidgall reported that Einstein Bagels is closing. He reported on the progress of the Brookview Community Center construction and stated that the Golden Valley Historical Society received a grant from the State and are about to embark on putting in a new exhibit. 6. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:24 pm. __________________________________________________________ John Kluchka, Secretary Lisa Wittman, Administrative Assistant Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 22, 2017 A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall, Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota, on Monday, May 22, 2017. Chair Segelbaum called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. Those present were Planning Commissioners Baker, Blum, Johnson, Kluchka, Segelbaum, and Waldhauser. Also present were Planning Manager Jason Zimmerman, Associate Planner/Grant Writer Emily Goellner, and Community Development Intern Kayla Grover. Commissioner Blenker was absent. 1. Approval of Minutes April 24, 2017 Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission Waldhauser referred to the third paragraph of the second page and asked that her comment on some cities having successfully banned outdoor storage be struck, stating that it was not relevant to the discussion that followed. Blum referred to the second-to-last paragraph of the second page and asked that his comment referencing a “neighbor’s window” be revised to say “neighbor’s lot line”. MOVED by Kluchka, seconded by Baker and motion carried unanimously to approve the April 24, 2017 Regular meeting minutes with the revisions discussed. 2. Continued Informal Public Hearing – Zoning Code Text Amendment— Mobile Food Vending in Residential Zoning Districts Applicant: City of Golden Valley Purpose: To consider allowing mobile food vending in Residential Zoning Districts Goellner presented on the proposed Zoning Code Text Amendment to allow mobile food vending in residential districts with a permit, including the feedback from the previous Planning Commission discussion that had been incorporated in the new recommendations. Goellner stated that staff had received inquiries from residents who wanted to host a graduation or wedding reception at their home and hire a food truck for the event. At the recommendation of the Planning Commission, the Amendment had been updated to include a ten foot distance required between food trucks and all structures for fire safety, to allow parking of food trucks on the street if service windows face the curb and it does not block traffic, to prohibit sales to the general public in residential areas except in cases where the street was closed for Special Events, to impose a six hour time limit on food truck sales, and to limit the permits issued for mobile food vending in residential districts to two per applicant per year. Applicants would also be given educational materials and encouraged to inform their neighbors ahead of time about the event to limit complaints. Goellner revisited the regulations presented at the previous meeting, stating that mobile food vending in residential districts must occur between eight a.m. and ten p.m., a Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 22, 2017 Page 2 permit is for one truck and one day and would not include a liquor license, trash removal is required, the food truck cannot park overnight, and it cannot create a parking shortage. Goellner said that the persons involved must follow the existing noise ordinance, although she noted that there have been no noise complaints about food trucks in the districts where they are currently permitted. Commissioner Baker expressed that he was concerned about the need to close streets for special events. He stated that people may wish to have a food truck for an athletic event in a park which would vend to the general public and asked if the streets would be required to be closed for that. Goellner clarified that the Parks Department handles all permits for mobile food vending in parks and that the text amendment in question applies only to private events in residential districts, so the decision of whether or not to close the streets for an event in a park would be made by the Parks Department. Johnson asked about the possibility of there being multiple food trucks on the same street at the same time and wanted to know if there was a limit to how many mobile food vending permits could be issued on one street simultaneously. Goellner replied that she did not anticipate that being a problem because the permit could be denied by staff if there was insufficient space. Johnson brought up the forty dollar permit fee, wanting to know how that rate was determined. Goellner replied that it covers the administrative costs of processing the permit. Goellner stated that forty dollars was the rate that had been set as an introductory rate, but that it could be revised at a later time by City Council if it was found to be too high. Waldhauser asked whether the homeowner or the vendor pays the permit fee. Goellner said it would depend on the situation, but typically the vendor would pay the fee. Baker asked for clarification on who fills out the application. Goellner said it would typically be the vendor but that the homeowner has to sign, so both parties are part of the process. Referring to paragraph 17, Segelbaum said he was confused about the difference between the terms “applicant”, “property owner”, and “vendor” since they did not seem to be used consistently. Goellner clarified that the application could be filed by either the property owner or the vendor, so “applicant” was used when referencing the permit application process but could refer to either the property owner or the vendor, whereas “property owner” and “vendor” refer to those persons specifically. Segelbaum asked staff to take another look at how those words are used. Referring to item four, page four Segelbaum raised concern about the language that seemed to restrict vendors to only having one permit at a time. He said that might prevent vendors from having events on consecutive days. Zimmerman said that staff would take another look at that section and think about why it was written that way. Segelbaum opened the public hearing. John Levy, president of the Minnesota Food Truck Association, introduced himself and said that he was there both to offer feedback and to answer questions the Commission might have about the food truck industry. He stated that he did not think the ban on Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 22, 2017 Page 3 “sales to the general public” was necessary and recommended eliminating or expanding the six hour time limit on food truck sales. He explained that people may often plan an event where they want the food truck to serve both lunch and dinner and that a six hour time limit would prevent that. He said he was unaware of any instances where food trucks being at a residence for long periods of time had caused any problems. He also questioned why there was a limit of two permits per year. He stated that he thought there should be no limit on the number of trucks allowed on a street at one time since, in his experience, he said he has found that food trucks operate best when there is more than one food truck present. Levy brought up Johnson’s concern about the permit price and said that he agreed it seemed too high to him because the margins for a food truck serving just one meal are slim. Waldhauser asked what a typical price for a permit is, in Levy’s experience, and Levy replied that he did not know. Waldhauser mentioned that it was likely the property owner who was hosting the party would pay the fee, in which case the cost would not affect the vendors. Kluchka mentioned that the permit price is comparable to the price of the permits food trucks must receive from the Health Department. Segelbaum wanted to know if, in the case of a long event, a food truck would ever need to hook up to the electrical system. Levy stated that food trucks typically run off a generator and would not need to plug into an additional source of electricity. Segelbaum asked Levy if anything in the proposed text amendment stood out to him. Levy stated that nothing stood out to him, but that he was not familiar with the typical language of codes. Levy recommended adding the option of a seasonal permit for vendors, noting that many other cities provide that option. Seeing no one else come forward, the public hearing was closed. Segelbaum asked if there was a limit to the number of food trucks in non-residential areas. Goellner said there was no formal limit, but that available space would be analyzed before approval and that permits could be denied by staff if there was insufficient space. Waldhauser wanted to know why two food trucks at a residential event would be a problem, provided there was room on the street. She agreed with Mr. Levy that she thought more than one food truck would be more fun provided there were enough people and enough space. Zimmerman stated that the limit on number of food trucks applied to private events and that a special event could have more. Segelbaum asked where the recommendation for the limit on permits came from. Goellner confirmed that it was from the Planning Commission. Baker stated that the limit was imposed because there was concern that an unlimited amount of permits could encourage a party house situation. Kluchka proposed that if more trucks were desired, neighbors could collaborate with each other and that neighbors could apply for the permits for additional food trucks, which would not require a special event permit. Waldhauser agreed that a limit on permits was a good measure which would prevent frequent parties that might disturb neighbors. Mr. Levy stated that he thought this was a Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 22, 2017 Page 4 bad idea that could create logistical problems. He recommended simply allowing multiple food trucks and said that he has not heard of any problems created by frequent food truck events. Baker asked if staff had the ability to deny a permit if the applicant applied too frequently. Goellner said that, without a formal limit, they could only deny a permit if there had been complaints or prior violations of City Code. Johnson recommended not having a limit on number of trucks because the noise ordinance would regulate disturbances. Segelbaum speculated that the limit on number of food trucks might create long waits for food. Waldhauser pointed out that for an open-house type situation, as was likely to happen in residential districts, she did not imagine that being a problem. Baker recommended not being overly restrictive unless problems arise. Johnson agreed that the noise ordinance could always be used to control disturbances, and permits could always be denied if there were complaints. He said he would eliminate the limit entirely. Waldhauser said the size of the host’s property might self-impose a limit. Zimmerman noted that current language does not actually specify that the food truck must be parked adjacent to the host’s property. Segelbaum asked that the language be updated to require the food truck to park adjacent to the host’s property. Blum asked for clarification about whether the limit was on number of trucks per event or number of events per year. Zimmerman clarified that there were two limits, one permit per truck per property and two permits permitted per year per property. He said that, while it had not been intended that way, the language could potentially allow hosts to have either two events per year with one truck or one event per year with two trucks. Kluchka asked what flexibility could be allowed for larger neighborhood events. Zimmerman pointed out that a special event permit could allow a larger event. Kluchka requested that a reference be added to special event permits in the text amendment to allow greater flexibility for neighborhood events. Segelbaum reviewed what had been discussed so far. He stated that they had agreed to clarify the definitions of “vendor” and “applicant”, to correct item seventeen, and to state that there is an exception to certain regulations for special event permits. Zimmerman added that they had also decided to restrict parking to the host’s property. Baker raised the question of seasonal permits. Goellner clarified that seasonal permits were permitted in other zoning districts of the city, but were not permitted in residential zoning districts. Johnson brought up the six hour time limit. Blum asked why six hours had been selected, and Goellner answered that it had been suggested by the Planning Commission. Baker brought up the possibility of a two-meal event that might take longer. Kluchka wondered if allowing an exception to the time limit could be granted for a special event permit, and Zimmerman confirmed that was the case. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 22, 2017 Page 5 Waldhauser recommended dropping the time limit altogether since it was limited to between 8 a.m. and 10 p.m. by the noise ordinance anyway. However, Kluchka pointed out that neighbors might object to an all-day event. Johnson wanted to know if there was a way to track how long the food trucks were parked. Goellner stated that they gather that information when the applicant applies for a permit. Blum brought up the penalty for violations, which is the suspension from mobile food vending permits for thirty days. He stated that since many private events are likely to be annual events, thirty days seemed like a penalty with no teeth. He recommended 13 months as a more appropriate penalty. Segelbaum pointed out that thirteen months might be very significant to the vendor, but that it seemed appropriate for the property owner. He recommended the language say “not exceeding thirteen months” to allow staff discretion in administering penalties. Segelbaum brought up the issue of the forty dollar permit fee. Goellner stated that any changes to that fee would need to be approved by the City Council and that forty dollars was the permit price for mobile food vending in other districts and has not been a barrier so far. Segelbaum suggested lowering the price for residential districts. Kluchka pointed out that processing the permit for the food truck in residential districts is the same amount of work as processing the permit in other districts. Johnson said that he would still like to lower the fee. Blum said that since it costs money to monitor the event for compliance and process the paper work, that lowering the fee would force the taxpayers to subsidize someone else’s party. A consensus was reached to leave the permit fee at forty dollars. Returning to the issue of the time limit, Segelbaum said he would be in favor of eight hours. A consensus was reached to increase the time limit to eight hours. Blum called attention to the required ten foot distance from homes recommended by the Fire Department. He stated that a tank of propane has the explosive power of several sticks of dynamite and questioned whether they were comfortable allowing the food trucks that close to the buildings. Waldhauser stated that if they were truly that explosive, they would be too dangerous to have anywhere. Baker asked if there was a history of food truck explosions, and Blum cited several instances of injuries and property damage due to food truck explosions. Baker pointed out that food trucks on streets is a common practice in Minneapolis. Blum brought up the possibility of risk to the neighboring properties in case of a fire or an explosion and recommended a required distance from the neighboring property line in addition to the required distance from structures, and increasing the required distance to thirty feet from structures. Kluchka asked what the Fire Chief’s recommendation was. Goellner replied that it was ten feet from all structures and that, while there was not a national standard as of yet, the Fire Chief expected ten feet to become the national standard. Blum stated that he would still support increasing the required distance, but the other Commissioners did not support his recommendation. Kluchka expressed that he would be supportive of a ten foot distance requirement from the neighbor’s property line. Zimmerman and Goellner discouraged this regulation, Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 22, 2017 Page 6 pointing out that it could prevent people with narrow lots from qualifying. Segelbaum pointed out that a minimum distance could help keep the party from intruding onto the neighbor’s property. Johnson objected to adding a required distance from the neighbor’s property line, stating that neighbors sometimes do things that annoy each other and he did not see why this was different. Goellner suggested that five feet would be more reasonable than ten feet, since ten feet would prevent a significant number of homeowners from acquiring a permit, and because five feet is consistent with the setbacks required for other structures in the City Code. Segelbaum asked if the serving window would be required to face the host’s property, and Goellner replied that could be handled during permitting. Waldhauser stated that she did not think five feet or ten feet would make a significant difference in safety and would be supportive of five feet. Kluchka and Blum stated that five seemed small to them, but there was a majority consensus. Mr. Levy said that he did not see why there would be need for a required distance from the property line as long as the structures were protected. MOVED by Waldhauser, seconded by Kluchka, and carried unanimously to recommend approval for the amendment to Zoning Code Section 11.04 Temporary Uses to allow Mobile Food Vending in Residential Zoning Districts with the following changes: 1. The time limit on mobile food vending in residential districts will be increased from six to eight hours. 2. Exceptions to certain regulations will be allowed with a Special Event permit. 3. The penalty for violations for a vendor will be a suspension of no more than thirteen months. 4. There would be a minimum distance of five feet from the property line. 5. The parking of mobile food vendors will be restricted to the host’s property. 6. Language will be changed to clarify the difference between “vendor” and “applicant”. 3. Other Business Waldhauser discussed a meeting she had attended of local activists organizing to promote affordable housing and informed the Commission that a group of activists will be forming in Golden Valley. She asked if there was a way for Golden Valley to partner with Minneapolis’s program to sell vacant properties in North Minneapolis since the two cities are adjacent to each other. She said she was unsure what such a partnership would look like but wanted to raise it as a possibility. Kluchka suggested having a formal presentation on the public art policy. •Council Liaison Report Council Member Schmidgall reported on the bikeway feasibility study of Wayzata and stated that he is expecting growth of cycle accessibility. He also informed the commission that Union Pacific had agreed to fix tunnel deterioration at Bassett Creek and that two residents had been appointed to the Light Rail Transit advisory committee. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission May 22, 2017 Page 7 Following the Council Liaison Report, Johnson disclosed a position he had recently accepted in case it was a conflict of interest. Kluchka stated that he did not think it would be a problem but that he would recommend Johnson recuse himself from any meetings involving that business. 4. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 pm. __________________________________________________________ John Kluchka, Secretary Lisa Wittman, Administrative Assistant Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 12, 2017 A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall, Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota, on Monday, June 12, 2017. Those present were Commissioners Baker, Blum, Johnson, Kluchka, Segelbaum, and Waldhauser. Also present were Planning Manager Jason Zimmerman, Associate Planner and Grant Writer Emily Goellner, and Community Development Intern Kayla Grover. Segelbaum called the meeting to order at 9:10 pm. 1. Approval of Minutes Johnson referred to his comment on page 6, in which he said that “neighbors will always do things to annoy each other” and asked that be revised. MOVED by Baker seconded Johnson, and motion carried unanimously to approve the May 22, 2017, Regular Meeting minutes with the revision discussed. 2. Discussion -- Places of Assembly Goellner introduced the topic said that staff had done research on how religious uses are treated in the Zoning Code and had some recommended changes. Segelbaum brought up the item related to federal law and asked if there was any sort of time sensitive component to updating the code. Goellner said that there were not currently any lawsuits or complaints. MOVED by Kluchka, seconded by Baker, and motion carried unanimously to table the discussion on Places of Assembly until June 26, 2017. 3. Other Business ● Council Liason Report (none) 4. Election of Officers There were three positions up for election: Chair, Vice-Chair, and Secretary. MOVED by Segelbaum, seconded by Johnson, and motion carried unanimously to elect Baker as Chair of the Planning Commission. MOVED by Segelbaum, seconded by Blum, and motion carried unanimously to elect Johnson as Vice-Chair of the Planning Commission. Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Planning Commission June 12, 2017 Page 2 MOVED by Baker and motion carried unanimously to elect Kluchka as Secretary of the Planning Commission. The meeting was adjourned at 9:19 pm. ________________________________ John Kluchka, Secretary __________________________ Kayla Grover, Community Development Intern GOLDEN VALLEY ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION Regular Meeting, Minutes May 22, 2017 Commissioners Present: Tracy Anderson, Tonia Galonska, Lynn Gitelis, Dawn Hill, Larry Johnson, Jim Stremel and Debra Yahle Staff Present: Eric Eckman, Public Works Specialist, Hannah Garry, GreenCorps Member 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 Galonska, and the motion carried unanimously to approve the minutes of the April 24, 2017 regular meeting. Review 2017 Annual Work Plan Eckman reviewed the Commission’s Work Plan for 2017 which was presented to the Council by Chair Gitelis on May 9, 2017. The Council made no changes to the work plan. The complete Work Plan is on file. Resilience & Sustainability Plan Eckman presented the draft Goals, Objectives, and Policies from the Resilience and Sustainability chapter in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Commissioners generally agreed with the information presented and offered their feedback on numerous items as each goal, objective, and policy was discussed separately. The suggested revisions will be taken under consideration during the next phase of writing and will be presented and discussed at a future Commission meeting. GreenStep Cities Inventory MOVED by Hill, SECONDED by Stremel and the motion carried unanimously to approve Best Practice #17; Action 1: Stormwater Management - Adopt and use MN Minimal Impact Design Standards (MIDS) - as amended for entry into the GreenStep Cities website. Best Practices 6, 13, 19, 23 and 1.6 were tabled until the next meeting held on June 26, 2017. Election of Officers MOVED by Yahle, SECONDED by Galonska and the motion carried unanimously to elect Dawn Hill as Chair. MOVED by Stremel, SECONDED by Anderson and the motion carried unanimously to elect Tonia Galonska as Vice Chair. Program/Project Updates The complete program/project update is on file. Minutes of the Environmental Commission May 22, 2017 Page 2 of 2 Other Business Brief discussion about the closure of Rhode Island Avenue/10 th Avenue in preparation for replacement of the culverts which carry Bassett Creek under the roadway and railroad tracks. Chair Gitelis presented a letter as information only from MN Environmental Partnership to Governor Dayton and Lt. Governor Smith regarding the Jobs and Energy Omnibus Bill. This letter is one example of the lobbying efforts that occur during the legislative session. League of MN Cities 2017 Annual Conference will be held June 14-16, 2017 at the Mayo Civic Center in Rochester, MN. Commission members are welcome to attend the GreenSteps Cities Awards breakfast held June 15 th at 7:30am. Golden Valley will be recognized as a Step 2 City. Adjourn MOVED by Stremel, SECONDED by Anderson, and the motion carried to adjourn the meeting at 8:34 pm. Claire Huisman Administrative Assistant Commissioners and city staff present: City Commissioner Alternate Commissioner Technical Advisory Committee Members (City Staff) Crystal Guy Mueller, Vice Chair Tim Wodarski Mark Ray Golden Valley Stacy Harwell, Treasurer (voting member second ½) Jane McDonald Black (voting member first ½) Tom Hoffman Medicine Lake Clint Carlson Absent Absent Minneapolis Michael Welch NA Absent Minnetonka Mike Fruen Absent Tom Dietrich New Hope Absent Pat Crough Megan Albert Plymouth Jim Prom (voting member starting 5A) John Byrnes (voting member thru Item 4) Derek Asche Robbinsdale Michael Scanlan, Secretary Absent Richard McCoy St. Louis Park Jim de Lambert, Chair Patrick Noon Erick Francis Staff and Others Present: Administrator Laura Jester, Keystone Waters Engineer Karen Chandler, Barr Engineering Recorder Dawn Pape, Lawn Chair Gardener Legal Counsel Troy Gilchrist, Kennedy & Graven Presenters/ Guests/Public Chuck Schmidt, Crystal resident Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission Minutes of Regular Meeting Thursday April 20, 2017 8:30 a.m. Golden Valley City Hall, Golden Valley MN BCWMC April 20, 2017 Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 7 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL On Thursday April 20, 2017 at 8:30 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. No cities were absent from the roll call. 2. CITIZEN FORUM ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS None 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Administrator Jester requested the addition of item 5D, the Citizen Assisted Monitoring Program (CAMP) Agreement with Met Council. MOTION: Alt. Commission McDonald Black moved to approve the agenda as amended. Commissioner Welch seconded the motion. Upon a vote, the motion carried 9-0. 4. CONSENT AGENDA MOTION: Commissioner Welch moved to approve the consent agenda. Alt. Commissioner McDonald Black seconded the motion. Upon a vote, the motion carried 9-0. The following items were approved as part of the consent agenda: the March 16, 2017 Commission Meeting Minutes, the April 2017 Financial Report, the payment of invoices, approval not to waive monetary limits on municipal tort liability, and acceptance of the BCWMC fiscal year 2016 financial audit. The general and construction account balances reported in the April 2017 Financial Report are as follows: Checking Account Balance $794,358.18 TOTAL GENERAL FUND BALANCE $794,358.18 TOTAL CASH & INVESTMENTS ON-HAND (4/12/17) $2,366,729.55 CIP Projects Levied – Budget Remaining ($4,494,990.84) Closed Projects Remaining Balance ($2,128,261.29) 2012-2016 Anticipated Tax Levy Revenue $9,476.76 2017 Anticipated Tax Levy Revenue $1,303,600.00 Anticipated Closed Project Balance ($815,184.53) Before the business of the meeting got underway, Chair de Lambert introduced the new alternate commissioner from the City of Crystal, Tim Wodarski, and Dawn Pape, who will be taking on some administrative duties such as taking minutes during meetings. BCWMC April 20, 2017 Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 7 5. BUSINESS A. Receive Presentation and Discuss Draft Feasibility Study for Bassett Creek Park Pond/Winnetka Pond Dredging Project (BCP-2) [Commissioner Prom arrives.] Commission Engineer Chandler presented the draft feasibility study for the Bassett Creek Park Pond/Winnetka Pond Dredging Project (BCP-2), slated for construction in 2018. She reported that the Commission ordered this study in July 2016. She noted that both ponds are located in the City of Crystal and both ponds are on the North Branch of Bassett Creek, so they are both “online” treatment ponds. Engineer Chandler noted that analysis of sediment in Bassett Creek Park Pond indicates that some of the sediment is contaminated and will require landfilling, which adds to the cost of the project. She noted that Winnetka Pond was probably only designed to be 2-ft. deep. She reminded the Commission that Winnetka Pond is on the trunk system and was identified as part of the flood control system, but is not technically part of the official BCWMC Flood Control Project. Commissioner Welch asked if there was any direct discharge to Bassett Creek Park Pond. Engineer Chandler replied affirmatively and that there may be more contamination near those outfalls. There was also discussion about the ponds being designated as public water v. public water wetland. Engineer Chandler clarified that the water body is a “public water” but the whole pond area is delineated as a wetland. Engineer Chandler reported on a technical stakeholder meeting with the MN Department of Natural Resources, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Commissioner Mueller, Administrator Jester, and city staff to discuss permitting constraints. She noted the DNR is focused on staying out of delineated wetlands. In the case of Bassett Creek Park Pond, the deep area is considered non-wetland so it can be made deeper. [Derek Asche arrives.] Engineer Chandler described different add-ons and alternatives for Bassett Creek Park Pond including creating a forebay to capture sediment as it first enters the pond, further deepening the deep part of the pond (up to 10- feet) in order to harbor fish, and installing a native buffer all around the pond. For Winnetka Pond she noted that ownership of the pond is split between the city and owner of the apartment buildings so there are fewer opportunities to install a buffer or implement different alternatives. However, she noted that one appealing alternative for Winnetka Pond is to dredge it deeper than originally designed, to a depth of 4.2 feet, which will increase its pollutant removal abilities. Engineer Chandler reported that the P8 model does not do a good job of estimating pollutant removals of the projects because the ponds are on the creek itself and the model doesn’t include upstream bank erosion, nor scouring and re-suspension within the ponds themselves. However, she noted the Engineer analyzed flow velocities in Winnetka Pond and found that a large portion of sediment is susceptible to re-suspension. Engineer Chandler reported that the Engineer’s professional judgment is that the current pond is likely only achieving 20% of what the P8 model predicts under existing conditions, so the additional annual total phosphorus removal is more likely to be approximately 49.6 lbs per year if Alternative 2 (deepening pond to 4.2 ft) is implemented. Engineer Chandler reported that her recommendation is for the Commission to implement Winnetka Pond East Alternative 2. She noted that with the high cost of dredging Bassett Creek Park Pond and the complicated issues there, it is recommended to set this project aside until after 2024. She noted that in the meantime, the Commission should collect data on the North Branch of Bassett Creek, which could be used to recalibrate the P8 model, and allow the city to finalize its Bassett Creek Park improvement planning. Chair de Lambert asked if there would be a cost reduction if the sediment could be disposed on-site. Engineer Chandler indicated yes, there would be a savings. Mark Ray with the City of Crystal indicated that possibly some BCWMC April 20, 2017 Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 7 Winnetka Pond sediment could be used in a project at Bassett Creek Park where fill is needed. Engineer Chandler stated that dredging Winnetka Pond also makes sense now because it’s located upstream of Bassett Creek Park Pond and that the pond is so full of sediment that it’s nearly interfering with the pond’s flood storage. There was a question about the possibility of not dredging either pond and thus not having a CIP project in 2018. Engineer Chandler noted that both ponds need to be dredged and the longer the wait, the more expensive it will be because more sediment will need to be removed. There was discussion about inquiring with the Winnetka Apartments property owner about installing a native buffer around the pond. Mr. Ray responded that the apartment owner had not been approached but that he/she can be asked about that possibility. Commissioner Welch wondered about wetland impacts and permitting issues. Engineer Chandler answered there were no wetland regulations when Winnetka Pond was constructed in the 1960s. She noted that wetland permitting would be easier if the project involves dredging only the accumulated sediment to return the project to its design condition, and that dredging to 4.2 ft. would be considered impacting a wetland. She noted that obtaining a permit is possible, but more of a hurdle. Asked for her input, Administrator Jester commented that she agreed with the Commission Engineer’s recommendation. She noted a buffer along Winnetka Pond would be beneficial, that now it is mostly mown grass to the edge which attracts many geese. Commission Engineer Chandler and Mr. Ray noted that installation of a buffer along the north side of the pond would cost approximately $45,000. When asked for direction on action needed now, Engineer Chandler stated that this is a draft report and that she would add in the “professional judgment” numbers on pollutant removals in Winnetka Pond, add in the possibility of installing a buffer on the pond and investigate the savings resulting from the City of Crystal using excavated sediment in their Bassett Creek Park project. Mr. Asche noted that the Commission invested heavily in the P8 model and it was developed for the purpose of comparing outcomes of projects. He noted that the study should include other benefits of the project, including pollinator habitat, increased dissolved oxygen, etc. There was discussion about the need for on-going maintenance, such as regular dredging of the pond like West Medicine Lake Pond, which is on Plymouth Creek. It was noted that maintenance is a city responsibility and the distinction between maintenance dredging and this larger CIP project should be identified in the feasibility report. Commissioner Mueller stated his support for the Engineer’s recommendation, but also noted that the Commission needs to look at different alternatives or it will become a dredging commission. He described the idea of a “grand bargain” in that during a future CIP project, the Commission dredges Bassett Creek Park Pond and installs a forebay that will be maintained by the city with regular dredging that should eliminate the need for a large CIP project to again dredge the pond in 30 years. [Commissioner Stacy Harwell arrives and Alternative Commissioner Jane McDonald Black departs] Commissioner Mueller continued, stating that the P8 model might be selectively steering the Commission toward solutions whose benefits are measurable by the model and thus limiting the Commission’s consideration of alternatives, typically to those that involve the use of pipes, pumps, and ponds. He noted that the model doesn’t consider wetland functions and biological benefits and that controlling the source of the runoff (before it gets to ponds) should be considered. Commissioner Mueller recommended the creation of a task force to study ways to retain and infiltrate storm water runoff at its source before it enters the ponds along the BCWMC Trunk System. Commissioner Welch restated that cities are responsible for pond dredging and maintenance, not the BCWMC April 20, 2017 Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 7 Commission. He noted that these ponds are different in that they are part of the North Branch of Bassett Creek and part of the BCWMC Trunk System. He further noted that the 2015 BCWMC Watershed Management Plan lays out studies, plans, and programs for reducing the source of pollution. Mr. Asche inquired about impairments along the North Branch and indicated that the feasibility study and project focuses on phosphorus pollution but that there are other factors to consider including macroinvertebrate communities, dissolved oxygen levels, bacteria, etc. It was noted that the creek is only impaired for bacteria right now. Mr. Asche pointed out that he appreciates Commissioner Mueller’s comments on looking at long-term ideas. There was a discussion about removing geese around Winnetka Pond and how that might significantly reduce phosphorus and bacteria loads in the pond. Commissioner Prom mentioned how removing geese on Bass Lake improved water quality and was cost effective. Goose management should be added to feasibility study. [Commissioner Welch departs.] Chair de Lambert remarked that a good discussion was held and he was looking for a summary. He noted there seemed to be general consensus for the Engineer’s recommendation. Engineer Chandler recapped the discussion and noted that the following items would be added to the final feasibility study that would come to the Commission at their next meeting: 1. Include the professional judgement figures for pollutant removal from Winnetka Pond deepening 2. Work with City of Crystal on possibility of using dredged material on nearby park land 3. Inquire with the Winnetka Apartments owner/manager about installing a native buffer 4. Investigate the possibility and effects of goose management around Winnetka Pond 5. Consider wetland functions and additional benefits including pollinator habitat 6. Include distinction between this dredging project and city-maintained pond dredging projects and why this project is proposed as a Commission project B. Receive Update on Curly-leaf Pondweed Control on Medicine Lake i.Ratify Agreement with Three Rivers Park District for Cooperation of Curly-leaf Pondweed Control ii.Ratify Contract with PLM Lake and Land Management for Curly-leaf Pondweed Treatment Administrator Jester reported that she (with City of Plymouth’s assistance) developed and disseminated a request for quotes from herbicide applicators and applied for a DNR herbicide application permit. She also coordinated with Three Rivers Park District to perform surveys of the curly-leaf pondweed before and after the herbicide treatment and to share in the cost of the treatment. She noted that since the treatment was needed before water temperatures reach 60 degrees, there wasn’t time to get Commission approval of agreements with Three Rivers Park District and the contractor before work needed to be done. She requested Commission ratification of the executed agreements. MOTION: Commissioner Carlson moved to ratify the agreement with Three Rivers Park District for cooperation of curly-leaf pondweed control and to ratify the contract with PLM Lake and Land Management for curly-leaf pondweed treatment. Commissioner Prom seconded the motion. Upon a vote, the motion carried 8-0. [The City of Minneapolis was absent from the vote.] Commissioner Carlson inquired about historical curly-leaf pondweed control locations. Mr. Asche remarked that curly-leaf pondweed treatment locations are included in reports that are on the city’s website. Commissioner Carlson commented that the City of Medicine Lake is appreciative of curly-leaf pondweed control. C. Receive Correspondence from Former Commissioner Regarding Pending Environmental Bills. Administrator Jester reported the Commission received an email from former Commissioner Stauner who is concerned about the Omnibus Environmental Bill that recently passed the Minnesota House of Representatives and the Minnesota State Senate. There was a lengthy discussion about whether the Commission should submit BCWMC April 20, 2017 Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 7 comments to the Governor before he acts on the bill and whether or not it was appropriate for the Commission to weigh in on political issues such as this. Some commissioners thought the Administrator should write a letter to the Governor from the Commission while others indicated that the Commission should stay out of partisan politics and noted that individuals could contact politicians on their own without representing the Commission, specifically. There was further discussion on the particular provisions in the omnibus bill and whether or not they directly affected the Commission’s work. Commissioners also discussed and considered sending a postcard rather than a letter and keeping the message non-political and simply in support of clean water. MOTION: Commissioner Carlson moved to direct the Administrator to draft a simple, friendly, non-offensive, letter with history of Commission support of clean water. Commissioner Harwell seconded the motion. Upon a vote, the motion tied 4-4 and thus failed. [In favor: Commissioners Mueller, Harwell Carlson, Crough. Opposed: Commissioners, Scanlon, Byrnes, de Lambert, Fruen. City of Minneapolis was absent from the vote.] [Commissioner Crough departs.] MOTION: Commissioner Carlson moved to direct the Administrator to draft a postcard in support of clean water without the Commission logo for use by individuals. There was no second. D. Consider Approval of CAMP (Citizen Assisted Monitoring Program) Agreement with Met Council Administrator Jester reported that this is an annual agreement with Met Council to participate in the Citizen Assisted Monitoring Program. She noted that there are 7 BCWMC lakes in the program this year. MOTION: Commissioner Scanlan moved to approve the CAMP agreement with the Met Council. Commissioner Prom seconded the motion. Upon a vote, the motion passed 7-0. [The cities of Minneapolis and New Hope were absent from the vote.] 6. COMMUNICATIONS a. Administrator’s Report i. Update on Minor Plan Amendment Administrator Jester reported that the minor amendment process was underway, including the 30-day comment period for agencies. She noted the public hearing would be held on May 18th at the beginning of the Commission meeting. She also noted the upcoming Westwood Nature Center event with Great River Greening, a cleanup in Bassett Creek Park in Minneapolis on April 22, and two upcoming committee meetings. b. Chair Chair de Lambert noted that the Westwood Nature Center event last year was very enjoyable and hoped the Commission could be involved again this year. c. Commissioners Commissioner Harwell provided Commissioners with Governor Dayton’s phone number so individuals could give comments on the omnibus environmental bill. Commissioner Mueller announced that the there is also a cleanup at Bassett Creek Park in Crystal. Commissioner Carlson asked if the APM/AIS committee would be meeting in time to impact the 2018 budget. Commissioner Prom gave an update on the Agora development and noted that there is still no purchase agreement with Walmart. Engineer Chandler stated that Barr received a resubmittal of the Agora development plans in response to Commission comments. Mr. Ray reminded people that it is severe weather week with sirens planned for 1:45 p.m. and 6:45 p.m. d. TAC Members - No comments e. Committees i. Report on March 27th Budget Committee Meeting – Committee is working through options and will present recommendations at the May Commission meeting ii. Upcoming Education and Budget Committees Meetings – to be held also on April 24th at 1:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m., respectively. BCWMC April 20, 2017 Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 7 f. Legal Counsel i. No comments. g. Engineer Engineer Chandler reported progress on the Schaper Pond project, noting the contractor reinstalled anchors and weights and the baffle is back in place. She noted that plants will be established this spring and that effectiveness monitoring will start next month. 7. INFORMATION ONLY (Information online only) a. CIP Project Updates: Now Available Online http://www.bassettcreekwmo.org/projects b. Grant Tracking Summary and Spreadsheet c. WMWA January and February Meeting Minutes d. Impacts of Salt in the News i. Star Tribune Article ii. Channel 12 News Clip e. WCA Notice of Decision, Golden Valley f. WCA Notice of Decision, Plymouth Creek Restoration Project 8. ADJOURNMENT – Chair de Lambert adjourned the meeting at 10:45 a.m. ___________________________ _____________________________________ Signature/Title Date Signature/Title Date Commissioners and city staff present: City Commissioner Alternate Commissioner Technical Advisory Committee Members (City Staff) Crystal Guy Mueller, Vice Chair Absent Mark Ray Golden Valley Stacy Harwell, treasurer (voting member 1st ½) Jane McDonald Black (voting member 2nd ½) Jeff Oliver Medicine Lake Absent Absent Susan Wiese Minneapolis Michael Welch NA Liz Stout Minnetonka Mike Fruen Absent Tom Dietrich New Hope Absent Pat Crough Megan Albert, Chris Long Plymouth Jim Prom (voting member for agenda items 5 & 6C) John Byrnes (voting member on all other items) Derek Asche Robbinsdale Michael Scanlan, Secretary Absent Richard McCoy, Marta Roser St. Louis Park Jim de Lambert, Chair Absent Erick Francis Staff and Others Present: Administrator Laura Jester, Keystone Waters Engineer Karen Chandler, Barr Engineering Recorder Dawn Pape, Lawn Chair Gardener Legal Counsel Troy Gilchrist, Kennedy & Graven Presenters/Guests/Public Steve Christopher (Board of Water and Soil Resources) Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission Minutes of Regular Meeting Thursday May 18, 2017 8:30 a.m. Golden Valley City Hall, Golden Valley MN BCWMC May 18, 2017 Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 8 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL On Thursday May 18, 2017 at 8:31 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. Medicine Lake was absent from the roll call. 2. CITIZEN FORUM ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS None. Chair de Lambert introduced a new TAC member from Robbinsdale, Marta Roser. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Administrator Jester requested moving the item 6C to top of the business agenda. She also requested the addition of item 6F for authorization to enter a cooperative purchasing agreement with the Minnesota Department of Administration. MOTION: Commission Harwell moved to approve the agenda as amended. Commissioner Scanlan seconded the motion. Upon a vote, the motion carried 8-0. [City of Medicine Lake was absent from the vote.] 4. CONSENT AGENDA Administrator Jester, Commissioners Harwell, Byrnes and Mueller requested some changes to the minutes. Commission Engineer Chandler noted a correction in the memo in 4D. She reported the memo should read the proposed but not yet adopted floodplain elevation at the Theodore Wirth Park inundation areas is 826.5 feet (not 226.5 feet). The April meeting minutes were taken out of the consent agenda and will be revised and brought to the next meeting. MOTION: Alternative Commissioner Byrnes moved to approve the consent agenda as amended. Commissioner Scanlan seconded the motion. Upon a vote, the motion carried 8-0. [City of Medicine Lake was absent from the vote.] The following items were approved as part of the consent agenda: the May 2017 Financial Report, the payment of invoices, the BNSF bridge 1.7 project in Minneapolis, the Golden Valley-Minneapolis interceptor rehabilitation project, the 10th Avenue North culvert replacement project in Golden Valley, and the 2016 BCWMC annual report. The general and construction account balances reported in the May 2017 Financial Report are as follows: Checking Account Balance $743,269.90 TOTAL GENERAL FUND BALANCE $743,269.90 TOTAL CASH & INVESTMENTS ON-HAND (5/10/17) $2,358,869.26 CIP Projects Levied – Budget Remaining ($4,493,368.14) Closed Projects Remaining Balance ($2,134,498.88) 2012-2016 Anticipated Tax Levy Revenue $9,476.76 2017 Anticipated Tax Levy Revenue $1,303,600.00 Anticipated Closed Project Balance ($821,422.12) BCWMC May 18, 2017 Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 8 5. PUBLIC HEARING A. Receive Comments from Member Cities and the Public on Proposed Minor Amendment to 2015 Bassett Creek Watershed Management Plan i. Receive Comments from Review Agencies ii. Consider Extending Comment Period to June 28, 2017 per Hennepin County Request [Derek Asche and Commissioner Prom arrive] The public hearing was opened by Chair de Lambert at 8:37 a.m. Administer Jester reminded the Commission that this hearing is to receive comments on the proposed minor plan amendment to update the CIP with the changes approved in March including revising the Lakeview Park Pond project. This project, once slated as a water quality project in Golden Valley, is proposed to be changed to a flood reduction project. Some additions to the CIP include: two projects in Plymouth, one in Medicine Lake, revising and adding to the large flood reduction mitigation project in the cities of New Hope, Golden Valley, and Crystal to implement the Medicine Lake Road and Winnetka Avenue long-term flood mitigation plan, and to remove the Wirth Park area water quality improvement project from the CIP because the work will be done by the Met Council with the construction of the Blue Line LRT. Administrator Jester reported that a letter was received from the DNR in support of the proposed minor amendment. A letter was also received from the Metropolitan Council stating that the changes were consistent with their policies and the Commission’s plan, however they did recommend that the changes to the Lakeview Park Pond Project be added to the CIP list. The Board of Water and Soil Resources and the Department of Agriculture had no comments. There also weren’t any comments from any of the member cities or the public. Administrator Jester noted there was a request by Hennepin County to extend the comment period to June 28, 2017. The public hearing was closed by Chair de Lambert at 9:42 a.m. MOTION: Commissioner Scanlan moved to extend the comment period to June 28, 2017 as per Hennepin County request. Alt. Commissioner Crough seconded the motion. Upon a vote, the motion carried 8-0. [City of Medicine Lake was absent from the vote.] Commissioner Welch requested that staff review background materials for the proposed changes to the Lakeview Park Pond Project with the goal of better explaining how the project does not result in the Commission providing funding to a project that must be done by Golden Valley to meet water quality treatment requirements. Further, Commissioner Welch requested that at the July meeting, the Lakeview Park Pond Project request for action be separate from the request for action on the rest of the plan amendment. 6. BUSINESS C. Review Recommendations from Technical Advisory Committee i. Consider Approval of Final XP-SWMM Phase II Report ii. Consider Adoption of New Floodplain Elevations iii. Consider Revising Water Quality Requirements for Linear Projects TAC member Erick Francis gave an overview of the TAC meeting items. Commission Engineer Chandler reported that Barr staff held individual meetings with six of the nine BCWMC cities to review the XP-SWMM model results and that minor adjustments were made based on feedback from the cities. Engineer Chandler feels confident in the model results. She reviewed the following recommendations from the TAC memo: 1. The TAC recommends that the Commission approve the XP-SWMM Phase II model and final report. 2. The TAC recommends that the Commission adopt the new floodplain elevations within its floodplain jurisdiction, which lies along the BCWMC Trunk System, and begin reviewing development/redevelopment BCWMC May 18, 2017 Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 8 projects against these new elevations. 3. The TAC recommends that the Commission should not, at this time, begin the process of requesting an official map revision with the Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA). 4. The TAC recommends that the Commission allow only member cities to request the model on behalf of themselves and other entities working in the city. 5. The TAC recommends that the Commission develop a user agreement for entities that wish to use the model. 6. The TAC recommends that in order to maintain the integrity of the model, only the Commission Engineer be authorized to revise and update the model. Alt. Commissioner Byrnes asked whether models can only be used by cities and Ms. Chandler responded that they can be used by others, but they can only be requested by the cities. Attorney Gilchrist clarified that if a data practices act request was made, the data would need to provided regardless of whether or not the request came through a city. Engineer Chandler clarified that the Commission should have restrictions on the model’s use as noted in numbers 4,5,6 (above) to ensure that the Commission maintains the final, most up-to-date model. Engineer Chandler further described that the model is broken up into three pieces so developers (and others) can more easily run the model to figure out what is needed for their development/project or to find out how the work would affect flood levels. Only the Commission would be able to officially revise the model, and that would typically be done on an annual basis. To ensure that extra expenses are not incurred, Derek Asche suggested that the user agreement include language indicating that Barr Engineering does not provide technical support for the model. Engineer Chandler replied that using the model itself should not require guidance. Typically, those requesting to use the model can do so without asking for assistance. Sometimes users don’t have enough XP-SWMM licenses so the model needs to be broken into smaller pieces, but this would be a minimal expense in the Engineer’s time. Engineer Chandler commented that the biggest issue is with accurate inputs and outputs from the model. Administrator Jester noted that the member cities must adopt Commission-adopted elevations within the city where the Commission has jurisdiction. The next discussion revolved around flood insurance requirements. Commissioner Welch wondered if these new elevations will impact property owners; i.e. will property owners need to get flood insurance? Engineer Chandler responded that flood insurance is required only for properties within FEMA floodplains, but cities can and should share the new flood elevations with residents. Commissioner Harwell added that FEMA information is out of date, these model results are more current, and that it is the obligation of BCWMC to let residents and developers know if they are in a floodplain so they can get insurance if desired. There was also discussion that communication of these results needs to be developed by the TAC, cities, and Commission. Another point of discussion was that it will likely be frustrating for homeowners because the flood elevations from the city and FEMA will be different. Mr. Oliver explained that Golden Valley is already working directly with landowners sharing the new data. Commissioner Harwell agreed with Engineer Chandler that since BCWMC has this new information, it should be adopted so the public can be informed in a timely manner. Commissioner Prom asked whether other watersheds are updating elevation levels through FEMA. Engineer Chandler replied that other watersheds have developed new models and are managing to new levels. She is not sure whether other watersheds are working through FEMA, but she considers it unlikely. There was further discussion on the high costs and long timeframe needed to go through an official map revision with FEMA. It was also noted that it is not unusual for the BCWMC to have different floodplain elevations than FEMA. Engineer Chandler stated that the Commission needs to follow up with the DNR on possible funding to go through the FEMA map revision process. The TAC also indicated it would make sense to adopt and use these elevations first before starting the long process of changing the FEMA numbers. Engineer Chandler reported that she would bring back more information about the FEMA process including possible funding. BCWMC May 18, 2017 Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 8 MOTION: Commissioner Welch moved to approve the TAC recommendations for the XP-SWMM model (numbers 1-6 as noted above) including approving the XP-SWMM final report and adopting the new floodplain elevations in BCWMC jurisdictions. Commissioner Prom seconded. Upon a vote, the motion carried 8-0. [City of Medicine Lake was absent from the vote.] Francis gave an overview of item #2 on the TAC memo, reporting that the TAC recommends that the Commission revise its water quality performance standards for linear projects with the following: 1. Trails and sidewalks are exempt from BCWMC water quality performance standards, and that buffers be provided where possible. 2. For projects that create less than 1 acre of net new impervious surface, the project must include the installation/construction of best reasonable technologies to improve water quality conditions and reduce stormwater runoff. 3. Net new impervious surface calculations will be based on the street surface from back of curb to back of curb; trails/sidewalks (as noted above) and driveways are not included in the net new impervious surface calculations. 4. For linear projects that create 1 acre or more of net new impervious surface, the project must capture and retain 0.55 inches of runoff off of the net new impervious area. 5. The project must use the MIDS flexible treatment options for the net new impervious area if it is not possible to capture and retain 0.55 inches of runoff from these areas. Commission Engineer Chandler commented that the TAC was presented with and discussed a very complicated table with various triggers and different standards. She noted that while the TAC-recommended trigger is reasonable, the treatment requirement is far less than required by other watersheds. Engineer Chandler’s recommendation is to have a one-acre net new impervious trigger, but with a requirement to capture and retain 1.1 inches of runoff off the net new impervious (rather than the 0.55 inches recommended by the TAC). Commissioner Mueller asked if there is consistency between what we require from private developers and cities. Mr. Oliver and Mr. Dietrich replied that there are big differences between typical private developments and roads with limited space and multiple challenges. After reviewing Table 1 of the TAC memo, Commissioner Welch pointed out the Commission will be losing many possible water quality treatments that have been realized with current standards. He further added that policy makers and engineers really need to strike the right balance for decision makers. He suggested that this should be brought back with more information showing different scenarios. Mr. Oliver told the Commission that the City of Golden Valley can accept a requirement for capturing 1.1 inches off net new impervious with a one-acre net new impervious trigger, if trails and sidewalks are exempt. Mr. Long agreed that that would also work for the City of New Hope. Ms. Stout also agreed with Mr. Oliver and added that if creating more than one acre of net new imperviousness, it would be a major transportation project with more room to mitigate stormwater runoff. Mr. Oliver discussed the difficulty of getting infiltration/buffers along sidewalks. Commissioner Mueller thought that one acre of net new impervious seemed like a high trigger. Commissioner Prom added that if the numbers are different for developers and public entities, there would be increased animosity and noted that the Met Council is looking for higher residential density. Commissioner Harwell brought up adding water quality to the table especially noting the impacts of chloride and running it through a MIDS calculator. Engineer Chandler pointed out that private development uses more salt than cities (on a per-acre basis_. Commissioner Mueller asked whether “best possible technologies” can be coordinated between city engineers and the Commission Engineer. Engineer Chandler remarked that the 2004 Plan had that standard and the Commission Engineer did discuss with city staff about possibilities. She said the Engineer could develop checklists for cities to use. Engineer Chandler noted she could analyze and add the 1.1- inch retention requirement to the table with lower triggers and bring results to a future meeting. MOTION: Commissioner Harwell moved to approve the TAC recommendations 1-5 above but modifying the treatment requirement from 0.55 inches to 1.1 inches in numbers 4 and 5. Commissioner Scanlan seconded the motion. The vote was taken by roll call: Crystal voted no, Golden Valley voted yes, Medicine Lake was absent, Minneapolis voted no, Minnetonka voted yes, New Hope voted yes, Plymouth voted yes, Robbinsdale voted yes, St. Louis Park voted no. Motion carried 5 to 3. BCWMC May 18, 2017 Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 8 MOTION: Commissioner Mueller moved to direct the Commission Engineer to bring more analyses on the revised requirements to the Commission. Commissioner Welch seconded the motion. Upon a roll call vote, with all members voting yes, Golden Valley abstaining, and Medicine Lake absent, the motion carried 7-0. There was a short discussion about how long it would take the Commission Engineer to put this information together and the Engineer Chandler estimated three hours. [Commissioner Harwell departs and Alt. Commissioner McDonald Black becomes the voting member for Golden Valley.] A. Consider Accepting Final Feasibility Report for Bassett Creek Park Pond/Winnetka Pond Dredging Project (BCP- 2) and Choose Alternative to Implement Commission Engineer Chandler gave an overview of the project and reported that her recommendation is for the Commission to complete the Winnetka Pond dredging and delay the Bassett Creek Park Pond dredging. She reported that she received updated dredging costs that lowered the estimated project costs. She also gave a PowerPoint presentation with site conditions and alternatives, particularly for Winnetka Pond, along with discussion about the native vegetated buffer and goose management options. As Engineer Chandler continued, she reviewed issues with the P8 model in estimating pollutant removals because it does not account for scour during rain events, among other potential sources. She then reviewed results of professional judgment analyses that indicate dredging Winnetka Pond to 6 feet (alternative 3) could reduce total phosphorus by 51.7 lbs/year (compared to 7.1 lbs/year predicted by the P8 model) and total suspended solids by 1,823 lbs/year. Further, Commission Engineer Chandler recommended adding a vegetated buffer and goose management to the project, although there may be possible maintenance issues to consider. MOTION: Commissioner Scanlan moved to approve the Engineer’s Recommendation to complete alternative 3 of the Winnetka Pond dredging project, including a native buffer and goose management and to delay the Bassett Creek Park Pond dredging. Commissioner Mueller seconded the motion. Upon a vote, the motion carried 8-0. [The City of Medicine Lake was absent from the vote.] There was discussion about goose management problems throughout the watershed. The question of whether it makes sense to manage geese on one site without managing them watershed-wide was raised. Commissioner Fruen stated that goose management should be considered as an inexpensive way to address pollution. Ms. Stout reported that the City of Minneapolis is doing intensive genetic bacteria studies. She noted that preliminary findings are showing the majority of bacteria are coming from avian sources. The City of New Hope reported they have been reducing goose populations in the Northwood Lake area by swapping real eggs for fake eggs so the geese don’t lay more. [Commission Prom departs.] Mr. Asche requested that the TAC and Commission review the need for a 30% construction contingency and 30% engineering/design costs within project estimates. Commissioner Welch indicated he is not confident that this is a great project, but it seems like it is necessary and also improves flood control. Administrator Jester stated she feels comfortable with the Engineer’s recommendation because the pond is clearly in need of dredging, the project does reduce pollutants and creates flood storage. She also noted it is also well within the BCWMC policies and CIP program to perform this type of project. B. Set 2018 Maximum Levy and Direct Staff to Submit to Hennepin County Administrator Jester reported that a maximum 2018 levy amount for collection by Hennepin County on behalf of the Commission should be set at this meeting. She recommended a maximum levy of $1,346,815 which includes 2nd year costs for the Plymouth Creek Restoration Project and the Main Stem Erosion Repair Project, along with the estimated cost of the Bassett Creek Park Pond Dredging Project. She noted the Commission can lower the levy BCWMC May 18, 2017 Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 8 request when it submits its final levy amount in September of this year, but that it cannot request more than the maximum levy amount. MOTION: Commissioner Scanlan moved to set the 2018 maximum levy amount at $1,346,815 and to direct staff to submit the amount to Hennepin County. Alt. Commissioner McDonald Black seconded the motion. Upon a vote, the motion carried 8-0. [The City of Medicine Lake was absent from the vote.] D. Discuss Recommendations from Budget Committee on 2018 Operating Budget and Consider Purchasing Monitoring Equipment in 2017 Alt. Commissioner McDonald Black reviewed a PowerPoint presentation with recommendations from the Budget Committee. She noted the committee is reviewing long-term expenses and looking for savings where feasible. She noted that the optimal fund balance is 50% of the annual operating costs but that the fund balance has been decreasing over the last few years because it is being used for the operating budget. She reported that suggestions from the committee to lower expenses in 2018 include: limiting water monitoring to minimal data collection, using partners to help with monitoring efforts, adjusting sampling to spread out monitoring over 6 years, and to purchase equipment with 2017 budget rather than purchasing in 2018. Alt. Commissioner McDonald Black reported that the Budget Committee recommends increasing city assessments by 3% over 2017 levels and to purchase up to $10,900 of water monitoring equipment with the 2017 Surveys and Studies funding. She noted if there are questions or other suggestions from the Commission or member cities, that adjusted budget numbers could be brought before the Commission in June. Commissioner Welch thanked the committee and staff. Chair de Lambert remarked that it is nice to have an accountant’s perspective on the budget. Mr. Asche added that spending $10,900 on equipment now will save money long term. It was noted that Barr Engineering would house and maintain the equipment and thus the equipment would be insured by them. MOTION: Commissioner Scanlan moved to approve the proposed 2018 operating budget as presented and to purchase up to $10,900 of water monitoring equipment this year. Commissioner Fruen seconded the motion. Upon a vote, the motion carried 8-0. [The City of Medicine Lake was absent from the vote.] E. Review Recommendations from Education Committee i. Consider Approval of Additions to 2017 Education Work Plan and Budget ii. Consider Approval of Amended Contract with Dawn Pape Administrator Jester gave an overview of the proposed additions to the 2017 Education Work Plan and Budget as recommended by the Education Committee. Derek Asche commented that he would like to see the outreach spread among more cities as currently two of the projects are focusing on Golden Valley. Chair de Lambert wondered if the salt cup give-away might make people use more salt. Ms. Pape mentioned that the salt cup should say the first step is shoveling and using salt is a last resort. There was some discussion about the effectiveness of stream signs at road crossings and who would maintain the signs. MOTION: Commissioner Mueller moved to approve the Education Committee recommendations. Commissioner Welch seconded the motion. Upon a vote, the motion carried 8-0. [The City of Medicine Lake was absent from the vote.] MOTION: Commissioner Welch moved to amend the contract with Dawn Pape to include education activities as recommended by the Education Committee. Alt. Commissioner Byrnes seconded the motion. Upon a vote, the motion carried 8-0. [The City of Medicine Lake was absent from the vote.] F. Cooperative Purchasing Agreement with Minnesota Department of Administration Administrator Jester explained that the agreement would result in cost-savings to the Commission because it’s a cooperative agreement for purchasing items, including services such as herbicide treatments on Medicine Lake. BCWMC May 18, 2017 Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 8 Commissioner Welch noted that Hennepin County might have a similar cooperative purchasing agreement. MOTION: Commissioner Welch moved to approve the cooperative purchasing agreement. Alt. Commissioner McDonald Black seconded the motion. Upon a vote, the motion carried 8-0. [The City of Medicine Lake was absent from the vote.] 7. COMMUNICATIONS A. Administrator’s Report i. Administrator Jester noted the need for volunteers for New Hope City Day and the Westwood Nature Center event on June 3rd. B. Chair i. No comments. C. Commissioners i. No comments. D. TAC Members i. No comments. E. Committees i. APM/AIS Committee – Upcoming Meeting 5/23/17 F. Legal Counsel i. No comments. G. Engineer i. Engineer Chandler noted that the Commission Engineer reviewed the City of Crystal code, per city request. 8. INFORMATION ONLY (Information online only) A. CIP Project Updates: Now Available Online http://www.bassettcreekwmo.org/projects B. Medicine Lake Curly-leaf Pondweed Treatment Report C. WMWA March and April Meeting Minutes D. WCA Notice of Decision, Plymouth 9. ADJOURNMENT Meeting concluded at 11:14 a.m. ___________________________ _____________________________________ Signature/Title Date Signature/Title Date Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting July 5, 2017 Agenda Item 3. E. Authorize Contract with Corrective Asphalt Materials, Inc. for 2017 Pavement Preservation Project Prepared By Jeff Oliver PE, City Engineer Tim Kieffer, Street Maintenance Supervisor Summary Historically, the City utilized chip sealcoating as its primary method of extending the life of bituminous roadways. In the early 2000’s, this pavement preservation procedure began to display signs of deteriorating the roads prematurely. The degradation of the wear course (top pavement layer) included stripping of the pavement surface and shallow potholes formed. In many cases, this stripping continued until most of the wear course disappeared. The City discontinued chip sealcoating in 2012 until a solution to the pavement degradation problem was determined. To find a cost effective method of preserving new pavements, the City tested two emerging asphalt emulsion treatments during the summer of 2016. One product (Reclamite) penetrates the pavement surface and slows oxidation, keeping the pavement flexible. The second product (CRS) rejuvenates the road and repairs small cracks and voids. Both pavement preservation treatments protect new pavements for approximately ten years, which is consistent with the period that chip sealcoating preserved pavements provided. Based on the results of the tests performed in 2016, staff concluded the application of Reclamite to be a successful and viable alternative to chip sealcoating. Reclamite is an asphalt emulsion that reduces the loss of oils from pavements which holds aggregates together and keeps the pavement flexible longer. Reclamite is a proprietary product produced by Tricor Refining, LLC in Bakersfield, California. Tricor has provided a letter identifying Corrective Asphalt Materials (CAM), South Roxana, Illinois as the sole supplier/applicator for its products in the State of Minnesota (attached). The City Attorney has reviewed this letter and the requirements for competitive quotes is fulfilled. Corrective Asphalt Materials will place 60,650 square yards of Reclamite this year on streets that were part of the Pavement Management Projects from 2013 to 2016 (see attached location map). The cost of the product is approximately one-third to one-half the cost of chip sealcoating, making it cost effective, as well as valuable in preserving pavements. The June 22, 2017, proposal from CAM outlines a cost of $49,050 for placement of the Reclamite and an additional $2,400 to sweep the streets following installation. Therefore, the total not to exceed cost of the treatment is $51,450. Funding for the project will come from the Street Maintenance Operating Budget (1440-6440). Attachments •Pavement Preservation Location Map (1 page) •Corrective Asphalt Materials Proposal (1 page) •Letter from Tricor Refining, LLC dated June 7, 2017 (3 pages) Recommended Action Motion to approve and authorize the contract with Corrective Asphalt Materials, LLC in the amount of $51,450. LL b -,.....- H uZ nnopeaw _.._.._.._.._.._..-_•-__-•--•--- m U O o H ang aiQoN moo=' M! e i »- asr . o EO SOI i H zQ AEjiZ 20 b. W ftl Sol i w b � x i 4 NY auEZ � _- f� $ 4 ° c� O H za sEjbno(I H z�sEjbnoa R a � G a O i ang 6asz0j iL .� i = i w e � d H ang UPEAOM, G U E J b �_ ro j H aA' i i PURLA apo llui Hang Ezj;auui/J H ang EK;auuitA San$EK3 z d I y x H ang R;I o d UTSU03SIM LO �I ( in I aj y I PAIR SITUAi iElauaa H aeg auoog y dl { D 7 H ang zn;Eoaa a ��,� u H ;+ U H ang UgOSStapua C9 ................. e _.._.._..- - .....................----------------------•------ w C o N ~ O O O O O J E :3O = E Z O O Lo In N N fC O O O O N C � Z O M �O LO cO C !n Im d N Q co Cl) a; Q 'D Oo c r— � - �+ N A-- cLM N N .� w N Q ¢ a N 'a. V V 5-1 m v U D m -r w N V Q 1- L c0 NC) j � v CL w Cl F' C C ° ' U E r LL ui d d 0 Z J J CO o Z N N1 > u x U ° Ca •� O -p C `O cc 4) °- 0E ,, c t7 d 0 '+- > U ° a ti N U r m O o N E J � w ' 40 Z Z I- J m O O O H a ~~ U O o- a U g 0 CO m LL U m Lij � F- LLI C� civ a� w m m � N Z m N U w cc w to a a U) m .— N M �* _ s Mailingaddress; ` orrective PO BOX 87129 300 Daniel Boone Trail sphalt South Roxana,IL 62087 Locations: aterials 300 Daniel Boone Trail,South Roxana,IL 62087 43W630 Wheeler Road,Sugar Grove, IL 60554 Tim Kieffer June 22,2017 Maintenance Supervisor City of Golden Valley tkieffer@goldenvalleymn.gov C:763.286.8883 Email: Tkieffer@Roldenvalleymn.Rov Dear Mr. Kieffer Corrective Asphalt Materials, LLC thanks you for the opportunity to bid the City of Golden Valley's asphalt maintenance. Please use this as a reference outlining what is included and excluded with the attached proposalWork to completed in conjuction with Woodbury, MN (end of July into August 2017). 1. Mobilization LS 1 $ 1,050.00 $ 1,050.00 2. Traffic Control LS 1 $ 1,300.00 $ 1,300.00 3. Reclamite SY 60,650 $ .77 $46,700.50 TOTAL.............................................................................................$49,050.50 ALTERNATES: 1. ADD$ 1,800.00 To the Above Price for Residential Notifications to be placed by CAM. 2. ADD$2,400.00 TO THE Aboe Price for Post Sweeping of Limestone Screenings by CAM. CAM Responsibilities • CAM will supply electronic copy of resident notification. • CAM will blow off the streets with hand blowers prior to the application process. • CAM will purchase and install"Dandy Curb Sacks"at all inlets prior to the application process. • CAM will use local water to fill distributor truck as necessary. • CAM will supply and apply Reclamite at the appropriate rate field conditions require • CAM will purchase and apply limestone screenings to the applied roadways. • CAM will provide all necessary road/project signage for roadways. City Responsibilities • City will distribute resident notifications unless alternate is chosen. • City will sweep the roadways if necessary prior to our mobilization • City to sweep up lime screenings after process is completed and dispose of screenings unless alternate is chosen. • City will provide CAM an area to stockpile and have delivered approximately 30 tons of limestone screenings for the project. halt Solutions and Industrial Dust Control Contact Us: (800)374-5560 • (618)2S4-3855 (618)254-2200 FAX aays • Airports • Utilities • Parking Areas www.cammidwest.com Price good for 30 days. Lee Kunselman,Project Manager of Operations will be contacting you to schedule the project. Info:lee@cammidwest.com, Cell:618.772.3519 Billing Information(please fill out upon acceptance) Name: Address: Phone Number: Colleen Holtmeyer Business Development Corrective Asphalt Materials, LLC n � TRICORREFINING, LLC IProducers of GOLDEN BEAR PRESERVATION PRODUCTS 1134 Manor St. •Oildale,CA 93308/P.O. Box 5877•Bakersfield,CA 93388 Phone 661.337.9979-Email:jimb@tricorrefining.com June 7, 2017 Golden Valley, MN City Engineer Jeff Oliver 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55447 Dear Jeff, Sole Source Applicator State of Minnesota for CRF®Restorative Seal and Reclamite®Preservative Seal 2017/2018 Corrective Asphalt Materials P.O. Box 87129 South Roxana, IL 62087 This letter confirms that TRICOR Refining, LLC has appointed Corrective Asphalt Materials, South Roxana, Illinois to market and apply CRF®Restorative Seal and Reclamite®Preservative Seal as the sole source supplier/applicator in the States of Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Wisconsin. Corrective Asphalt Materials has the necessary equipment and product familiarity to provide a successful application. Corrective Asphalt Materials has a very successful track record in the covered states with Restorative Seal/Rejuvenating applications. TRICOR Refining, LLC— Preservative Seal are the only maltene based asphalt rejuvenator marketed nationally with a 50 plus year history of product use. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Yours truly, Jim Brownridge Jim Brownridge Marketing Manager TRICOR Refining, LLC Producers of Golden Bear Preservation Products Cellular: 661.337.9979 Email:jimb@tricorrefining.com Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting July 5, 2017 Agenda Item 3. F. License Agreement with Golden Valley Orchestra Prepared By Tim Cruikshank, City Manager Rick Birno, Parks & Recreation Director Summary The Golden Valley Orchestra has been a regular tenant at the current Brookview Community Center for many years. As operations shift to the new Brookview, staff has worked with representatives of the Golden Valley Orchestra to develop a space for performance license agreement for scheduled use of the new Brookview. The new agreement is attached to this summary and has been reviewed by the City Attorney. Attachments •2017 License Agreement (9 pages) Recommended Action Motion to authorize City Manager to sign license agreement with Golden Valley Orchestra. LICENSE AGREEMENT THIS LICENSE AGREEMENT (this “License”) is made effective as of the ___ day of ______________________, 2017 by and between the City of Golden Valley, a Minnesota municipal corporation (“Licensor”) and the Golden Valley Orchestra, a Minnesota nonprofit corporation (“Licensee”). Section 1.Grant. Licensor, in consideration of the payment of the Fee set forth in Section 5 below and the agreements herein contained, does hereby grant on a non-exclusive basis to Licensee, the right, privilege and permission to use the following described space for music rehearsal and board meeting purposes and for no others purposes whatsoever: The Basset Creek North Room, the Basset Creek South Room and the Rice Lake Conference Room, as shown on the attached Exhibit A,(the “Premises”) located at 316 Brookview Parkway South, Golden Valley, Minnesota (the “Building”). Section 2.Access & Schedule. Licensee shall have access to one of the three areas included in the Premises (either the Basset Creek North Room, the Basset Creek South Room or the Rice Lake Conference Room) during the times set forth on the schedule attached hereto as Exhibit B (the “Schedule”). Room assignments shall be at the sole discretion of Licensor, provided that Licensor shall endeavor to make room assignments that meet Licensee’s particular needs for each scheduled use. Licensor shall also allow Licensee unscheduled access to the Premises during the Building’s regular business hours to access the Storage Space and Stored Equipment, as defined below. Section 3.Term. The term of this License shall be one year and thirty-one days, commencing on November 30, 2017, unless sooner terminated or extended as hereinafter provided. Section 4.Licensee’s Obligations of Maintenance & Use of Premises. Upon commencement of this License, Licensee acknowledges that the Premises are in good order, condition and repair. Licensee shall, at Licensee’s sole cost and expense, keep the Premises in a clean and sanitary condition. Licensee agrees, in conjunction with the use of the Premises, to abide by all terms, rules and regulations (“Rules”) to the extent required of other Licensees and Building occupants. Licensor shall provide such Rules to Licensee upon request. Licensee shall not do or permit anything to be done in or about the Premises which will in any way obstruct or interfere with: (i) the rights of other occupants of the Building, including Licensor, its invitees, agent and employees; (ii) the conduct of Licensor’s operations and affairs in the Building; or (iii) the public’s right of use and access to the Building, as established by Licensor. Licensee shall not injure or annoy other occupants of or visitors to the Building, or use or allow the Premises to be used for any improper, unlawful or objectionable purpose, nor shall Licensee cause, maintain or permit any nuisance in, on or about the Premises. Section 5.Fees. Licensee shall pay Licensor fifty-five dollars ($55.00) per hour of use (the “Fee”), inclusive of taxes. In lieu of paying the Fee, Licensee may provide the services listed in the attached Exhibit C to Licensor (the “Agreed Services”); however, Licensee shall notify Licensor of its intent to provide the Agreed Services in lieu of the Fee on or before November 30, 2017 and shall perform all of the Agreed Services. In the event Licensee does not perform the Agreed Service, Licensee shall be liable to Licensor for the Fee. Licensor shall be solely responsible for any taxes and/or assessments associated with the Premises. 2 Section 6.Licensee’s Use of Storage & Personal Property. Licensor shall provide storage space (the “Storage Space”) for limited equipment belonging to Licensee, including two (2) tympani and two (2) single file cabinets (the “Stored Equipment”). The location of the Storage Space shall be determined at the sole discretion of Licensor and may be moved at any time. In accordance with Sections 10–13 of this License, in no event shall Licensor be responsible for any damage to or theft of the Stored Equipment. Licensee may also use certain personal property belonging to Licensor and stored at the Premises, including chairs and tables (the “Personal Property”), provided that Licensor shall return all Personal Property to its original position after each use. Section 7.Signs. Licensee may not install any sign, lettering, picture, notice or advertisement on or in any part of the Premises or the Building, including the exterior of the Building, without Licensor’s prior written consent, which may be granted or withheld in Licensor’s sole discretion. Any sign on the Premises or Building identifying the Premises as the Licensee’s office or place of business shall state that Licensee is “an independent non-profit organization and not a department of or affiliated with the City Government of Golden Valley,” or words of similar import approved by Licensor. Section 8.Use of Building Address. Licensee may use the following as its mailing address: “316 Brookview Parkway South, Golden Valley, Minnesota 55426.” Licensee shall not use the words “City of Golden Valley” in any printed or electronic materials in reference to Licensee’s place of contact, office or business. All printed and electronic materials produced by Licensee or under Licensee’s direction or control, including without limitation web pages, mailings and letterhead, that contain the address of the Premises as Licensee’s place of contact, office or business shall include a statement that Licensee is “an independent non-profit organization and not a department of or affiliated with the City Government of Golden Valley,” or words of similar import approved by Licensor. Section 9.Use of Parking Areas. Licensee and Licensee’s representatives, agents and guests may use, in common with the public and on a first-come-first-serve basis, the Building’s public parking facilities, as they exist from time to time, and subject to any rights, powers, and privileges reserved by Licensor under the terms of this License or under the terms of any Rules. Licensor reserves and may exercise the following rights without affecting Licensee’s obligations under this License: (i) to make changes to the parking facilities; (ii) to close temporarily any of the parking facilities for maintenance purposes so long as reasonable access to the Premises remains available; and/or (iii) to limit or otherwise restrict Licensee’s use of the parking facilities. Section 10.Licensee’s Insurance. (a)Throughout the Term of this License, Licensee shall keep in full force and effect, at its expense, a policy of commercial general liability insurance with respect to the Premises and the business of Licensee, including bodily injury, personal injury, and property damage, in amounts of no less than $1,000,000 per occurrence, $2,000,000 aggregate using current ISO General Liability forms or equivalent, on an occurrence basis, naming Licensor as additional insured. The preceding insurance limits shall not reduce Licensee’s liability under this License. (b)Licensee shall, at its own costs and expense, maintain replacement cost insurance including (i) “all risk” coverage, with extended coverage endorsement, for the benefit of Licensee on all improvements, if any, within the Premises that Licensee is required to maintain, repair, and/or replace regardless of whether or not Licensee owns such 3 improvements, and (ii) damage or loss to furniture, fixtures, equipment, machinery, goods, supplies or personal property which Licensee may bring upon the Premises or which may be furnished to Licensee by Licensor or any third party. (c)All of Licensee’s insurance policies shall be maintained with a carrier licensed to issue insurance in Minnesota and with an A rating or higher. (d)Licensee’s insurance policies shall provide that thirty (30) days written notice must be given to Licensor prior to cancellation thereof. Licensee shall furnish to Licensor proof of Licensee’s insurance policies, satisfactory to Licensor, prior to taking possession of the Premises and by January 15 of each calendar year during the Term. In addition, upon Licensor’s request from time to time, Licensee shall provide copies of Licensee’s then- current insurance policies, Licensor shall be named as an additional insured for liability insurance policies, and an additional insured and loss payee for property insurance policies, as applicable. As often as such policy or policies shall expire or terminate, renewal or additional policies shall be procured by Licensee in a like manner and to like extent and Licensee shall deliver evidence of such insurance renewal to Licensor prior to any such expiration or termination. Section 11.Hold Harmless. Licensee shall indemnify and hold harmless Licensor (and its officers, employees and agents) against and from any and all claims arising from Licensee’s use of the Premises for the conduct of its business or from any activity, work, or other thing done, permitted or suffered by Licensee in or about the Building, and shall further indemnify and hold harmless Licensor (and its officers, employees and agents) against and from any and all claims arising from any default in the performance of any obligation on Licensee’s part to be performed under the terms of this License, or arising from any act or negligence of Licensee, or any officer, agent, employee, guest, or invitee of Licensee, and from all and against all costs, attorney’s fees, expenses and liabilities incurred in connection with any such claim or any action or proceeding brought in connection therewith, and, in any case, action or proceeding brought against Licensor by reason of any such claim. Licensee assumes all risk of damage to its property in, upon or about the Premises, from any cause other than Licensor’s intentional misconduct, including but not limited to damage to or theft of Licensee’s Stored Equipment, and Licensee waives all claims in respect thereof against Licensor. Licensor (and its officers, employees and agents) shall not be liable for (a) any damage to property entrusted to Licensor’s employees, nor for loss or damage to any property by theft or otherwise, nor for any injury to or damage to persons or property resulting from any cause whatsoever, unless caused by Licensor’s intentional misconduct, (b) loss of business by Licensee, or (c) any latent defect in the Premises or in the Building. Licensee shall give prompt notice to Licensor in case of fire or other casualty, accidents, or items requiring maintenance, repair or replacement. Section 12.Subrogation. As long as their respective insurers so permit, Licensor and Licensee mutually waive their respective rights of recovery against each other for any loss insured by fire, extended coverage and other property insurance policies existing for the benefit of the respective parties. Each party shall obtain any special endorsement, if required by their insurer to evidence compliance with this waiver. Section 13.Limitations on Liability. Licensor shall not be liable under any circumstances for Licensee’s lost opportunities, revenue or income, or for consequential, special, punitive or indirect damages of any kind. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, nothing in this License shall be deemed to constitute a waiver of any of Licensor’s governmental immunity 4 defenses and/or the maximum liability limits provided in Minnesota Statutes Chapter 466 or any other applicable law limiting the liability of Licensor. Section 14.Compliance with Law. Licensee shall not use the Premises or permit anything to be done in or about the Premises which will in any way conflict with any law, statute ordinance or governmental rule or regulation now in effect or which may be enacted in the future (collectively, “Laws”). Licensee shall, at its sole cost and expense, promptly comply with all Laws and with the requirements of any board of fire insurance underwriters or other similar bodies relating to or affecting the condition, use or occupancy of the Premises, excluding any requirement to make structural changes. Licensee shall not store, handle, use or dispose of hazardous materials at the Premises. Licensee shall not do or permit anything to be done in or about the Premises or bring or keep anything in or on the Premises which will in any way increase the existing rate of or in any way affect fire or other insurance upon the Building or any of its contents, or cause cancellation of any insurance policy covering the Building, any part thereof, or any of its contents. Section 15.Transfer. Licensee shall not sell, assign, lease or in any way transfer any of its rights in this License. Section 16.Termination. Either party may terminate this License at any time and for any reason upon thirty (30) days’ written notice to the other party. Section 17.Default and Remedies. (a)Default. It shall be considered an event of default under this License if Licensee defaults in any of the covenants, agreements, stipulations or conditions herein contained, and such default is not cured within fourteen (14) days after written notice from Licensor to Licensee describing said default. (b)Remedies in Default. Upon the occurrence of any event of default as set forth in this Section Licensor may, at its option, at any time thereafter, give written notice to Licensee specifying such event of default and stating that this License shall expire and terminate on the date specified in such notice, which shall be at least fourteen (14) days after the giving of such notice; and Licensee shall thereupon cease its use of the Premises and remove all of Licensee’s property from the Premises; provided that if the default cannot be cured within said fourteen (14) days and Licensee is using its best efforts to cure the default then this License shall not terminate but the rights of Licensee under this License shall be suspended until the default is cured, and such suspension shall not extend the Term. (c)Right to Cure. Licensor, after notice to Licensee, may perform for the account of Licensee any covenant in the performance of which Licensee is in default. Licensee shall pay to Licensor upon demand any amount paid by Licensor in the performance of such covenant and any amounts that Licensor shall have paid by reason of the failure of Licensees to comply with any covenant or provision of this License. (d)Effect of Waiver or Forbearance. No waiver by Licensor of any breach by Licensee of any of its obligations, agreements or covenants hereunder shall be a waiver of any subsequent breach or of any obligation, agreement or covenant, nor shall any forbearance by Licensor of its rights and remedies with respect to such or any subsequent breach constitute such a waiver. No waiver, change, modification or 5 discharge by either party hereto of any provision in this License shall be deemed to have been made or shall be effective unless expressed in writing. Section 18.Miscellaneous Provisions. (a)Entire Agreement. This License embodies the entire understanding between the parties and supersedes all prior understandings and agreements related to the subject matter. This License cannot be amended, altered or modified, and no provisions can be waived, except by a written instrument executed by both parties. (b)Benefit. This License shall bind and inure to the benefit of the parties and their respective successors and permitted assigns. (c)Notices. Except as otherwise provided in this License, all notices to be given under this License shall be in writing and shall be deemed to have been duly given, if mailed, certified mail, postage prepaid, United States mail, to the party to be notified at its address as follows: To Licensee:City of Golden Valley 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 Attn: City Manager To Licensor:Golden Valley Orchestra 316 Brookview Parkway South Golden Valley, MN 55426 Attn: Jennifer Becker Either party may change its address by giving notice in the aforesaid manner to the other party, and ten (10) days after giving such notice, such party’s address shall be deemed to have been changed. (d)Heading and Captions. The headings and captions of the paragraphs and subparagraphs of this License are inserted for convenience and reference only and shall not constitute a part of this License or a limitation on the scope of any paragraph or subparagraph. (e)Severability. Whenever possible, each provision of this License shall be interpreted in such manner as to be effective and valid under applicable law, but if any provision of this License is held to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable under any applicable law or rule in any jurisdiction, such provision will be ineffective only to the extent of such invalidity, illegality or unenforceability in such jurisdiction without invalidating the remainder of this License in such jurisdiction or any provision hereof in any other jurisdiction. (f)Counterparts. This License may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same document. (g)Exhibits. All exhibits referred to herein and attached hereto shall be deemed part of this License. 6 (h)Governing Law. This License shall be construed in accordance with and governed by the laws of the State of Minnesota. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hands on the day and year first above written. Signed: Golden Valley Orchestra, a Minnesota nonprofit corporation By: _____________________________ Print Name: _______________________ Its: _____________________________ Signed: City of Golden Valley, a Minnesota municipal corporation By ______________________________ Timothy J. Cruikshank, City Manager 7 EXHIBIT A FLOOR PLAN Bassett Creek South Bassett Creek North Rice Lake Conference Room 8 EXHIBIT B List of Rehearsal Dates and Board Meetings 2017 December 4 7:00-9:30 PM Rehearsal December 4 6:15-7:00 PM Board Meeting December 11 7:00-9:30 PM Rehearsal 2018 January 8 7:00-9:30 PM Rehearsal January 8 6:15-7:00 PM Board Meeting January 15 7:00-9:30 PM Rehearsal January 22 7:00-9:30 PM Rehearsal February 5 7:00-9:30 PM Rehearsal February 5 6:15-7:00 PM Board Meeting February 12 7:00-9:30 PM Rehearsal February 19 7:00-9:30 PM Rehearsal February 26 7:00-9:30 PM Rehearsal March 5 7:00-9:30 PM Rehearsal March 5 6:15-7:00 PM Board Meeting March 12 7:00-9:30 PM Rehearsal March 19 7:00-9:30 PM Rehearsal March 26 7:00-9:30 PM Rehearsal April 2 7:00-9:30 PM Rehearsal April 2 6:15-7:00 PM Board Meeting April 9 7:00-9:30 PM Rehearsal April 16 7:00-9:30 PM Rehearsal April 23 7:00-9:30 PM Rehearsal May 7 7:00-9:30 PM Rehearsal May 14 7:00-9:30 PM Rehearsal June 11 7:00-8:00 PM Board Meeting July 9 7:00-8:00 PM Board Meeting August 20 7:00-8:00 PM Board Meeting September 10 7:00-9:30 PM Rehearsal September 10 6:15-7:00 PM Board Meeting September 17 7:00-9:30 PM Rehearsal September 24 7:00-9:30 PM Rehearsal October 1 7:00-9:30 PM Rehearsal October 1 6:15-7:00 PM Board Meeting October 8 7:00-9:30 PM Rehearsal October 15 7:00-9:30 PM Rehearsal November 5 7:00-9:30 PM Rehearsal November 5 6:15-7:00 PM Board Meeting November 12 7:00-9:30 PM Rehearsal November 19 7:00-9:30 PM Rehearsal November 25 7:00-9:30 PM Rehearsal December 3 7:00-9:30 PM Rehearsal December 3 6:15-7:00 PM Board Meeting 9 EXHIBIT C Agreed Services Thursday, November 30, 2017; TBD Brookview-VIP Open House Wednesday, April 25, 2018; 9:45-11:15 AM Brookview – Coffee Talk Sunday, May 13, 2018; 6:00-7:00 PM Brookview - Music on the Deck Tuesday, May 29, 2018; 6:00-7:00 PM Brookview – Commission Dinner Monday, June 4, 2018; 7:00-8:00 PM Brookview Park - Concert in the Park Sunday, June 10, 2018; 6:00-7:00 PM Brookview - Music on the Deck Sunday, July 8, 2018; 6:00-7:00 PM Brookview - Music on the Deck Sunday, August 12, 2018; 6:00-7:00 PM Brookview - Music on the Deck Sunday, November 18, 2018; 4:00-5:00 PM Brookview – Teddy Bear Concert Monday, December 10, 2018; 1:00-2:00 PM Brookview – Holiday Tea Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting July 5, 2017 Agenda Item 3. G. Authorize Cooperative Agreement with the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services for Water Main Replacement Prepared By Jeff Oliver, PE, City Engineer R.J. Kakach, EIT, Engineer Summary The Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) will be rehabilitating portions of their gravity interceptor pipes in 2018. One individual pipe along Greenview Lane will be replaced as part of this project. The MCES pipe is adjacent to the City watermain and located at a lower elevation than the watermain. Due to the condition of the City’s watermain and the proximity of the MCES project, staff determined that replacement of the City’s watermain is necessary. Although this project was not outlined in the 2017-2021 Capital Improvement Program, it will be completed most cost effectively as part of the MCES project. This arrangement will facilitate the replacement of the watermain and minimize construction delays. City and MCES staff have developed a cooperative agreement that includes design of the watermain replacement with the MCES contractor performing the construction and MCES staff performing project observation and administration as outlined in the attached cooperative agreement. The City will be responsible for the water main replacement and costs for administration and observation. The estimated cost for the water main replacement is $55,000 and will be funded from the Water and Sewer Utility Fund. Attachments •MCES Cooperative Agreement No. 17I016 (17 pages) Recommended Action Motion to authorize entering into a Cooperative Agreement with the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services for the MCES Golden Valley Interceptor Project No. 805740. Metropolitan Council No. 17I016 CONSTRUCTION COOPERATION AGREEMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF WATER MAIN IN GOLDEN VALLEY, MN THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into by and between the Metropolitan Council,a public corporation and political subdivision of the State of Minnesota("Council"),and the City of Golden Valley, a municipal corporation under the laws of the State of Minnesota ("Cin'") BACKGROUND RECITALS 1. The Council plans to construct interceptor rehabilitation along Greenview Lane in the City of Golden Valley during the 2018 construction season("the Council Project"). 2. To avoid additional disruption to the community, the City desires to upgrade its watermain along Greenview Lane("the City Project")in conjunction with the Council Project. 3. The City is not staffed or equipped to construct the City Project during the 2018 construction seasons. 4. Therefore, the City desires to have the Council construct the City Project contemporaneously with the Council Project. NOW, THEREFORE, for mutual consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged by the parties,the parties agree as follows: AGREEMENT I. Purpose of Agreement 1. This Agreement describes the responsibilities of each of the Parties for design and construction of the City Project. 2. The City appoints the Council as its agent to obtain bids, enter into a contract for the construction of the work,and supervise the work performed on the City Project for compliance with the City Project construction documents and this Agreement. 3. The scope of the City Project is: Installation of 6"watermain 4. The locations of the City Project and the Council Project are shown on Exhibit A to this Agreement. 1 Metropolitan Council No. 1X016 II. Construction Documents 1. The Council will prepare the necessary detailed construction documents for the City Project("City Project Construction Documents"). The City Project Construction Documents will contain plans and specifications and a schedule for construction of the City Project suitable for use by proposed contractors in the preparation of their bids. The Council will develop the City Project Construction Documents using the most current industry standards and practices. The Council or its agents have prepared a construction cost estimate for the City Project, attached as Exhibit B. 2. The Council will have a Registered Professional Engineer licensed in the State of Minnesota certify the City Project Construction Documents that will be incorporated into the bidding documents for the Council Project. When requested by the City, the Council will make all City Project Construction Documents available to the City in a timely manner for periodic review. The City Engineer or their representative must approve all City Project Construction Documents before the City Project Construction Documents are incorporated into the plans for the Council Project. When the City Project Construction Documents are complete, the Council will provide one copy of the documents to the City paper or PDF format. 3. The Council's Engineer will incorporate the City Project Construction Documents into the Council Project Construction Documents("Combined Project Construction Documents") for the Council and City Projects ("Combined Project"). III. Easements and Permits 1. The City gives the Council the right to enter onto City property, and any easements and rights-of-way the City obtained for construction of the City Project for the purpose of the Council fulfilling this Agreement. 2. The Council will acquire all permanent and temporary permits, easements and property interests necessary in the Council's name for the Combined Project, except that the City will acquire temporary easements or rights of entry to reestablish water service connections at the following addresses: 2015 Unity Ave 2016 Unity Ave 5305 Greenview Lane 5315 Greenview Lane 2001 Toledo Ave The Council is not acquiring any property on the City's behalf. The City will permit the Council to enter onto the rights of entry or temporary easements (as applicable) acquired by the City for 2 Metropolitan Council No. 17I016 the Combined Project and the City will reimburse the Council for the permits,easements,and other property interests(as applicable) as described in Section VII below. 3. As of the date of this Agreement,no additional property acquisition is required for construction and installation of the City Project. The City is responsible for any land acquisitions outside of the Council Project boundaries. 4. Before the scheduled date for the start of construction,the City will get and pay all fees for the following for the City Project: None. 5. The Council is responsible for getting all other permits associated with construction of the Combined Project. IV. Procedure for Acceptance of Bids 1. Bidding Procedure. The Council will advertise for bids for the work and construction of the Combined Project, receive and open bids and may, subject to City's acceptance of the bid submitted, enter into a construction contract with the successful bidder in accordance with applicable law. The bidding documents will require separate line items, percentages, or agreed quantities within a line item for the City Project bid items. After opening the bids, the Council will give the City a written tabulation of the bids with the Council's recommendation for selection of the lowest responsible bidder. 2. City May Accept or Reject of City Project Bid Amount. a. City Project Bid Amount is less than 120% of estimate. If the line items for the City Project in the bid total less than 120%of the construction cost estimate in the final City Project Construction Documents in Exhibit B (excluding contract administration costs), the Council will award the City Project portion of the bid,unless the City gives the Council written notice stating that the City does not agree to be bound by the bid prices for the City Project. The Council must receive the City's written notification within 3 days of the date the Council provided the City with the bid tabulation. If the City does not notify the Council within 3 days,the bids for the City Project will be deemed accepted by the City. b. City Project Bid Amount is 120% or More of Estimate. If the line items for the City Project in the bid are 120 percent or more of the construction cost estimate in the final City Project Construction Documents in Exhibit B (excluding contract administration costs),the Council will award the City Project portion of the bid,unless the City gives the Council written notice stating that the City does not agree to be bound by the bid prices for the City Project. The Council must receive the City's written notification within 14 3 Metropolitan Council No. 17I016 days of the date the Council provided the City with the bid tabulation. If the City does not notify the Council within 14 days,the bids for the City Project will be deemed accepted by the City. 3. Council decision not to award Council Project. If the Council decides not to award the Council Project,this contract terminates without further liability between the Parties. V. Construction and Contract Administration 1. The Council will include in the construction contract for the Combined Project,the City Project Construction Documents, and require that the contractor construct the City Project according to these Documents. At least 14 days before the contractor begins work on the City Project,the Council will give written notice to the City that the contractor will begin construction by sending notice to: Jeff Oliver, or his successor or designee City Engineer City of Golden Valley 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 joliver@goldenvalleymn.org 2. The Council will perform and direct all construction supervision, contract administration and inspections required to complete the Combined Project. The Council will not interrupt the City's sewer or water service during the construction of the City Project without the written consent of the City. 3. The City's authorized representative (R.J. Kakach, or their designee identified to the Council in writing) may observe the work during the construction of the City Project,but the City's authorized representative is not responsible for supervising the City Project. When observing the work, the City's authorized representative will cooperate with the Council's Engineer or designated representative. The City's authorized representative will be available to the Council at all times during construction of the City Project. The City will designate an authorized representative with the authority and experience to make decisions concerning the construction of the City Project so as not to delay construction of the Council Project or the Combined Project. 3. If after installation,the City determines that any portion of the City Project was not constructed substantially in accordance with the City Project Construction Documents,the City's authorized representative must inform the Council of the deficiency within seven days. The City's notice to the Council must also explain why the portion of the City Project does not conform to the City Project Construction Documents and the actions the City believes the 4 Metropolitan Council No. 17I016 contractor must take to correct the deficiency. The Council will require the contractor to make the corrections to meet the requirements of the City Project Construction Documents. 4. The City's authorized representative will participate in the inspection of the City Project for substantial completion. Within seven days of any substantial completion inspection, the City will provide the Council the punch list items that need to be addressed before final completion of the City Project. If the City does not provide punch list items within seven days, the contractor's work will be deemed accepted. 5. The Council will inform the City in writing of final completion of construction (including the punch list items) of the City Project. Within seven days of receiving the Council's written notice, the City will inform the Council in writing whether the City Project conforms to the City Project Construction Documents. The City makes the final decision on whether the contractor's City Project work conforms to the City Construction Documents. In order to accept the work on the City Project, the City must provide the Council a letter from the City Engineer. 6. The City will participate in the claims process on the Combined Project for the following types of contractor claims: (a)Project delays relating in any way to site conditions; and (b)City requests for changes or modifications to any construction documents(City Project, Council Project,or Combined Project). (c) Project delays caused by untimely response to the inspection requirements in Section III-VI above. The City will pay the portion of any claim that relates to the acts of the City. VI. Modifications to Construction Documents 1. The Council may make minor changes in the City Project Construction Documents and the Combined Project Construction Documents if the changes are necessary to complete construction. The Council may also enter into any change orders or supplemental agreements with the contractor on the Combined Project to incorporate these changes in the City Project or Combined Project Construction documents. These changes may result in a change to the City's cost participation described in Section VIII. 2. The Council will give the City's Authorized Representative all proposed amendments and material changes to the City Project Construction Documents. The City will review the documents and communicate in writing its acceptance or rejection to the Council within 5 Metropolitan Council No. 17I016 seven days.The Council will not amend or change the City Project Construction Documents until it receives the City's written acceptance. 3. The City may make changes to the City Project if all of the following occur: a. The City gives the Council seven days written notice; b. The City bears the costs of all changes; and c. The change does not increase the cost or delay completion of the Council Project. • VII. Cost Participation and Payment 1. The City will reimburse the Council for the costs shown in Exhibit B as specified in this Section VII. The City will reimburse the Council for the actual cost of construction for the City Project, actual costs of construction for portions of the Combined Project as identified in Exhibit B, actual land acquisition costs as shown below,plus seven percent. The additional seven percent is for the following: (a) surveying, inspection, and testing for the City Project; (b) other costs associated with the City or Combined Project including land acquisition and contract administration, and other administrative expenses associated with the City or Combined Project. 2. The Council, at its sole expense will acquire in its name all permanent and temporary permits, easements, and property interests necessary for the Combined Project. 3. The parties further agree that the City Project costs are an estimate. The final City Project construction costs will be based on the unit prices in the Council's construction contract, the final quantities, and any amendments or change orders. 4. After the Council awards the Combined Project Construction Contract,the Council will prepare a revised Exhibit B and give it to the City. The revised Exhibit B will update the City Project costs for construction,land acquisition,and administration based on the actual design costs and contract unit prices. The parties will substitute the revised Exhibit B for the Exhibit B attached to this Agreement without any amendment to this Agreement. 5. The Council will pay its contractor for the contractor's work on the City Project. The City will then pay the Council under this section. During construction,the Council will submit monthly invoices to the City. The Council's monthly invoices will include a progress report. The City must pay the Council within 30 days after it receives the invoice. If the City disputes any portion of an invoice, it must give the Council notice of the dispute within 14 days after the City receives the invoice. If the City disputes any portion of an invoice, the City must pay the 6 Metropolitan Council No. 171016 undisputed portion of the invoice within 30 days after it receives the invoice, and it must pay the remainder of any amount due within 30 days after the dispute is resolved. 6. When the work on the Combined Project is substantially complete,the Council will give the City an updated cost participation breakdown. This cost participation breakdown will show actual construction costs based on the contract unit prices and the units of work the contractor performed. The updated cost participation breakdown will also contain the updated administrative and other costs to be paid to the Council by City. 7. If after subtracting the City's payments from the updated cost participation breakdown the City owes the Council money, the Council will invoice the City for that amount. The City will then pay the Council the amount owed within 30 days of receiving the invoice. If the City has already paid more than the updated cost participation breakdown, the Council will refund the City's excess amount without interest. VIII. Warranties/Maintenance 1. The City Project bonds and warranties will be issued in the name of the Council. Once construction of the City Project is complete and the City accepts the City Project, the City Project will be under the full control of the City and all bonds,warranties and guarantees provided by the sureties, construction contractors and subcontractors for the City Project are the property of City. If a surety prohibits assignment then the Council will require the contractor to ensure that the affected bond or warranty applies both to the Council and the City. 2. After acceptance of the City Project by the City the City is responsible for operation and maintenance of the City Project. IV. Liability 1. To the extent authorized by law each party is responsible only for its own acts and the results of its acts. The City's and Council's liability is governed by the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 466. 2. The City and Council each warrant that they have an insurance or self-insurance program with minimum coverage consistent with the liability limits in Minnesota Statutes,Chapter 466. Nothing in this Agreement is a waiver or limitation of any immunity or limitation of liability by the City or Council. 3. The Council will ensure that the Combined Project construction contract includes clauses that: A) require the Combined Project contractor to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City,its officers,agents and employees from claims,suits,demands,damages, 7 Metropolitan Council No. 17I016 judgments,costs, interest, expenses(including reasonable attorney's fees,witness fees and disbursements) arising out of or by reason of the acts or omissions of the Contractor, its officers, employees, agents or subcontractors; B)require the Combined Project contractor to provide and maintain insurance and name the City as additional insured; and C)require the Combined Project contractor to be an independent contractor for the purposes of completing the work on the City Project. X. General Provisions 1. All records kept by the City and Council with respect to the Council Project are subject to examination by representatives of each party. All data collected, created, received, maintained or disseminated for any purpose by the City and Council under this Agreement are governed by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13("Act"), and the Minnesota Rules implementing the Act. 2. Both parties agree to comply with all applicable laws relating to nondiscrimination, affirmative action,public purchases,contracting,employment,workers' compensation,and surety deposits required for construction contracts. Minnesota Statutes, Section 181.59 is considered a part of this Agreement. 3. The employees of the parties, and all other persons engaged by each party will not. be considered employees of the other party. Each party is solely responsible for all claims arising from its employees including claims under the Worker's Compensation Act, the Minnesota Economic Security Law and all third party claim resulting from an act or omission of an employee. 4. If hazardous wastes, pollutants or contaminants as those terms are defined in law exist on the Combined Project site, the City is responsible for any response or remedial action, monitoring or reporting under the law. The City will apply for and have the Council named as a beneficiary in any no-association letters, no action/no further action letters and other environmental regulatory assurances for the site. The City will give the Council copies of any Phase I and Phase II environmental investigations, approved Response Action Plans, and environmental assurance letters naming the Council as a beneficiary. Nothing in this paragraph requires that the City accept responsibility for any environmental conditions that are not the City's legal responsibility. This paragraph survives the termination of this Agreement. 5. The City's authorized representative will manage this Agreement for the City and act as a liaison between the City and Council. 6. The Council's Assistant General Manager of Technical Services in Environmental Services will manage this Agreement for the Council and act as a liaison between the Council and the City. 8 Metropolitan Council No. 17I016 7. This Agreement is the entire agreement between the parties and supersedes all oral agreements and negotiations between the parties relating to this Agreement. All exhibits and attachments to this Agreement are incorporated into the Agreement. If there is a conflict between the terms of this Agreement and any of the exhibits the Agreement governs. 8. The provisions of this Agreement are severable. If a court finds any part of this Agreement void, invalid, or unenforceable, it will not affect the validity and enforceability of the remainder of this Agreement. A waiver by a party of any part of this Agreement is not a waiver of any other part of the Agreement or of a future breach of the Agreement. 9. Any modifications to this Agreement must be in writing as a formal amendment. 10. This Agreement is binding upon and for the benefit of the parties and their successors and assigns. This Agreement is not intended to benefit any third-party. 11. Except as otherwise provided for in this Agreement, the Agreement may be terminated by the mutual agreement of the parties. 12. If a force majeure event occurs,neither party is responsible for a failure to perform or a delay in performance due to the force majeure event. A force majeure event is an event beyond a party's reasonable control,such as unusually severe weather,fire,floods,other acts of God,labor disputes, acts of war or terrorism, or public health emergencies. 13. Under Minnesota Statutes, Section 16C.05,subdivision 5,the Parties agree that the books, records, documents, and accounting procedures and practices relevant to this Agreement are subject to examination by either Party and the state auditor or legislative auditor,as appropriate, for at least six years from the end of this Agreement. 14. A party must send all notices or demands under this Agreement either by: (A)certified mail; (B)e-mail, as long as the recipient acknowledges receipt by e-mail or otherwise in writing; or C) delivered in person to the other party addressed to the following authorized representatives: Assistant General Manager,Technical Services City Engineer Metropolitan Council Environmental Services City of Golden Valley 390 Robert Street North 7800 Golden Valley Road St. Paul, MN 55101-1805 Golden Valley,MN 55427 15.The parties will use a dispute resolution process for any unresolved dispute between the parties before exercising any legal remedies.The dispute resolution process is a three level dispute resolution ladder that escalates a dispute from the project management level through the executive management level. At each level of the dispute resolution process,the Parties' representatives will meet and explore resolution until either party determines that effective resolution is not possible at the current 9 Metropolitan Council No. 17I016 level,and notifies the other party that the process is elevated to the next level. The parties designate the following dispute resolution representatives: City Representative Council Representative Level I City Engineer Manager,Interceptor Project Delivery Level 2 City Physical Development Assistant General Manager Director Level 3 City Manager General Manager, Environmental Services The parties must complete the dispute resolution process in good faith before resorting to any other legal process or remedy. 16. Council and the City are each authorized to enter into this Agreement;the City is authorized pursuant to City Resolution No. ,approved on METROPOLITAN COUNCIL, CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY A public corporation and political subdivision A municipal corporation of the of the State of Minnesota State of Minnesota By: By: Leisa Thompson,General Manager, Shepard M. Harris, Mayor Environmental Services Date: Date: By: Timothy J. Cruikshank,City Manager Date: RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL: By: Jeff Oliver, City Engineer Date: 10 Metropolitan Council No. 17I016 LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit A- City Project and Council Project Locations Exhibit B - Council Project Construction Costs Estimates 11 Metropolitan Council No. 17I016 Exhibit A City Project and Council Project Locations 12 � 3 >3 p L kyr =� >CZVI40 C o� z�z ia� arcn a A • QOY�~O '� W --- fi o HIM. i aN'aao rr c�i � n� ♦ F � ___ - Y�T�-OJ f N TU qq dqq LL��Q a�N � ZS PJ 3 ii e1� g 6 Znz o. !t (ME } H EH j Pp 7 � .�� k � I►t g� SOtlY0NY16 NDLLVpD56Y—VA sssCCC B® lVaOa V1063HNIM1 tl3d 3tlW.tl39Ytl!HLIN OLL6r'1d 0069 tl0 N 3dU a3dtl09-manic-Bm y4 g 3100VS 3ZNOaB a0 11315 5531NN16 mAOaddY T gedS6L� 9' NV 3tlnma SdYl a39tlV1 N',S't 3dN OINI AlLma10 30YW 38 TVA BdYA,l-52BI T 7YEl (1-W010 MYNOmW Ar a0(f-00BB1 UNOJ)3aW%YMWV,l-36LS�AQ,@BfdWS arYF J F A3N a w NOlSN n ON-Lz)SSL RBS mywwn AV-XM-99M _ - (•• C €$ a $7E (t-1018)mINOmM1 AV BD(W1ff-zZ8 OBDJ)3tlV1i X 3tlV1f,l-3fI5-9BfP5 S NOOIB 313lgNW,zv.V.By# r Hi N D Z Ae• t- & X ! 3dM 13315,z/L� 3dld 11315.L/t! U i 1 � � f� ee e gg 5ds � .e3 qa@� � 3artl9 mN81N1d laN�s x31rN � � �ya�3@-�4 i _--'1•. & .� 'a39rma mNw aNrX!mddrl � � ` � ia� 13M 3AlVA 31Y0,f 53aX10311,L NYN!aY1Wl 3JNtl36 ANY � � :, E� �4�£ z 3ONa35 1650 m5m dO A d0 WMINIW Y Nwiwn till [ '1N3W m wA wO O1&I W&,B mNasow M1wj g O $ u 3.oN g a 95 id 39 I !� HiN, i �ff jigs kga� 3� e99a ti S; 511 I OWN p�€�9 843 bge'd n a 5 N,W'&ilINl1N U3li0pL WiWQ1tiW1K :03L10 9A10606619LS133HNtlO1d39tl31N1 tl3tltl A3lltln N30100 S39W90[SONtlO1d39tl31N1 tl3tltl A3lltln N301096301YYSNW N639NB3S 1V1N3WN W NN3lpN009 Htl11lOdOtll3W3N403�'% CD o ----------------- ami gel Qo FS ri ��m wx Sk t,13 50 RAY g Ix o Hill') o CD 1 Tt fill EF LZ ffi -6 92 N YS a N $ fA w m C a� WLU o« w w a h t w S 20 qZzo � ? i t Q No i a h Z I 0 ll.l lZo te a"' W ¢ a rc ll w 0rca rc z a� ¢ ¢� J I I rc U` ry w ry n m n au a Y \ o \ W 0 r ' U fi N3Atl 003101 V i SIVAOrM a3M3S ON3 S :, / t s s ✓ ; 11h�� a 1 Ak z Al13 as ' b £0 J s l b X SIVAOM3M M3M3S N1038 m¢iunouva aauo o � �o y N ui 09 zo W < X30: ow W .0 �o �o.e -� 4 r ' i z NOI1tl1P0SVH38aN3 " j oozz•sens 3AIVA 31tlo.9 p r, O 1 I r �_ t 1 r I _. Hill uj ARiM Pi LU "� 11 j � a 0 AAAAAA o i a H �jb .•-✓� _- 1p �x 00'BM00 visttt _p U 3AltlA 31tlU.9� 66,t68 O NUI1tlLN1038lI8tlH3tl U39 Y Wit r eenranm�u ca+wu inKzcauawcc zeuov omo amownas.sausnoieaonazui renr.n�rn uaowo snowa.�maao.esonazui vanr.��rn nsawo ssorrrs�w��sswnnas�viu�vuoninu3�iounoo ur.noeonasmsniuoe,:z Metropolitan Council Environmental Services Met.Council Contract No.171016 Ex.B EXHIBIT B:CITY CONSTRUCTION COST Golden Valley Interceptor Rehabilitation,Project Number 805740,for items with Estimated Quantities,each item price Unit Price shown;for items with Lump Sum(LS)units,each item at the SITE 2:Toledo Ave Estimated Extended No. Item Unit Quantity Unit Price Amount Schedule B 2-66 Remove Water Main Pipe LF 316 $15.00 $4,740 2-67 Remove Water Service Pipe LF 180 $15.00 $2,700 2-68 Remove Gate Valve&Box EA 1 $300.00 $300 2-69 Salvage Hydrant EA 1 $400.00 $400 2-70 Pipe Bedding Material TN 20 $20.00 $400 2-71 Temporary Water System LS 1 $10,000.00 $10,000 2-72 Connect to Existing Water Main EA 2 $1,800.00 $3,600 2-73 Install Hydrant EA 1 $700.00 $700 2-74 Fire Hydrant Marker EA 1 $100.00 $100 2-75 1"Corporation Stop EA 5 $500.00 $2,500 2-76 6"Gate Valve&Box EA 3 $1,800.00 $5,400 2-77 1"Curb Stop&Box EA 5 $500.00 $2,500 2-78 1"HDPE Pipe LF 140 $20.00 $2,800 2-79 MJ Adapter EA 10 $225.00 $2,250 2-80 6"Water Main HDPE LF 316 $36.00 $11,376 2-81 4"Polystrene Insulation SY 11 $40.00 $440 2-82 Ductile Iron Fittings(Epoxy Coated) LB 105 $8.00 $840 TOTAL BASE BID FOR SITE 2 SCHEDULE B $51,046 Administrative Fee(7%) $3,573 TOTAL BID FOR SITE 2 SCHEDULE B $54,619 Bid Form 805740 00410-1 Executive Summary For Action Golden Valley City Council Meeting July 5, 2017 Agenda Item 3. H. Authorize Joint Cooperation Agreement with Hennepin County for participation in the Community Development Block Grant program in Fiscal Years 2018-2020 Prepared By Marc Nevinski, Physical Development Director Summary The current joint cooperation agreement (JCA) for participation in the county CDBG program is set to auto-renew. However, the County has recently determined that amendments to the JCA are needed in order to ensure compliance with various HUD regulations, improve administration, and prepare for the possibility of federal funding cuts to the CDBG program. Therefore Council is requested to consider the new JCA and adoption of the attached resolution. Changes include: •Addition of definitions to the JCA •Updates to County policies regarding the administration of CDBG funds •Inclusion of provisions for public service activities •Minor changes to funding formulas and policies Attachments •Joint Cooperation Agreement (10 pages) •Resolution Authorizing Execution of Joint Cooperation Agreement (1 page) Recommended Action Motion to adopt Resolution authorizing execution of Joint Cooperation Agreement between the City of Golden Valley and Hennepin County for participation in the Community Development Block Grant program in Fiscal Years 2018-2020. 1 Contract No. 17XXXXX JOINT COOPERATION AGREEMENT URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into by and between the COUNTY OF HENNEPIN, State of Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as "COUNTY," A-2400 Government Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 55487, and the cities executing this Master Agreement, each hereinafter respectively referred to as "COOPERATING UNIT," said parties to this Agreement each being governmental units of the State of Minnesota, and made pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.59. WITNESSETH: COOPERATING UNIT and COUNTY agree that it is desirable and in the interests of their citizens that COOPERATING UNIT shares its authority to carry out essential community development and housing activities with COUNTY in order to permit COUNTY to secure and administer Community Development Block Grant and HOME Investment Partnership funds as an Urban County within the provisions of the Act as herein defined and, therefore, in consideration of the mutual covenants and promises contained in this Agreement, the parties mutually agree to the following terms and conditions. COOPERATING UNIT acknowledges that by the execution of this Agreement that it understands that it: 1. May not also apply for grants under the State CDBG Program from appropriations for fiscal years during which it is participating in the Urban County Program; and 2. May not participate in a HOME Consortium except through the Urban County. 3. May not receive a formula allocation under the Emergency Solutions Grants (ESG) Program except through the Urban County. I. DEFINITIONS The definitions contained in 42 U.S.C. 5302 of the Act and 24 CFR §570.3 of the Regulations are incorporated herein by reference and made a part hereof, and the terms defined in this section have the meanings given them: A."Act" means Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, (42 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.). B.“Activity” means a CDBG-funded activity eligible under Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended. Example: single family rehab activity. C.“Annual Program” means those combined activities submitted by cooperating units to COUNTY for CDBG funding as part of the Consolidated Plan. D.“Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice” or “AI” means an assessment of how laws, regulations, policies and procedures affect the location, availability, and accessibility of housing, and how conditions, both private and public, affect fair housing choice. All HUD grantees must certify that they will affirmatively further fair housing, which means 2 conducting an Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI), taking appropriate actions to overcome the effects of any impediments identified through that analysis, and keeping records of these actions. E."Consolidated Plan" means the document bearing that title or similarly required statements or documents submitted to HUD for authorization to expend the annual grant amount and which is developed by the COUNTY in conjunction with COOPERATING UNITS as part of the Community Development Block Grant Program. F."Cooperating Unit(s)" means any city or town in Hennepin County that has entered into a cooperation agreement that is identical to this Agreement, as well as Hennepin County, which is a party to each Agreement. G."HUD" means the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. H."Metropolitan City" means any city located in whole or in part in Hennepin County which is certified by HUD to have a population of 50,000 or more people, or which has previously been granted Metropolitan City status by HUD. I.“Program” means the HUD Community Development Block Grant Program as defined under Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended. J.“Program Income” means gross income received by the recipient or a subrecipient directly generated from the use of CDBG. K.“Public service activities” means the provision of public services described in 24 CFR 570.201(e). L."Regulations" means the rules and regulations promulgated pursuant to the Act, including but not limited to 24 CFR Part 570. M.“Urban County” means the entitlement jurisdiction within the provisions of the Act and includes the suburban Hennepin County municipalities which are signatories to this Agreement. II. PURPOSE The purpose of this Agreement is to authorize COUNTY and COOPERATING UNIT to cooperate to undertake, or assist in undertaking, community renewal and lower income housing assistance activities and authorizes COUNTY to carry out these and other eligible activities for the benefit of eligible recipients who reside within the corporate limits of the COOPERATING UNIT which will be funded from annual Community Development Block Grant, Emergency Solutions Grants (ESG) Programs and HOME appropriations for the Federal Fiscal Years 2018, 2019 and 2020 and from any program income generated from the expenditure of such funds. III. AGREEMENT The initial term of this Agreement is for a period commencing on October 1, 2017 and terminating no sooner than the end of the program year covered by the Consolidated Plan for the basic grant amount for the Fiscal Year 2020, as authorized by HUD, and for such additional time as may be required for the expenditure of funds granted to the County for such period. Prior to the end of the initial term and the end of each subsequent qualification period, the COUNTY, as the lead agency of the URBAN 3 HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM, shall provide a written notice to the COOPERATING UNIT of their right not to participate in a subsequent qualification period. The written notice will provide the COOPERATING UNIT a minimum thirty (30) day period to submit a written withdrawal. If the COOPERATING UNIT does not submit to the COUNTY a written withdrawal during the notice period, this Agreement shall be automatically extended for a subsequent three-year qualifying period. This Agreement must be amended by written agreement of all parties to incorporate any future changes necessary to meet the requirements for cooperation agreements set forth in the Urban County Qualification Notice applicable for the year in which the next qualification of the County is scheduled. Failure by either party to adopt such an amendment to the Agreement shall automatically terminate the Agreement following the expenditure of all CDBG and HOME funds allocated for use in the COOPERATING UNIT's jurisdiction. This Agreement shall remain in effect until the CDBG, HOME and ESG funds and program income received (with respect to activities carried out during the three-year qualification period, and any successive qualification periods under agreements that provide for automatic renewals) are expended and the funded activities completed. COUNTY and COOPERATING UNIT cannot terminate or withdraw form this Agreement while it remains in effect. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, this Agreement may be terminated at the end of the program period during which HUD withdraws its designation of the COUNTY as an Urban County under the Act. This Agreement shall be executed by the appropriate officers of COOPERATING UNIT and COUNTY pursuant to authority granted them by their respective governing bodies, and a copy of the authorizing resolution and executed Agreement shall be filed promptly by the COOPERATING UNIT in the Hennepin County Department of Housing, Community Works and Transit so that the Agreement can be submitted to HUD by July 24, 2017. COOPERATING UNIT and COUNTY shall take all actions necessary to assure compliance with the urban county’s certifications required by Section 104(b) of the Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, including Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; the Fair Housing Act, and affirmatively furthering fair housing. COOPERATING UNIT and COUNTY shall also take all actions necessary to assure compliance with Section 109 of Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (which incorporates Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Age Discrimination Act of 1975), and other applicable laws. IV. ACTIVITIES COOPERATING UNIT agrees that awarded grant funds will be used to undertake and carry out, within the terms of this Agreement, certain activities eligible for funding under the Act. The COUNTY agrees and will assist COOPERATING UNIT in the undertaking of such essential activities by providing the services specified in this Agreement. The parties mutually agree to comply with all applicable requirements of the Act and the Regulations and other relevant Federal and/or Minnesota statutes or regulations in the use of basic grant amounts. Nothing in this Article shall be construed to lessen or abrogate the COUNTY's responsibility to assume all obligations of an applicant under the Act, including the development of the Consolidated Plan, pursuant to 24 CFR Part 91. COOPERATING UNIT further specifically agrees as follows: 4 A.COOPERATING UNIT will, in accord with a COUNTY-established schedule, prepare and provide to the COUNTY, in a prescribed form, requests for the use of Community Development Block Grant Funds consistent with this Agreement, program regulations and the Urban Hennepin County Consolidated Plan. B.COOPERATING UNIT acknowledges that, pursuant to 24 CFR §570.501 (b), it is subject to the same requirements applicable to subrecipients, including the requirement for a written Subrecipient Agreement set forth in 24 CFR §570.503. The Subrecipient Agreement will cover the implementation requirements for each activity funded pursuant to this Agreement and shall be duly executed with and in a form prescribed by the COUNTY. C.COOPERATING UNIT acknowledges that it is subject to the same subrecipient requirements stated in paragraph B above in instances where an agency other than itself is undertaking an activity pursuant to this Agreement on behalf of COOPERATING UNIT. In such instances, a written Third Party Agreement shall be duly executed between the agency and COOPERATING UNIT in a form prescribed by COUNTY. D.COOPERATING UNITS shall expend all funds annually allocated to activities pursuant to the Subrecipient Agreement. 1.All funds not expended pursuant to the terms of the Subrecipient Agreement will be relinquished to the COUNTY and will be transferred to a separate account for reallocation on a competitive request for proposal basis at the discretion of the COUNTY where total of such funds is $100,000 or greater. Amounts less than $100,000 shall be allocated by COUNTY to other existing activities consistent with timeliness requirements and Consolidated Plan goals. E. COUNTY and COOPERATING UNITS shall expend all program income pursuant to this Agreement as provided below: 1.Program income from housing rehabilitation activities administered by the COUNTY will be incorporated into a pool at the discretion of the COUNTY. The pool will be administered by COUNTY and will be used for housing rehabilitation projects located throughout the entire Urban County. When possible, COUNTY will give priority to funding housing rehabilitation projects within the COOPERATING UNIT where the program income was generated. Funds expended in this manner would be secured by a Repayment Agreement/Mortgage running in favor of the COUNTY. Program income generated by METROPOLITAN CITY COOPERATING UNITS that administer their own housing rehabilitation activities may be retained by the COOPERATING UNIT at its discretion. 2.COUNTY reserves the option to recapture program income generated by non-housing rehabilitation activities if said funds have not been expended within twelve (12) months of being generated. These funds shall be transferred to a separate account for reallocation on a competitive request for proposal basis administered by COUNTY or, where the total of such funds does not exceed $100,000, shall be reallocated by COUNTY to other existing activities consistent with timeliness requirements and Consolidated Plan goals. F.COOPERATING UNITS are encouraged to undertake joint activities involving the sharing of funding when such action furthers the goals of the Consolidated Plan and meets the expenditure goals. 5 G.If COUNTY is notified by HUD that it has not met the performance standard for the timely expenditure of funds at 24 CFR 570.902(a) and the COUNTY entitlement grant is reduced by HUD according to its policy on corrective actions, then the basic grant amount to any COOPERATING UNIT that has not met its expenditure goal shall be reduced accordingly. H. COOPERATING UNIT will take actions necessary to assist in accomplishing the community development program and housing goals, as contained in the Urban Hennepin County Consolidated Plan, and will comply with COUNTY’s direction to redirect the use of funds when necessary to accomplish said goals. I. COOPERATING UNIT shall ensure that all activities funded, in part or in full by grant funds received pursuant to this Agreement, shall be undertaken affirmatively with regard to fair housing, employment and business opportunities for minorities and women. It shall, in implementing all programs and/or activities funded by the basic grant amount, comply with all applicable Federal and Minnesota Laws, statutes, rules and regulations with regard to civil rights, affirmative action and equal employment opportunities and Administrative Rule issued by the COUNTY. J. COOPERATING UNIT acknowledges the recommendations set forth in the current Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice. COOPERATING UNIT that does not affirmatively further fair housing within its own jurisdiction or that impedes action by COUNTY to comply with its certifications to HUD may be prohibited from receiving part or all CDBG funding for its activities, and may be required to reimburse COUNTY for part or all of funds it has received. K. COOPERATING UNIT shall participate in the citizen participation process, as established by COUNTY, in compliance with the requirements of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended. L. COOPERATING UNIT shall reimburse COUNTY for any expenditure determined by HUD or COUNTY to be ineligible. M. COOPERATING UNIT shall prepare, execute, and cause to be filed all documents protecting the interests of the parties hereto or any other party of interest as may be designated by the COUNTY. N. COOPERATING UNIT has adopted and is enforcing: 1. A policy prohibiting the use of excessive force by law enforcement agencies within its jurisdiction against any individuals engaged in nonviolent civil rights demonstrations; and 2. A policy of enforcing applicable State and local laws against physically barring entrance to or exit from a facility or location which is the subject of such nonviolent civil rights demonstrations within its jurisdiction. O. COOPERATING UNIT shall not sell, trade, or otherwise transfer all or any portion of grant funds to another metropolitan city, urban county, unit of general local government, or Indian tribe, or insular area that directly or indirectly receives CDBG funds in exchange for any other funds, credits or non-Federal considerations, but must use such funds for activities eligible under Title I of the Act. 6 COUNTY further specifically agrees as follows: A.COUNTY shall prepare and submit to HUD and appropriate reviewing agencies, on an annual basis, all plans, statements and program documents necessary for receipt of a basic grant amount under the Act. B.COUNTY shall provide, to the maximum extent feasible, technical assistance and coordinating services to COOPERATING UNIT in the preparation and submission of a request for funding. C.COUNTY shall provide ongoing technical assistance to COOPERATING UNIT to aid COUNTY in fulfilling its responsibility to HUD for accomplishment of the community development program and housing goals. D.COUNTY shall, upon official request by COOPERATING UNIT, agree to administer local housing rehabilitation activities funded pursuant to the Agreement, provided that COUNTY shall receive Twelve percent (12%) of the allocation by COOPERATING UNIT to the activity as reimbursement for costs associated with the administration of COOPERATING UNIT activity. E.COUNTY may, at its discretion and upon official request by COOPERATING UNIT, agree to administer, for a possible fee, other activities funded pursuant to this Agreement on behalf of COOPERATING UNIT. F.COUNTY may, as necessary for clarification and coordination of program administration, develop and implement Administrative Rules consistent with the Act, Regulations, HUD administrative directives, and administrative requirements of COUNTY; and COOPERATING UNIT shall comply with said Administrative Rules. V. ALLOCATION OF BASIC GRANT AMOUNTS Basic grant amounts received by the COUNTY under Section 106 of the Act shall be allocated as follows: A.Planning and administration costs are capped to 20 percent of the sum of the basic grant amount plus program income that is received during the program year. During the term of this Agreement the COUNTY will receive a planning and administrative retainage of up to fifteen percent (15%) of the basic grant amount; included in this administrative amount is funding for county-wide Fair Housing activities. B.Funding for public service activities are capped to 15 percent of the sum of the basic grant amount plus program income that is received during the previous program year. During the term of this Agreement the COUNTY will retain up to 15% of the basic grant amount for allocation to public service activities county-wide. Funds retained for public service activities will be awarded in a manner determined by COUNTY on a competitive request for proposal basis. C.The balance of the basic grant amount shall be made available by COUNTY to COOPERATING UNITS in accordance with the formula stated in part D and the procedure stated in part E of this section utilizing U.S. Census Bureau data. The allocation is for planning purposes only and is not a guarantee of funding. 7 D.Allocation of funding will be based upon a formula using U.S. Census Bureau data that bears the same ratio to the balance of the basic grant amount as the average of the ratios between: 1. The population of COOPERATING UNIT and the population of all COOPERATING UNITS. 2. The extent of poverty in COOPERATING UNIT and the extent of poverty in all COOPERATING UNITS. 3. The extent of overcrowded housing by units in COOPERATING UNIT and the extent of overcrowded housing by units in all COOPERATING UNITS. 4. In determining the average of the above ratios, the ratio involving the extent of poverty shall be counted twice. E. Funds will be made available to communities utilizing the formula specified in C of this Section in the following manner: 1. All COOPERATING UNITS which are also METROPOLITAN CITIES will receive funding allocations in accordance with the COUNTY formula allocations. 2. All COOPERATING UNITS with aggregate formula percentages of greater than five percent (5%) of the total using the procedure in part D. of this section will receive funding allocations in accordance with the COUNTY formula allocations, unless the resulting allocation would total less than One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000.00). 3. COOPERATING UNITS with aggregate formula percentages of five percent (5%) or less of the total using the procedure in part D. of this section or with funding allocations of less than One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000.00) will have their funds consolidated into a pool for award in a manner determined by COUNTY on a competitive request for proposal basis. Only the COUNTY and COOPERATING UNITS whose funding has been pooled will be eligible to compete for these funds. 4. COOPERATING UNITS shall have the option to opt-in to the consolidated pool specified in item 3. of this part by providing written notice to COUNTY by November 15th annually. F. The COUNTY shall develop these ratios based upon data to be furnished by the U.S. Census Bureau. The COUNTY assumes no duty to gather such data independently and assumes no liability for any errors in the data. G. In the event COOPERATING UNIT does not request a funding allocation, or a portion thereof, the amount not requested shall be made available to other participating communities, in a manner determined by COUNTY. VI. METROPOLITAN CITIES Any metropolitan city executing this Agreement shall defer their entitlement status and become part of Urban Hennepin County. 8 This agreement can be voided if the COOPERATING UNIT is advised by HUD, prior to the completion of the re-qualification process for fiscal years 2018-2020, that it is newly eligible to become a metropolitan city and the COOPERATING UNIT elects to take its entitlement status. If the agreement is not voided on the basis of the COOPERATING UNIT’s eligibility as a metropolitan city prior to July 16, 2017, the COOPERATING UNIT must remain a part of the COUNTY program for the entire three- year period of the COUNTY qualification. VII. OPINION OF COUNSEL The undersigned, on behalf of the Hennepin County Attorney, having reviewed this Agreement, hereby opines that the terms and provisions of the Agreement are fully authorized under State and local law and that the COOPERATING UNIT has full legal authority to undertake or assist in undertaking essential community development and housing assistance activities, specifically urban renewal and publicly-assisted housing. __________________________________________ Assistant County Attorney 9 VIII. HENNEPIN COUNTY EXECUTION The Hennepin County Board of Commissioners having duly approved this Agreement on ____________, 2017, and pursuant to such approval and the proper County official having signed this Agreement, the COUNTY agrees to be bound by the provisions herein set forth. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN, STATE OF MINNESOTA APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: ______________________________________ Chair of its County Board _______________________________ Assistant County Attorney Attest: ____________________________________ Date:Deputy Clerk of the County Board Date: By: ______________________________________ County Administrator Date: By: ______________________________________ Assistant County Administrator – Public Works Date: Recommended for Approval: ____________________________________ Director, Community Works Date: 10 IX. COOPERATING UNIT EXECUTION COOPERATING UNIT, having signed this Agreement, and the COOPERATING UNIT'S governing body having duly approved this Agreement on , 2017, and pursuant to such approval and the proper city official having signed this Agreement, COOPERATING UNIT agrees to be bound by the provisions of this Joint Cooperation Agreement. CITY OF By: Its Mayor And: Its City Manager ATTEST: CITY MUST CHECK ONE: The City is organized pursuant to: Plan A Plan B Charter Resolution 17-40 July 5, 2017 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A JOINT COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY AND HENNEPIN COUNTY FOR PARTICIPATION IN THE URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM IN FISCAL YEARS 2018 – 2020 WHEREAS, the City of Golden Valley, Minnesota and the County of Hennepin have in effect a Joint Cooperation Agreement for purposes of qualifying as an Urban County under the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), Emergency Solutions Grants (ESG) Program, and HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME) Programs; and WHEREAS, the City and County wish to execute a new Joint Cooperation Agreement in order to continue to qualify as an Urban County for purposes of the Community Development Block Grant, ESG and HOME Programs. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that a new Joint Cooperation Agreement between the City and County be executed effective October 1, 2017, and that the Mayor and the City Manager be authorized and directed to sign the Agreement on behalf of the City. _____________________________ 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 July 5, 2017 Agenda Item 3. I. Board/Commission Appointments Prepared By Tim Cruikshank, City Manager Summary Each year the City Council conducts interviews with persons who have applied to serve on a board and/or commission. After the interviews are conducted the Council makes their appointments. Recommended Action Motion to make the following appointments: Human Rights Commission Isaac Mintzer 1 year term - student term expires - May, 2018 Planning Commission Ian Black 1 year term - student term expires - May, 2018