10-13-20 Council/Manager Agenda PacketREGULAR MEETING AGENDA
This meeting will be held via Cisco Webex in accordance with the local emergency declaration
made by the City under Minn. Stat. § 12.37. The public may monitor this meeting by calling
1-415-655-0001 and entering the meeting code 133 830 6859. For technical assistance, please
contact support staff at 763-593-8007 or webexsupport@goldenvalleymn.gov. If you incur costs
to call into the meeting, you may submit the costs to the City for reimbursement consideration.
Additional information about for monitoring electronic meetings is available on the City website.
Pages
1.Pavement Management Policy 2-46
2.Crime Free Ordinance Discussion 47-56
3.Proposed Revision to Disorderly Conduct Ordinance 57-70
4.Council Review of Future Draft Agendas:
Housing and Redevelopment Authority - October 20, 2020,
City Council - October 20, 2020
City Council - November 4, 2020
Council/Manager - November 10, 2020
City Council - November 17,
Housing and Redevelopment Authority - December 1, 2020
City Council - December 1, 2020
Council/Manager - December 15, 2020
Council/Manager meetings have an informal, discussion-style format and are designed for the
Council to obtain background information, consider policy alternatives, and provide general
directions to staff. No formal actions are taken at these meetings. The public is invited to attend
Council/Manager meetings and listen to the discussion; public participation is allowed by
invitation of the City Council.
October 13, 2020 – 6:30 pm
Golden Valley Council/Manager Meeting
October 13, 2020
Agenda Item
1. Pavement Management Policy
Prepared By
Jeff Oliver, PE, City Engineer
RJ Kakach, PE, Assistant City Engineer
Summary
In November of 2019, the Pavement Management Policy was amended to construct local streets to a
28-foot wide standard. The previous standard was 26-feet wide dating back to approximately 2010.
The 2020 (now 2021) Pavement Management Program (PMP) project was designed for 28-feet wide
streets based on the policy amendment with construction originally scheduled for the summer of 2020.
That project was delayed in April due to concerns with the COVID-19 pandemic. At the September
Council/Manager meeting, the Council expressed interest in revisiting the policy regarding street
widths prior to rebidding the 2020 (now 2021) PMP project.
Staff has outlined the benefits of 26-foot wide streets as well as feedback heard from residents in
November of 2019 requesting 28-foot wide streets. This information is included on the City’s website
and is also summarized below:
This table summarizes the differences in costs between the 26- and 28-foot-wide streets. Beginning
with the 2020 PMP, assessments are based on actual bids rather than projected. Assessments are
limited to street improvement costs; expenses for utility improvements are funded from the
Stormwater and Sewer & Water enterprise funds.
Spring 2019 Projection 2020 PMP Low Bid 2020 PMP
Average Bid
26’ Street Project Cost $ 3,350,000 $ 3,355,481 (estimate) $ 3,779,347 (estimate)
26’ Assessment* $ 7,500 $ 8,285 (estimate) $ 9,332 (estimate)
28’ Street Project Cost NA $ 3,501,481 $ 4,013,347
28’ Assessment* NA $8,646 $ 9,909
*$30 Admin fee not included in assessments
Council/Manager Meeting Executive Summary
City of Golden Valley
October 13, 2020
2
•Cost savings – A reduced street width results in construction cost savings because less material
and labor is needed to construct the project. These materials include pipe lengths, base
material, and pavement materials. There are also long-term cost savings for plowing and
pavement maintenance, such as periodic sealing and mill and overlay projects.
•Traffic Calming – Studies show that narrower streets result in drivers traveling at slower
speeds, which feels safer to pedestrians and other multimodal transportation users.
•Environmental/Water Quality Impact – By reducing the street width, a larger green space is
created to help collect stormwater. This minimizes the amount of runoff and the pollutants
entering our wetlands, lakes, and streams.
•Landscape Impacts – Narrower streets reduce the construction impact to trees, shrubs,
retaining walls, other landscaping or irrigation systems located near the existing street.
The following comments and concerns were expressed by residents about narrower streets at the
November 19, 2019 City Council meeting where the street width policy was considered:
•Walking and biking on a narrower street where sidewalks do not exist would be more difficult.
•Snow storage would further narrow the streets.
•Other cities have a standard of 28-foot-wide streets.
•Wider streets eliminate the need to consider parking restrictions on one side of the street.
•Streets are currently very wide (29-33 feet), and a 26-foot-wide street would be a big change to
the neighborhood.
Following the Council’s discussion at the Council/Manager meeting in September, staff sent letters to
residents in the remaining four PMP project areas informing them of the renewed street width
discussion, and offering a number of ways to learn more about the topic and provide comments.
Comments received since the letter was sent have been collected and summarized in the attached
Community Input Report.
Financial Or Budget Considerations
Increasing street width may increase project costs by an estimated $150,000 to $235,000 for the 2020
(now 2021) PMP. Minnesota State Statute 429 requires assessments to make up a minimum of 20% of
project costs. Adding these additional street width costs to the project would increase assessments per
parcel by approximately $360 to $580 to meet the 20% requirement, based on recent bid data.
Supporting Documents
•Community Input Report (42 pages)
Pavement Management Plan
Street Width Policy
COMMUNITY INPUT REPORT
PMP Street Width Policy Community Input Report Page 1
Contents
Overview…..……………………………………………………….…….………………2
Appendix A: Letter to PMP Adjacent Properties..……….……..…..……………..…3
Appendix B: Online Comment Box Feedback…...………….……...……………..…5
Appendix C: Resident Emails………………………………....………………..……14
PMP Street Width Policy Community Input Report Page 2
Overview
Soliciting input from residents living in the upcoming Pavement Management Plan (PMP) project areas
was a major component of the Golden Valley City Council revisiting the PMP street width policy.
On Sept 18, 2020 City staff mailed a letter to all properties adjacent to a scheduled PMP reconstruction
over the next four years. The letter included background information on the Council’s initial decision to
increase the standard residential street width from 26 feet to 28 feet and why the Council is revisiting
the discussion now. To read the full letter see Appendix A.
The letter also included information on how residents can share feedback on the issue. See Appendix B
for feedback submitted through an online comment box. See Appendix C for feedback submitted via
email.
APPENDIX A
Letter To PMP Adjacent Properties
Page 3
September 18, 2020
Pavement Management Program – Street Width Discussion
Dear Resident/Property Owner
As you may be aware, over the next four years the City of Golden Valley is considering reconstruction of the street
adjacent to your property as part of the City’s Pavement Management Program (PMP). The schedule to complete
the street reconstruction is shown on the attached map. Last fall, questions regarding the width of the newly
constructed streets spurred a larger discussion by the City Council, which resulted in the City amending its policy and
increasing its standard residential street width from 26 feet to 28 feet.
Due to feedback from residents about this policy change over the past months, the City Council will again discuss the
standard residential street width policy at its Council/Manager meeting Tuesday, Oct 13, 2020 at 6:30 pm. At this
meeting, the policy, along with estimated costs and assessments, will be presented. For more information on the
PMP, please visit the City’s PMP webpage at www.goldenvalleymn.gov/streets/pmp, call me at 763-593-8030, or
email me at joliver@goldenvalleymn.gov.
Please note that no actions are taken and no public comment is received at Council/Manager meetings. However,
your input on this topic is requested and may be provided in any of the following ways:
• Go to www.goldenvalleymn.gov/streets/pmp or to submit comments electronically the City’s website.
• Email comments to engineeringdept@goldenvalleymn.gov and/or City Councilmembers, whose email
addresses can be found at www.goldenvalleymn.gov/council/members.php
• Written comments may be placed in the Utility Payment Drop Box at the front door of City Hall or mailed to:
City of Golden Valley
Attn: Sue Schwalbe
7800 Golden Valley Road
Golden Valley, MN 55427
All comments received by Oct 8, 2020 will be included in the Council/Manager meeting packet, which will be
available online at www.goldenvalleymn.gov the afternoon of Friday Oct 9. Should you have any questions or
difficulties submitting comments, please contact me at 763-593-8030 for assistance.
Due to the pandemic, all Council/Manager meetings are held virtually via Cisco Webex. To monitor the meeting on
Webex, please refer to the meeting agenda for the phone number and access code. For technical assistance,
contact the City at 763-593-8007 or webexsupport@goldenvalleymn.gov.
Sincerely,
Jeff Oliver, PE, City Engineer
APPENDIX B
Online Comment Box Feedback
Page 5
Submitted Responses (printed verbatim)
I'm a 4 year resident of Orkla Drive and am in support of the 26' street width. There's very little traffic on our
street and very few people park on the street for any significant amount of time. As a result, I don't not feel that
a 26' wide street will impact our quality of life at all. The cost savings and positive environmental impact
outweigh any potential concerns for me. Thank you. -Ellen Johnson
I wish to provide my written support to establish a 28' road width for all remaining PMP's, including the one that
impacts my neighborhood in 2023 based on the original city council vote on the topic in November of 2019. I
understand this will result in a higher tax assessment for me, and my neighbors.
We live on Duluth Street west of Winnetka, and we love our wide street. Driving south down Valders near
Plymouth Avenue, their miserably narrow street is always so clogged up with cars parked on either side, and I
would hate to live there. It looks like a junkyard or like someone is constantly having a party and is hard to even
drive through some days without worrying about someone jumping out into the road, opening a door into the
road, or just having huge pickup trucks parked on both sides and not being able to squeeze through (and we
have a small car!). If we wanted to live in a crowded-feeling, claustrophobic city, we wouldn't have chosen to
live where we do.
Such a huge change to our street would really hurt our neighborhood dynamic. Our street is where neighbors
meet and walk, and there's never any worry about parking or getting hit by a car because there's plenty of
space.
If our wide concrete street turned into a narrow, cheap asphalt one, we'd be devastated and I know the
character of our neighborhood we love so much would be damaged. The condition of the street itself is good,
too -- I don't know why we'd spend money replacing it when it's absolutely fine.
28' - HONOR IT!
Please keep the streets at 28’. This is what the people want and what Golden Valley should have.
-April Nilsen 22 year GV resident
Please do the will of the people! I received my assessment last year for 28’ and was ready to pay it in advance.
I was worried when it was postponed due to COVID. I was worried that some tomfoolery would occur to reduce
the streets to 26’.
PLEASE KEEP THE STREETS AT 28’
Aquila, Xylon, 23rd, etc.
It sounds to me like we have a bunch of Donald Trumps on the city council that we cannot trust. They vote and
say one thing and then turn around and do the opposite. 28 feet is what was voted on and passed. Bob Wollak
With regard to the PMP planned for my neighborhood 2022, I'd like my street to remain 29 feet wide. I would
not like it to be any narrower than 28 feet, if it must be narrowed at all.
First, I would like to thank all involved for reaching out to residents for comments. As a resident who will be
directly impacted by the upcoming PMP, I am excited about the prospect finally having curbs and updated
streets. While I applaud the City Council exercising fiscal responsibility, I am strongly opposed to reverting back
to the 26 foot width streets. From a purely financial standpoint, I should be someone pushing strongly for just
the opposite. I am 67 years old and opted to delay my retirement, in part, recognizing the upcoming
assessment. Had cost alone been the driving factor in my decisions, I would feel differently. However, after
seeing the impact on neighborhoods that have already undergone reconstruction, I believe that narrowing
street widths as a cost saving mechanism is short sighted and wrong.
Having spent the bulk of my working life as a vendor for governmental entities such as the State of MN,
Metropolitan Airports Commission, MN School Board Association and the League of MN Cities; I am keenly
familiar with the competitive bidding statutes. While staff may provide you with projections, the simple truth of
the matter is that the cost differential is at best, an educated guess. As someone that participated in the bid
process, there are a multitude of factors that affect the amount of a bid. While I am not discounting the staff's
work on cost projections, nevertheless it is somewhat misleading to suggest that higher bid amounts are solely
related to street width. I would only ask to take this into consideration.
The benefits of traffic calming is interesting. I totally agree that narrow streets slows traffic flow. The issue for
me is if that benefit is 1) necessary and 2) desirable. I also believe that this is the issue that you have heard
most about from people in the neighborhood. I've lived in my home for 29 years. I can't recall an auto accident
ever occurring in the neighborhood. As with many neighborhoods, there are numerous stop signs, hills and
curves all of which slow down traffic. I don't see that disrupting the present traffic flow further is of benefit. What
I do know is an extra foot or two can make a life altering difference for pedestrians or bikers. If you are not
familiar with our neighborhood, I suggest that you drive around and envision narrower streets. Take a look at
the street I live on (Zealand Ave.) There is a pronounced curve which can be hazardous even now if a car or
delivery truck is parked in the apex. Narrowing will only compound that issue.
This is a cost/benefit decision that you need to make based on the fact that we will live with the decision for the
next 40-50 years. Again, I favor the wider streets despite that fact that odds are that I will not be around long
enough to enjoy the full benefit of the project. To me, the safety factor far exceeds the cost factor, particularly
when factoring the length of time between these projects.
Thank you for allowing me to be heard.
Jeff Wanat
We have lived at 8425 Winnetka Hts. Drive since 1989 (2022 PMP area). As twice-a-day-dog walkers, we are
strongly against narrowing the streets in our neighborhood, particularly because of the increased narrowness of
the streets during winter because of plowing. We are willing to accept increased costs of the PMP project that
will happen if we keep the streets at their current width, or at the compromise width of 28 feet.
Please listen and respond positively to all of the neighbors who are opposed to decreasing the width of our
Golden Valley, sidewalk-less streets.
Martha Harris and Richard Robinson
I am very disappointed we are even having this discussion. The Council voted 4-1 last fall for the remaining
streets of the PMP to be 28 feet wide. Why are we now having a re-do?
I understand that these are difficult economic times, but the Council approved an increase in their budget. We
have lived at our home for over 40 years and have paid taxes all those years for others to have the streets they
want. Now, when it is almost our turn, you want to narrow the streets to save a little money?
There are other budget items that can be cut. I walk on Duluth Street almost every day. When I see someone in
their yard, I ask them about the proposed sidewalks.
Not one person I have talked to is in favor of the sidewalks. We have lots of people who walk in our
neighborhood. We have residents with small children, people who are walking dogs, and some of us who are
walking for exercise. We have walked near Medley Park where the streets are narrow. Walking there when
cars are parked on both sides of the street and having cars come at you and behind you is scary!
I was so impressed when council members listened to neighborhood concerns and voted accordingly. Please
don't betray the trust of your constituents.
Barbara A. Wollak
Living in one of the last remaining neighborhoods that have yet to be repaved in Golden Valley's PMP, and
seeing how the 26' streets recently put in the community (near Medley Park and eastward) over the past few
years and what that does to reduce the walkability and altering the feel of the neighborhood, I am a strong
proponent of keeping the remaining streets at their current width of 28 feet, and not continuing the the trend of
reduction in street widths to 26 feet.
I'm an avid cyclist, and also walk the neighborhood quite frequently. With the reduced widths of the streets just
west of me, I feel much less safe, and have more angst when it comes to interaction between pedestrians and
motorists in those areas than in the past when they were 28 feet wide.
The marginal cost differential for 26 foot widths is not worth the minor savings it would afford, as the "feel" of
the neighborhood is substantially affected.
Regards
I believe the city should be moving aggressively towards reducing its infrastructure debt burden. I also think
there would be benefit to the residents to provide some analysis to truly understand the full life cycle costs of
different options. For example, the cost of a 24 foot road and sidewalk, 26 foot with a sidewalk, 28 foot without
a sidewalk. Including not only the PMP cost but an estimate of the amortized maintenance cost. Obviously
these are not simple to calculate without bids, but it seems to me that paying for a wide road for pedestrian
benefits may not net out over a smaller road with a sidewalk. As a parent of young children, a sidewalk is
infinitely safer and more enjoyable to use with my family than a wide road.
My home is in the 2023 PMP area. I was involved with our neighborhood last year in discussions and meetings
with the City Council, and was elated last year when the Council voted to set the street width at 28 feet. We
moved to Golden Valley 24 years ago, and have enjoyed many things in this community, including the wide and
often winding streets. The streets are busy in the summer with walkers with or without pets, families with
children, often children on their own riding bikes and scooters, and many adult bikers. It is very important to me
that the City maintains wide, safe streets. We would prefer that the existing widths are maintained and not
reduced at all, but think the new policy of 28 feet last year was a good settlement. Please keep the 28 foot
policy and don't reduce our streets again.
I am in favor of retaining the 28 foot street width.
I live near a city park and a nature area. Consequently, there is significant pedestrian traffic on the streets in my
neighborhood. I am concerned that a significant narrowing of the streets would make it more difficult to
accommodate safely simultaneous pedestrian, bicycle, and automobile traffic and parked automobiles on the
streets.
While I am sympathetic to the costs to homeowners during the Covid-19 pandemic, the current pandemic will
pass eventually. Perhaps investigating financing options for homeowners would be helpful.
I continue to support the comments I provided last year. For the safety of everyone utilizing the streets (whether
walking, driving, biking), the streets should remain as wide as possible.
Dear City Council,
As a resident and tax payer of the City of Golden Valley for more than 20 years I am concerned that the City is
cutting corners in regards to public safety and sense of place with our street widths. Is it fair to provide wider
streets for some of our community and smaller streets for others? The small amount of savings does not
outweigh our concerns for safety and aesthetics (sense of place). An average car is over 7 feet from mirror to
mirror and 8 feet mirror to mirror for a truck. We have a lot of activity on our roads especially because we have
no sidewalks. People walking with pets and kids playing in the streets. A 26’ wide street would reduce
sightlines and make it less safe for people to see someone coming into the street. A truck parking on both sides
of the street would give less than 10 feet for pedestrians and cars to share the road. Why do some
communities get safer streets than others? Please make all our streets 29 feet at a minimum.
Best regards
Jeffrey W. Ankeny
Dear City Council Member(s),
We are contacting you in regards to the Pavement Management Program - Street Width Discussion.
Our names are Andrew and Kimberly Sorensen, and we have lived at 2365 Xylon Ave N since 2017 with our
two daughters, who are 3 years and 10 months old.
We are really looking forward to having our streets repaved, as they are in dire need of repair (but appreciate
the improved patches done this year - they really helped!).
We have seen the recently repaved streets near our home, and while they look great - we have some concerns
for our family.
We love walking around our neighborhood with our kids, and currently feel very safe in the wider streets, even
without sidewalks. On the narrower streets, it feels much less safe if there is a work truck, or city trucks doing
repairs, etc as it limits the ability to pass with car traffic coming the other direction. We had a couple close
encounters while our daughter was learning to ride her bike where it’s hard to have good visuals. We have
chosen to have our daughter learn to ride her bike on the crumbling wider streets instead of the beautiful new
paved narrower streets because of the greater risk with passing traffic and parked cars.
We are thankful that you are collecting GV resident’s input into this decision, and strongly prefer to maintain our
lovely wide streets that help make our neighborhood so great!
Andrew & Kimberly Sorensen
I am writing in favor of 28 foot wide streets. Last year, when I had an email correspondence with RJ Kakach
regarding the narrower streets, he said that if the city council approved a street width of 26 feet, then ALL
streets would be reconstructed to that width. That was concerning to me as I live at the end of Duluth Street
which is currently a 44 foot wide street. While I am not opposed to improvements and a narrowing of the street,
I am opposed to a ridiculously narrow street - especially Duluth Street which is an artery for the smaller
neighborhood streets and therefore sees higher traffic by cars, bicycles and pedestrians. I cannot imagine
having our street be 26 feet wide. Our end of Duluth Street is frequently used as a parking lot for people using
the General Mills nature area as well as for U-turns by delivery trucks, utility trucks, city trucks, people who are
lost and general parking on both sides of the street. I understand that there is a plan to potentially create a cul-
de-sac with the PMP, but it won't alleviate the hazard of cars and trucks constantly making U-turns in front of
our house and the trail. A narrower street will make it more difficult to turn around, allow for parking and for
drivers to be observant of the many users who come and go out of the nature area. Many days of the week
there are cars parked on both sides of the street. With the bicycle and foot traffic that comes and goes out of
the General Mills nature area, a 26 foot wide street will be a bottle neck as well as impeding safe access to our
own driveways at times. I also walk and bike the neighborhood streets for exercise and think that 26 feet is too
narrow. We had discussions over this issue last year with the council and our neighborhood made it clear that
28 foot wide streets were important to us. I urge you to reconsider making a blanket resolution to make ALL the
streets 26 feet wide. Duluth Street should NOT be 26 feet wide for the reasons I stated. Feel free to contact me
if you want to discuss any of my concerns.
I support the City policy increasing its standard residential street width from 26 feet to 28 feet, as I have
concerns about the overall impact of narrowing my street more than absolutely necessary (see below).
1) While I am encouraged to hear studies show that narrower streets MAY result in slower speeds, because
this section of Duluth street is straight uphill grade I am worried that drivers WILL NOT slow down but rather
continue to "hit the gas" and speed up that hill to their next turn. That is, I have my doubts about a narrower
street being equal to a safer street.
2) My other concern is about the impact on community. No matter what it seems clear that the 2022 PMP will
result in the width of my street (Duluth St west of Winnetka) being narrowed significantly: essentially going from
a 4-lane wide concrete street to just barely two-lanes wide. Many neighbors are accustomed to being able
having on-street parking available on both sides of the street as currently such in no way restricts traffic flow.
I encourage the GV City Council to not amend the City policy on residential street standard again. But that
rather you vote to reaffirm the decision to keep the streets at 28 feet in width.
Thank you.
We are advocating for the 2021 PMP to be completed in as cost-effective manner as possible. As a working
family, we certainly have a vested interest in our own assessment being lower. And as tax payers, we do not
see the value in the streets being set two feet wider when these funds could be allocated to other city services
and infrastructure. We also question why the approximately five miles of streets in the remaining PMPs merit a
greater width, and why they merit more tax dollars, than some other streets within Golden Valley. We believe
the city has a fiduciary responsibility to complete this project in the least burdensome manner as possible,
benefitting both home owners in the PMP and all Golden Valley tax payers.
During the pandemic, we, as many residents, have been home and enjoying the neighborhood on walks and
bike rides. We can often go blocks without seeing a car pass or a car parked on the street, which leads us to
question why wider streets are necessary. We believe it is important to consider the wide array of residents
affected by the PMP assessment, the necessity of residents' requests contributing to increased amounts, and
the financial impact of large assessments on all those impacted.
We are newer residents of Golden Valley, moving here two years ago. We were drawn to the community
because of the many great amenities, the proximity to the Minneapolis/St Paul metro, the close neighborhood
feel it provided, and the safe environment to raise our family. We are in a community and a home we love. All
of these positive factors contribute to making the housing market in Golden Valley very desirable and very
competitive, which has resulted in our family, and I assume many newer residents, paying a significant portion
of household income to mortgage payments. In addition, the housing stock is older and our home does require
repairs, which we continue to make to not only enhance our own home but also improve our neighborhood. We
ask that the council do all they can to find ways to make the upcoming assessment as affordable as possible
for working families and all tax payers of Golden Valley.
Thank you, Andrea & Al Lentini
When I go for walks I like that there is currently more room for cars/trucks so that they do not get too close to
me or other pedestrians. I also appreciate having more room when driving and passing oncoming traffic.
Shrinking our streets down to a 26-foot width is too narrow. If they cannot stay what they currently are, 29/33ft,
then no less than 28ft. My driveway slopes down to the street and the street curves down a hill. If the street
gets narrower, it will make it more difficult getting in and out of my driveway when cars or delivery vans are
parked on the street. Also, winter is already challenging when snow is piled up on both sides of the street, so if
it is made at least 3 feet narrower, it will be harder to get around. The streets being repaved will be this new
width for decades (50 yrs?). I think we should make them no less than 28 feet.
I was informed, in the September 18, 2020 letter sent by the city, that you are considering modifying street
widths during the reconstruction of streets in the area I am a resident of, and this impacts especially Zealand
Ave N where my property is located.
Barring any compelling reason to reduce Zealand Ave N and other neighborhood street widths, I am asking you
to keep our existing street widths. It is my understanding that the additional cost to maintain the existing street
widths as opposed to reduced widths is insignificant, especially considering street lifetime, so this reason itself
should not justify reduced widths. Maintaining current street widths offers multiple advantages, including
pedestrian security as there are no sidewalks, and preserving the nice appeal of the area of Golden Valley
where I live, which is one of the main reasons I chose to move there about seven years ago. To summarize
this, “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”.
I do NOT AGREE with narrowing our city streets. As mentioned in the comments that people have expressed
previously ( Walking/biking, snow storage, parking restrictions and the big change to our neighborhoods) the
council needs to also give consideration to the safety of your citizens. With the narrow streets emergency
vehicles will have a harder time passing through the streets if vehicles are parked on the street. It would also
be harder for other type of utility vehicle also. Or residents towing there personal trailers. Also think about snow
blocking you view and cars inching out into the street to get a clear view on a narrower street.
I also believe narrow streets will effect our home values. Many of my new neighbors have comment that our
wider streets was a factor in purchasing their residence.
As a city tax payer, I have paid for other areas of the city to have wider and or maintain the width of their street
when it went through the PMP so why should that be taken away from me? I feel the City Council made a
promise to us last fall and now they want us to go through this AGAIN and blame it on COVID 19. All citizens
had the right to voice there opinion when this was discussed prior and we did a lot or work and everyone spent
a lot of time on this issue and now you want to start over again.
PLEASE leave the streets as they are.
Thank you for the opportunity to weigh in on the proposed street width as part of the pavement management
plan. We have lived in our Golden Valley home for more than 10 years and we recently made a significant
investment in renovating our home as we plan to reside here for many years to come. Any changes or
reductions in the width of our streets will impact us, as homeowners and residents, for decades. We request
that the City Council continue with the plan approved last fall that keeps street widths to at least 28' to allow for
space for walking, biking and safely navigating our neighborhoods. The additional time home this year as we
navigate COVID has highlighted just how important these spaces are to our community.
Hello,
I have lived in Golden Valley for 4 years, I live on Westbend Rd. When I came to look at my now house with my
relator, I distinctly remember during on Duluth St and recognizing how wide the streets are and I commented to
my realtor how lovely that was. She added that not many cities have streets this wide. The wide streets allow
for two cars to be parked parallel to one another but still allows for cars to drive in between even in the winter
when the snow banks flow over a ft out onto the street. I implore you to find another city that has this feature. In
the summer the wide streets allow for families to walk, bike, and do activities without worrying about stopping
traffic.
The 29-30 ft streets are an awesome part of Golden Valley and one of the many reasons I love living here. I
strongly encourage you to keep the streets at this width otherwise we become just like the other suburbs.
***Please Reconsider Narrowing The Streets***
I write to you today asking that you stay with your original decision to maintain the wider streets for the
upcoming street projects.
I was born in Golden Valley and have been raising my family here for almost 20 years. I can't think of another
city that I would rather be in. We have a great neighborhood with wide streets for my family to go on walks and
ride bikes. There are 9 kids that live nearby and they are always out riding bikes, skateboarding, rollerblading,
and riding scooters in our streets, please reconsider narrowing them.
Please review your notes from the city council meeting from last year where 3 residents stood up and spoke
passionately explaining why we need to keep the streets at the wider length.
Hello Golden Valley City Council,
It has come to our attention the city is reconsidering street dimensions from 28ft to 26ft.
We're fairly new to the neighborhood and have enjoyed walking the dog, running, and the general dynamic of
the area with it's current dimensions. Post implementation of streets down the way have caused an abundance
of caution while walking pets or taking visiting nephews to the park (weaving in and out of service trucks while
avoiding oncoming traffic).
Short term savings is not a worthwhile venture for an infrastructure that could last decades.
Thank you for your consideration,
Kellie and Tony
APPENDIX C
Resident Emails
Page 14
From:City of Golden Valley
To:Romano, Tomas
Subject:Email the City Manager"s Department [#768]
Date:Wednesday, September 30, 2020 6:35:53 PM
Name *Andrew Snope
Email *
Comments *Hello Mayor Harris and Council Members,
I have seen some Facebook posts and now in the Post, the
issue of the promised wide street. I just wanted to say that
in today’s world of its turmoil of issues, this whole uprising
of “wide streeters” seems rather privileged.
While the width of their street is a neighborhood issue. The
budget and tax impact is a citywide issue. Keep the 30,000
ft view.
Keep up the good work.
Thank you!
Andy
From:
To:EngineeringDept; Harris, Shep; Fonnest, Larry; Harris, Maurice; Harris, Maurice; Sanberg, Kimberly
Subject:Asphalt Curb vs. Cement Curb
Date:Monday, September 21, 2020 10:05:18 PM
Attachments:image001.emz
image002.png
image003.emz
image004.png
image005.emz
image006.png
image007.emz
image008.png
image009.emz
image010.png
oledata.mso
Hello,
I live at (in the 2024 PMP blue zone).
The asphalt curb in front of my house has been repeatedly torn up by snow plows. Additionally, I
have 3 sprinkler heads in the grass near the curb. A snow plow snapped off the top of one of the
sprinkler heads, which needs to be replaced.
I’d like to ask you to have a cement curb poured in rather than another asphalt curb. My
neighbors down the block, who have a cement curb in front of their houses, don’t have a problem
with their curbs being destroyed by snow plows.
Thank you for your kind consideration,
- Thomas Rydberg
From:Oliver, Jeff
To:Nelson, Carrie
Subject:FW: 28 foot wide streets
Date:Wednesday, September 30, 2020 10:13:19 AM
Attachments:image001.gif
image002.jpg
Please log.
Jeff Oliver P.E. | City Engineer | City of Golden Valley
7800 Golden Valley Road | Golden Valley, MN 55427 | 763-593-8034 | 763-593-3988
(Fax) | 763-593-3968 (TTY)
joliver@goldenvalleymn.gov
*Please note new email address.*
From: Cruikshank, Tim
Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2020 10:08 AM
To: Rosenquist, Gillian
Cc: Golden Valley Council Members ; Oliver, Jeff ; Nevinski, Marc
Subject: RE: 28 foot wide streets
Thanks Gillian.
Timothy J. Cruikshank | City Manager | City of Golden Valley
7800 Golden Valley Road | Golden Valley, MN 55427 | 763-593-8003 | 763-593-8109 (Fax) | 763-593-
3968 (TTY) | tcruikshank@goldenvalleymn.gov
From: Rosenquist, Gillian
Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2020 9:17 AM
To: Cruikshank, Tim <TCruikshank@goldenvalleymn.gov>
Subject: FW: 28 foot wide streets
FYI
Gillian Rosenquist | City Council Member | City of Golden Valley
7800 Golden Valley Road | Golden Valley, MN 55427 | 763-529-9279
grosenquist@goldenvalleymn.gov
From:
Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2020 8:08 AM
To: Rosenquist, Gillian
Subject: 28 foot wide streets
Kitty andI are in favor! TWO VOTES
Walter Enloe PhD
From:
To:Harris, Shep; Fonnest, Larry; Rosenquist, Gillian; Harris, Maurice; Sanberg, Kimberly; EngineeringDept
Subject:Proposal to Narrow Streets in Golden Valley
Date:Wednesday, September 30, 2020 9:26:07 AM
Dear Mayor Harris and Golden Valley City Council Members,
I am resending my email regarding the issue of the PMP, changing your decision once again, and
narrowing our streets to 26 feet in width, as you continue with the street reconstruction plans. I
would urge you to return to your earlier decision to keep the streets at 28 feet. As a long-time
resident of Golden Valley, avid walker, and caring neighbor I am concerned about narrowing the
streets for many reasons including the following:
With the proposals to add more nearby high-density housing, what sense does it make for
narrower streets in the area? The streets will be used more, not less, and will need to
accommodate more drivers, bikers, and pedestrians as new residents live in and enjoy the
community.
I work and commute in the City of Mpls. where many of the streets are too narrow. Why
would we aspire to adopt the same problems as a city where snowplows struggle, driving and
parking is a constant challenge for both private and public use such as patronizing area
businesses or civic/school events, and pedestrians and children are often casualties of being
hit by vehicles trying to navigate narrow streets?
We live on the Orkla/Wynnwood Road/Valders curving street. There are many, many families
with young children on our block as well as other streets in Golden Valley. Narrowing the
streets to the proposed width of 26 feet will ensure more risks for pedestrians and children
who regularly walk, bus, bike, skateboard, and play in our neighborhoods. That extra width
gives just a few more feet, visibility, and reaction time to avoid tragedies.
We need to remember that Minnesota = WINTER for almost half of the year. Once the snow
flies and builds up on the sides of our streets as it always does, the streets are even narrower
and the risks even greater. Why add to that very practical problem?
The current street width of 28 feet strikes a good balance between allowing our residents to safely
use and enjoy the streets, parking for area residents, and traffic for larger vehicles such as
emergency vehicles, waste disposal trucks, snowplows, and school buses. Please keep our streets at
28 feet width and do not authorize them to be narrowed to 26 feet.
Best wishes, Jan Thurn
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
From:Oliver, Jeff
To:Nelson, Carrie
Subject:FW: narrow streets
Date:Wednesday, September 30, 2020 10:18:10 AM
Attachments:image001.gif
image002.jpg
Again.
Jeff Oliver P.E. | City Engineer | City of Golden Valley
7800 Golden Valley Road | Golden Valley, MN 55427 | 763-593-8034 | 763-593-3988
(Fax) | 763-593-3968 (TTY)
joliver@goldenvalleymn.gov
*Please note new email address.*
From: Cruikshank, Tim
Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2020 10:17 AM
To: Rosenquist, Gillian
Cc: Golden Valley Council Members ; Oliver, Jeff ; Nevinski, Marc ; Kakach, RJ
Subject: RE: narrow streets
Thank Gillian.
Timothy J. Cruikshank | City Manager | City of Golden Valley
7800 Golden Valley Road | Golden Valley, MN 55427 | 763-593-8003 | 763-593-8109 (Fax) | 763-593-
3968 (TTY) | tcruikshank@goldenvalleymn.gov
From: Rosenquist, Gillian
Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2020 10:14 AM
To: Cruikshank, Tim <TCruikshank@goldenvalleymn.gov>
Subject: Fwd: narrow streets
Gillian Rosenquist
Council Member
763-529-9279
From: Barbara Wollak <>
Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2020 10:10 AM
To: grosenquist@goldenvalleymn.gov
Subject: narrow streets
Dear Councilperson Grosenquist,
Thank you for your service to Golden Valley.
As one of your constituents, I want you to know that I strongly support maintaining the current
street width for the remaining PMP to 28 feet. I was so disappointed that this issue is coming up
again. There was a 4-1 vote in favor of the wider streets last fall. We do not want a redo! If you want
to save money during these difficult economic times, there are other ways to cut the budget, like the
sidewalks along Duluth Street.
We have lived in our home for over 40 years and have paid taxes all those years for everyone else to
get the streets they want. Now it is almost our turn and there is talk of narrowing the streets to save
money? We want a pedestrian friendly neighborhood. We have lots of neighbors of all age who walk
and bike our streets.
Please don't betray the trust we placed in you.
Respectfully,
Respectfully,
From:Oliver, Jeff
To:Nelson, Carrie
Subject:FW: 28" Street Widths - Golden Valley PMP
Date:Thursday, October 1, 2020 12:55:30 PM
Attachments:image001.gif
image002.jpg
Jeff Oliver P.E. | City Engineer | City of Golden Valley
7800 Golden Valley Road | Golden Valley, MN 55427 | 763-593-8034 | 763-593-3988
(Fax) | 763-593-3968 (TTY)
joliver@goldenvalleymn.gov
*Please note new email address.*
From: Cruikshank, Tim
Sent: Thursday, October 1, 2020 12:51 PM
To: Rosenquist, Gillian
Cc: Golden Valley Council Members ; Nevinski, Marc ; Oliver, Jeff ; Kakach, RJ
Subject: RE: 28' Street Widths - Golden Valley PMP
Thanks Gillian.
Timothy J. Cruikshank | City Manager | City of Golden Valley
7800 Golden Valley Road | Golden Valley, MN 55427 | 763-593-8003 | 763-593-8109 (Fax) | 763-593-
3968 (TTY) | tcruikshank@goldenvalleymn.gov
From: Rosenquist, Gillian
Sent: Thursday, October 1, 2020 12:28 PM
To: Cruikshank, Tim <TCruikshank@goldenvalleymn.gov>
Subject: FW: 28' Street Widths - Golden Valley PMP
Gillian Rosenquist | City Council Member | City of Golden Valley
7800 Golden Valley Road | Golden Valley, MN 55427 | 763-529-9279
grosenquist@goldenvalleymn.gov
From:
Sent: Thursday, October 1, 2020 12:21 PM
To: Rosenquist, Gillian
Subject: 28' Street Widths - Golden Valley PMP
Hi Council Member Rosenquist,
My name is Jon Beattie and I live at with my family. My
wife and I moved in just over a year ago into this neighborhood and one of the biggest draws for us
purchasing in this neighborhood was how wide and safe the streets were/are. My wife and I take
daily walks with our 3 children (6, 3, 4 months) and the wider streets give us a lot of peace of mind
and comfort knowing that there's plenty of room for them to ride their bikes safely on the side, for
us to push a double stroller (or sometimes a double & a single stroller) or walk hand in hand. We
would not feel this same peace of mind with 26' street widths as that is a 3' reduction from current
street widths (about the width of our double-BOB stroller).
I wanted to reach out and ask for your support of us keeping 28' street widths as part of the
upcoming PMP project. I know that you originally had supported this but have converted to the
opinion that 26' street widths is the better option. This is the first house that we have owned and it
has been a bit alarming/surprising to have so much back and forth on the street widths over the 1.5
years that we've been living here.
The extra two feet (vs. the potential 26' street widths) allows us to keep the peace of mind
mentioned above for our daily family walks. It maintains a safe amount of space for walking as a
family, exploring our beautiful neighborhood and not feeling confined to single-file lines in order to
remain safe. Our daily walks are a big part of how we connect with one another and enjoy time
outside together and we are very hopeful to be able to maintain the initially accepted 28' street
widths.
Thank you for your support in this matter,
Jon Beattie
From:Oliver, Jeff
To:Nelson, Carrie
Cc:Kakach, RJ
Subject:FW: Street CIP Reconsideration Request
Date:Tuesday, October 6, 2020 7:23:16 AM
Attachments:p5.jpg
p6.jpg
p7.jpg
p8.jpg
30E9F31E72CC49AD9DD26F8973B1074C[3943069].gif
image002.jpg
image003.png
image004.jpg
image005.jpg
image006.jpg
image007.png
Another one.
Jeff Oliver P.E. | City Engineer | City of Golden Valley
7800 Golden Valley Road | Golden Valley, MN 55427 | 763-593-8034 | 763-593-3988(Fax) | 763-593-3968 (TTY)
joliver@goldenvalleymn.gov
*Please note new email address.*
From: Cruikshank, Tim
Sent: Monday, October 5, 2020 5:29 PM
To: Rosenquist, Gillian
Cc: Golden Valley Council Members ; Oliver, Jeff ; Nevinski, Marc ; Kakach, RJ
Subject: FW: Street CIP Reconsideration Request
Thanks Gillian.
Timothy J. Cruikshank | City Manager | City of Golden Valley
7800 Golden Valley Road | Golden Valley, MN 55427 | 763-593-8003 | 763-593-8109 (Fax) | 763-593-
3968 (TTY) | tcruikshank@goldenvalleymn.gov
From: Rosenquist, Gillian
Sent: Monday, October 5, 2020 5:23 PM
To: Cruikshank, Tim <TCruikshank@goldenvalleymn.gov>
Subject: FW: Street CIP Reconsideration Request
Gillian Rosenquist | City Council Member | City of Golden Valley
7800 Golden Valley Road | Golden Valley, MN 55427 | 763-529-9279
grosenquist@goldenvalleymn.gov
From:
Sent: Monday, October 5, 2020 3:25 PM
To: Fonnest, Larry; Rosenquist, Gillian; Harris, Maurice; Sanberg, Kimberly
Subject: FW: Street CIP Reconsideration Request
From: Kuebelbeck, Kelly
Sent: Monday, October 5, 2020 2:59 PM
To: 'sharris@goldenvalleymn.gov' <sharris@goldenvalleymn.gov>; 'lfonnest@goldenvalley.gov'
<lfonnest@goldenvalley.gov>; 'grosenquist@goldenvalley.gov' <grosenquist@goldenvalley.gov>;
'mharris@goldenvalley.gov' <mharris@goldenvalley.gov>; 'ksanberg@goldenvalley.gov'
<ksanberg@goldenvalley.gov>
From:
To:EngineeringDept
Subject:Street width discussion
Date:Monday, October 5, 2020 5:04:44 PM
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the City’s plan for street reconstruction. I know that funds are limited
as always, but when it comes to infrastructure and long term projects like this one, I think some visionary thinking
should be in order. We don’t only live for today — future (and present) residents of our fine city will appreciate
many times over that our leaders for today are thinking of the next generation of residents for tomorrow. 30 feet
street widths provide ample space for side street parking, while moving traffic (and emergency vehicles) can move
both ways without abatement. I am very willing to be assessed more money to accommodate traffic needs both
present and future.
Don Mleziva
Sent from my iPad
From:
To:EngineeringDept
Subject:Street width issue
Date:Saturday, October 3, 2020 12:55:16 PM
To Whom It May Concern:
We have lived at since 1989 (2022 PMP area). As twice-a-day-dog
walkers, we are strongly against narrowing the streets in our neighborhood, particularly
because of the increased narrowness of the streets during winter because of plowing. We are
willing to accept increased costs of the PMP project that will happen if we keep the streets at
their current width, or at the compromise width of 28 feet.
Please listen and respond positively to all of the neighbors who are opposed to decreasing the
width of our Golden Valley, sidewalk-less streets.
Martha Harris and Richard Robinson
From:
To:EngineeringDept
Subject:28 feet street width - Zealand Ave N
Date:Thursday, October 1, 2020 8:33:44 PM
Hello,
My name is Bethany Beattie and my husband, Jon, and I are proud to call Golden Valley our home, having
just celebrated our one year anniversary of purchasing our first house here (in the summer of 2019). We live
on Duluth Ave. N. and have so enjoyed meeting our wonderful neighbors and partaking in all that Golden
Valley has to offer. You will see us and our three young children taking daily (if not more!) walks (with a
large double stroller!), bike rides, scooter rides, etc. in our beautiful neighborhood.
Last November, I felt proud to involve myself in local politics and exercise my citizenship by reaching out
to the city council members asking that our streets be repaved at 28 feet, instead of being narrowed to 26
feet. We were thrilled when the vote for 28 feet streets passed!
You can imagine my shock when we received notification that two council members have reversed their
decision from last fall, and that the city is now planning to narrow our street to 26 feet. We felt small,
frustrated, undercut, ignored, duped. These beautiful, wide streets we utilize and enjoy on a daily basis were
one thing we looked long and hard for in our home search. We did not ever think that they could be taken
away from us so quickly after moving into our home.
Pre Covid-19, it was a frequent compliment we would receive when hosting guests, parties, etc. at our
house: "You have such wide streets! Amazing!" We felt so happy and proud. It is so nice to have space for
parking with plenty of street left for pedestrian use and passing vehicles.
During Covid-19, I can't tell you how much it has meant to be able to have access to such a nice, wide
street. As a nurse, I'm deeply appreciative of the importance of social distancing in preventing the spread of
Covid-19. I have noticed the number of walkers in our neighborhood has increased dramatically during
these past 6 months, as people turn to outdoor exercise for health and sanity during this pandemic. I want to
assure you that my family and myself have been staying home, washing hands, wearing masks, and doing
everything we can to protect ourselves, our neighbors and our city. We are thankful to live with
conscientious neighbors. We frequently cross the street to avoid coming in contact with others and see
fellow exercisers do the same. Sometimes, both sides of the street will be occupied and a third party will
walk in the middle of the street, until we have all passed each other, to ensure proper social distancing. I
know our street would not be repaved until 2022, but reducing our street width to 26 feet would truly impact
the safety and accessibility in our neighborhood. It is easy to picture how cramped the streets would feel
with a car parked on one side of the street (if not both!), one or two lanes of traffic driving by, and families
and petwalkers all trying to share the same space in a safe and socially distanced manner. Who knows how
long social distancing will be encouraged? Some aspects of pre Covid-19 life may return, but some will
stay. Social distancing may very well be one of them. It just makes sense to give others space when
possible.
Even without Covid-19 and social distancing, having our street narrowed to 26 feet would dramatically
change the feeling and accessibility of our neighborhood. I will feel significantly more apprehensive during
family walks, as vehicles will have less space to pass my children. The thought of having restricted parking
in our neighborhood is unnecessary. With the width at 28 feet, there is no need to have parking restricted,
something none of us would welcome.
I want to thank you for your time and service for our city, especially during this pandemic. I am sure it has
been a stressful season with many decisions to be made, which have big impacts on those living here. There
must be so much that goes on behind the scenes, and I thank you for your dedication to your citizens and
From:
To:EngineeringDept
Subject:Narrowing of streets in GV
Date:Saturday, October 3, 2020 6:13:32 PM
To the Golden Valley City Council and Mayor and Engineering Dept.
I live at in Golden Valley. I am writing to let you know that my
family and I are extremely opposed to the proposed narrowing of streets in our area. Our
section of Aquila Avenue is currently 30' wide from curb to curb. Because things keep
seemingly flip-flopping, I'm not sure if the proposed 28' width or the even worse possibility of
a 26' wide street is currently on the table. Either way, if you narrow our street, it's going to be
too narrow for traffic to pass in the winter by the time snowbanks pile up high. It will also
make bus stops far less safe for kids when snow piles high.
I'm not sure why this narrowing has been proposed, but I'm all ears if you'd like to explain to
me why you think it makes sense. I live on this street. You don't. You don't see how narrow it
already gets every winter.
My property taxes have gone up nearly 40% since I moved here many years ago. It's
ridiculous. Yet we see so little in return for this. Where does it all go? Apparently not to
streets. Don't charge us more and give us less value and a lower quality of life on our streets.
Eric Sorensen
--
Eric Sorensen
Creative Director/Copywriter
https://www.ericsorensencreative.com
From:
To:EngineeringDept
Subject:PMP street width
Date:Sunday, October 4, 2020 10:22:38 AM
To the engineering department,
I am very concerned about narrowing our city streets to a 26’ width. Orkla Drive, scheduled
for the 2024 PMP, is currentle at 29’. The safety of our residents must take precedence over
everything else....including cost. This is a 50 year decision. Please reconsider.
Toni Ihrke
From:
To:EngineeringDept; Harris, Shep; Fonnest, Larry; Rosenquist, Gillian; Harris, Maurice; Sanberg, Kimberly
Cc:
Subject:Golden Valley Streets
Date:Tuesday, October 6, 2020 10:55:36 AM
Dear City Council,
As a resident and tax payer of the City of Golden Valley for more than 20 years I am concerned that
the City is cutting corners in regards to public safety and sense of place with our street widths. Is it
fair to provide wider streets for some of our community and smaller streets for others? The small
amount of savings does not outweigh our concerns for safety and aesthetics (sense of place). An
average car is over 7 feet from mirror to mirror and 8 feet mirror to mirror for a truck. We have a lot
of activity on our roads especially because we have no sidewalks. People walking with pets and kids
playing in the streets. A 26’ wide street would reduce sightlines and make it less safe for people to
see someone coming into the street. A truck parking on both sides of the street would give less than
10 feet for pedestrians and cars to share the road. Why do some communities get safer streets than
others? Please make all our streets 29 feet at a minimum.
Best regards
Jeffrey W. Ankeny
From:
To:Harris, Shep; Fonnest, Larry; Rosenquist, Gillian; Harris, Maurice; Sanberg, Kimberly
Cc:; EngineeringDept
Subject:A Really Bad Idea; Reducing the Width of City Streets
Date:Tuesday, October 6, 2020 12:29:53 PM
To: Mayor Harris;
Council Members Fonnest, Rosenquist, Harris, & Sanberg:
CC: Golden Valley Engineering Staff, Kathy Longar
Re: Golden Valley City Plans Reduce the Width of City Streets from 29/30 ft to 26/28
ft.
My wife Mary and I reside at . No. We have lived at this address for
nearly 37 years.
Along with all the residents of this City we have learned that the City is planning to
reduce the width of the streets as a part of its Project Management Plan (“PMP”) to
renew/rebuild the streets and associated infrastructure.
We don’t have an issue with the basic plan for street & infrastructure renewal. We
agree this work is desperately needed. However, there is no need to reduce the width
of the streets. In fact, a good argument could be made to make the streets a little
wider but we’ll settle for the status quo.
We have heard that one of the arguments for narrowing the streets is to save money
on initial construction costs and on-going maintenance. Really; how much money
would be saved by narrowing the streets by 1, 2 or even 3 feet? We are guessing that
compared to the total cost of this project, the savings are a trivial amount. Whatever
this small savings, it is nowhere near the value to all of us of what we lose in the form
of increased street congestion and reduced safety.
In any case, of all the residents we’ve talked to (there are many) NOT A SINGLE
ONE wants narrower streets and ALL are willing to pay whatever the small extra cost
is associated with keeping them as is.
All of this brings me to my questions for all of you:
1. Has the City Council conducted any kind for survey of Golden Valley
Citizens/Tax Payers to determine what percentage of them would choose
narrowing the streets with the small savings vs. leaving them at the current
width and pay the extra cost?
If so, what was the result? If not WHY NOT? Given the direct and significant
detrimental impact that narrow streets will have on every single resident, don’t
you think a simple survey would be useful and the right thing to do?
We are very confident that such a survey would reveal that 90+ % of the
residents would vote to keep the street width as is, regardless of the higher
cost. Is it possible that a survey has not been conducted because you know
what the answer would be and you don’t want the result to get in the way of
what you have already decided to do?
2. Given that the cost savings argument for narrowing the streets is at best, wimpy
weak and that you know (or should know) that the residents are willing to pay
what it costs to keep their streets as is, the cynical part of me thinks you have in
mind some other reason for narrowing the streets. Is there another reason? Can
you share it with the people who elected you to office?
If there is no other reason than the weak cost saving argument and it has been
put to rest by those who pay the bill, then we suggest you make a decision that
reflects the will of the people who put you in office.
Respectfully
Phil & Mary Zins
From:Cruikshank, Tim
To:
Cc:Nevinski, Marc
Subject:RE: PMP street width
Date:Monday, October 5, 2020 6:22:41 AM
Attachments:image001.gif
Thank you. We will include with the compilation of feedback we are receiving on this topic that will
all be shared with the City Council.
Timothy J. Cruikshank | City Manager | City of Golden Valley
7800 Golden Valley Road | Golden Valley, MN 55427 | 763-593-8003 | 763-593-8109 (Fax) | 763-593-
3968 (TTY) | tcruikshank@goldenvalleymn.gov
From: Toni Ihrke
Sent: Sunday, October 4, 2020 10:29 AM
To: Cruikshank, Tim
Subject: PMP street width
Dear Mr. Cruikshank,
I am very concerned about narrowing our city streets to a 26’ width. Orkla Drive, scheduled for the
2024 PMP, is currently at 29’. The safety of our residents must take precedence over everything
else....including cost. This is a 50 year decision.
Toni Ihrke
Golden Valley Council/Manager Meeting
October 13, 2020
Agenda Item
2. Crime Free Ordinance Discussion
Prepared By
Ted Massicotte, Deputy Fire Chief
Summary
Staff reviewed the current ordinances related to crime prevention and rental licensing, the history of
those ordinances and the impacts of having or not having them. The sections in question are included
as part of our rental licensing portion of ordinance and were adopted in 2015 at the same time the
International Property Maintenance Code was adopted. These sections appear to have been a
duplication of some other cities ordinances being used at that time and no specific direction was given
to include this type of language.
These types of ordinances are concerning to fair housing advocates as they can have a negative impact
on a tenants perception of their ability to seek emergency assistance for fear of being evicted from
their property as well as their right to fair, safe, and uninfringed access to police and emergency
services.
Staff looked back at records and determined that these sections have not been used at all in Golden
Valley since they were adopted and agree with the potential negative impacts, therefore are
recommending removing them completely from ordinance.
Financial or Budget Considerations
None
Supporting Documents
•Redline version of proposed changes.
ARTICLE III. - RENTAL HOUSING LICENSING
Sec. 16-53. - Purpose.
It is the purpose of this article to provide minimum standards to safeguard life, limb, health, property and
public welfare by regulating and controlling the use and occupancy, construction and maintenance of all
residential rental units, buildings and structures within the City. The provisions contained herein are in
addition to other applicable provisions of the City Code and not in lieu thereof.
(Code 1988, § 6.29(1))
Sec. 16-54. - Scope.
The provisions of this article shall apply to all rental dwellings, including rented single-family homes,
rented duplexes and rental dwellings within owner-occupied buildings, as well as to rented
condominiums, rented townhouses and leasehold cooperative dwelling units, as those terms are defined
in Minn. Stats. § 273.124, subd. 6, Minn. Stats. ch. 515A, and this article.
(Code 1988, § 6.29(2))
Sec. 16-55. - Definitions.
The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this article, shall have the meanings ascribed to
them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning:
Annual Renewal Date: The date each year by when a rental license must be renewed, according to
the schedule of fiscal years for rental licenses and fees established by the City Council pursuant to
Section 16-24. The City Council may establish a different annual renewal date for different types of
rental dwellings and/or types of building in which rental dwellings may be located (e.g., single-family
homes, duplexes, townhomes, condominiums, homes with services, etc.).
Apartment Building: A building in which four or more rental dwellings are located and all such rental
dwellings are owned by the same owner.
Code Official: The City Manager or his/her designee.
Disorderly Conduct: Shall have the meaning given such term in Section 16-57.
Dwelling Unit: A single dwelling space providing independent living facilities for one or more persons,
including permanent provisions for sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation.
Operate: To charge a rental charge or other form of compensation for the use of a rental dwelling.
Owner: The person owning or holding title to a rental dwelling as determined by an examination of
record title to the property at the office of the County Recorder - Registrar of Titles. If more than one
person owns or holds title to an individual rental dwelling, such persons shall collectively be an
owner for purposes of this article.
Qualifying Relative: Spouse, parent, child, sibling, grandparent, grandchild, aunt, uncle, niece or
nephew. The relationship may be either by blood or marriage. The Code Official may require
sufficient written proof to establish whether someone is a qualifying relative.
Person: A natural person or legal entity.
Property Manager: A person authorized to manage and/or operate a rental dwelling on behalf of an
owner.
Renewal License: A rental license that is a renewal of an existing rental license granted under this
article, which renewal is granted to the same owner and for the same rental dwelling as the existing
rental license.
Rental License: The license required under this article, including any renewal thereof.
Rental Dwelling: A dwelling unit in the City to which a tenant has been granted the right to use. A
rental dwelling includes accessory structures such as garages and storage buildings and
appurtenances such as sidewalks and retaining walls which are on the premises on which a rental
dwelling is located.
Tenant: Any person granted temporary use of a rental dwelling, other than the owner of the dwelling
unit and/or qualifying relative of that owner, pursuant to a lease or other agreement, whether or not
reduced to writing.
(Code 1988, § 6.29(3))
Sec. 16-56. - License Required.
(a) When Required.
(1) No person shall operate a rental dwelling unless the owner thereof shall have first obtained a
rental license for such rental dwelling as provided for in this article. Any rental license received
under this article shall commence upon the date of issuance and, unless revoked or suspended,
shall remain valid until the next applicable annual renewal date, provided no rental license shall
extend for more than a 12-month period. A person who is operating a rental dwelling after the
rental license has expired is operating an unlicensed rental dwelling.
(2) Exceptions:
a. A rental dwelling is not subject to this article if it is within a hotel, motel, hospital or a
nursing home, assisted living, and other residential facilities or portions thereof licensed
and inspected by the State for compliance with State building or fire codes or the City of
Golden Valley Property Maintenance Code. A rental dwelling within any of the following
types of facilities is subject to this article unless the facility has a facility license issued by
the State and is inspected by the State for compliance with State building or fire codes or
the City of Golden Valley Property Maintenance Code: group homes, independent living
facilities, assisted living facilities, board and lodging homes, and other residential facilities
or portions thereof, including those facilities that provide support services for their residents
or that receive program reimbursement or financial assistance.
b. A room temporarily leased to a natural person within a dwelling unit while the owner of that
dwelling unit resides in the dwelling unit shall not be subject to this article, provided no
more than three persons shall so lease a room within a dwelling unit at one time.
(b) What the Rental License Covers. There shall be one rental license for each rental dwelling,
provided when a building on a single premises contains two or more rental dwellings and all the
rental dwellings within such building are owned by the same owner, only one rental license shall be
required for such building. The City shall have authority to exercise its licensing powers under this
article, including the power to issue, renew, deny, revoke, and suspend rental licenses, with respect
to an entire building or only a portion of a building.
(c) Fees. There shall be annual license fee for each rental license. Such fee shall be in the amount
established by the City Council pursuant to Section 16-24. There shall be no proration of rental
license fees for a rental license that extends for less than 12 months. The amount of the rental
license fee may vary based on the type of rental dwelling, the type of building in which the rental
dwelling is located, and/or the number of rental dwellings located in the building that is the subject of
a rental license. There shall be no fee charged for an initial inspection to determine the existence of
any violations of the City Code at a rental dwelling. The City Council shall establish a fee for any
reinspections necessary to determine whether identified violations have been corrected, to restore a
rental license that has been revoked or suspended, or for any other reason a reinspection may be
required under this article. The Code Official may waive the reinspection fee in event of an error or
other reasonable cause determined by the Code Official, including extension of time granted for
compliance.
(d) Application. Application for a rental license shall be made in writing on forms promulgated by the
City Manager or his/her designee and accompanied by the fee amount. In the case of a license
renewal, such application shall be submitted at least 30 da ys prior to the expiration date of the then-
existing rental license. If the application for a license renewal is not received by the City at least 30
days prior to the expiration date of the existing rental license, the applicant shall pay a late fee in the
amount established by the City Council. The Code Official may waive the late fee in event of an error
or other reasonable cause determined by the Code Official. All applications shall specify the
following:
(1) Name, address, and telephone number of the owner of the rental dwelling, including name of
the contact person if the owner is a legal entity.
(2) Name, address, and telephone number of any property manager actively managing said rental
dwelling.
(3) Name and address of the vendee if the rental dwelling is owned or being sold on a contract for
deed.
(4) Legal address of the rental dwelling.
(5) Number of rental dwellings that are the subject of the application if the application involves a
building in which two or more rental dwellings are located and all such rental dwellings are
owned by the same owner.
(6) Name, address and telephone number of on-site operating manager, if any.
(7) Any other information requested by the Code Official to establish compliance under this article.
(8) If the owner identified in the application is a legal entity, the applicant shall submit, upon
request of the Code Official, the name and address of all partners, shareholders or interest
holders.
(e) Inspections Required. Each rental license application and rental license is at all times subject to the
Code Official's right to inspect the affected rental dwelling to determine whether it is in compliance
with the City Code and State law. The Code Official shall determine the schedule of periodic
inspections. Inspections may include all common areas, utility and mechanical rooms, garages,
exterior of structures and exterior property areas.
(f) Access for Inspection. No rental license shall be issued under this article unless the owner of the
rental dwelling agrees to permit inspections, upon reasonable notice from the Code Official to the
owner, to determine compliance with the City Code and State law. The submission of a rental license
application or the possession of a rental license issued by the City shall constitute such agreement
by the owner identified in the application or on the rental license. Each tenant shall grant access to
any part of its rental dwelling at reasonable times for the purpose of effecting inspection,
maintenance, repairs or alterations as are necessary to comply with the provisions of this article. If
any owner, owner's agent, property manager or tenant fails or refuses to permit entry to a rental
dwelling under its control for an inspection pursuant to this article, the Code Official may pursue any
remedy at law or under the City Code, including, but not limited to, securing an administrative search
warrant for the rental dwelling, issuing an administrative citation, denying a rental license application,
revoking or suspending a rental license, or denying a renewal license. Without limiting the foregoing,
should an owner, owner's agent, or property manager fail to keep a scheduled inspection without
reasonable cause or refuse to permit entry to the rental dwelling, a reinspection fee may be charged.
(g) Resident Agent Required. No rental license shall be issued for a rental dwelling unless:
(1) The owner thereof resides within the Counties of Hennepin, Ramsey, Anoka, Carver, Dakota,
Scott, Washington, Sherburne or Wright; or
(2) The owner designates in writing an agent or property manager residing or located within such
counties who is responsible for maintenance and upkeep of the rental dwelling and who is
authorized to provide the Code Official access to the rental dwelling, to receive service of notice
of violations of the City Code, to receive orders from the Code Official and to institute remedial
action to effect such orders and to accept all service of process pursuant to law.
(h) Crime-Free Training. An owner or property manager who owns or manages more than one rental
dwelling in the city must complete a crime-free training program (or similar program) approved by the
City's Police Department. No renewal license shall be granted unless the owner (and property
manager, if any) identified on the rental license application has completed such training within the
three-year period immediately preceding the date of such application. If a rental dwelling owned by a
person who is not required to complete this training pursuant to the foregoing and that rental dwelling
is the subject of three or more events of disorderly conduct within a 365-day period, that person must
complete the training before a renewal license may be granted for that rental dwelling.
(i) Crime-Free/Drug-Free Lease Addendum Requirements.
(1) Subject to any preemptory State and Federal laws, all signed tenant leases, including any
lease renewal, for a rental dwelling executed after January 1, 2017, shall contain the following
crime-free addendum language or equivalent language:
a. Tenant, any members of the tenant's household or a guest or other person affiliated with
the tenant shall not engage in illegal activity, including drug-related illegal activity, on or
near the premises.
b. Tenant, any member of the tenant's household or a guest or other person affiliated with the
tenant shall not engage in any act intended to facilitate illegal activity, including drug-
related illegal activity, on or near the premises.
c. Tenant, any member of the tenant's household or a guest or other person affiliated with the
tenant shall not permit the rental dwelling to be used for, or to facilitate illegal activity,
including drug-related illegal activity, regardless of whether the individual engaging in such
activity is a member of the household or a guest.
d. Tenant, any member of the tenant's household or a guest, or other person affiliated with
the tenant shall not engage in the unlawful manufacturing, selling, using, storing, keeping,
or giving of a controlled substance (as defined in Section 102 of the Controlled Substance
Act [21 USC 802]) on or near the premises.
e. Violation of the above provisions shall be a material and irreparable violation of the lease
and good cause for immediate termination of tenancy.
f. The term "drug-related illegal activity" means the illegal manufacture, sale, distribution, use,
or possession with intent to manufacture, sell, distribute, or use of a controlled substance
(as defined in Section 102 of the Controlled Substance Act [21 USC 802]).
(2) Non-exclusive remedies. The crime-free/drug-free addendum is in addition to all other terms of
the lease and do not limit or replace any other provisions.
(jh) Posting. All apartment buildings shall post the rental license issued for that building. The rental
license shall be conspicuously posted (in a frame with a glass covering), in a common area, hallway
or lobby. All other rental dwellings shall have a copy of the rental license on the premises.
(ki) Applicable Laws. Rental licenses shall be subject to the applicable provisions of the City Code and
State law relating to rental dwellings.
(lj) Transfer of License. No rental license under this article is transferable:
(1) If any owner holding a rental license transfers ownership or legal control of the rental dwelling
that is the subject of the rental license
(2) If the owner appoints or changes the agent required under Subsection (g) of this section;
and/or
(3) If the owner authorizes a property manager to manage the rental dwelling (other than a
property manager identified in the application for the rental license), then the owner shall
provide the Code Official written notice of such event within 72 hours thereafter. Such notice
shall include, as applicable:
a. The name and address of the person succeeding to the ownership or control of such rental
dwelling
b. The name and address of the appointed agent; and
c. The name and address of the authorized property manager.
Any new owner shall apply for a new rental license within three days after its acquisition of the rental
dwelling.
(Code 1988, § 6.29(4))
Sec. 16-57. - Conduct on Licensed Premises.
It shall be the responsibility of an owner holding a rental license to take appropriate action to prevent
conduct at the licensed rental dwelling by tenants or their guests constituting disorderly conduct. A
violation of any of the following statutes or Code provisions shall be deemed disorderly conduct:
(1) Minn. Stats. §§ 609.75 through 609.76, and Article XV of this chapter, which prohibit gambling
(2) Minn. Stats. §§ 609.321 through 609.324, which prohibits prostitution and acts relating thereto
(3) Minn. Stats. §§ 152.01 through 152.025, and 152.027, subds. 1 and 2, which prohibit the
unlawful sale or possession of controlled substances
(4) Minn. Stats. § 340A.401, which prohibits the unlawful sale of alcoholic beverages
(5) Minn. Stats. § 340A.503, which prohibits the underage use of alcoholic beverages
(6) Minn. Stats. § 609.72 and Sections 10-1, 18-2, and 18-4, which prohibits disorderly conduct
when the violation disturbs the peace and quiet of the occupants of at least one unit on the
licensed premises or other premises, other than the unit occupied by the person committing the
violation; and
(7) Minn. Stats. §§ 97B.021, 97B.045, 609.66 through 609.67 and 624.712 through 624.716, which
prohibit the unlawful possession, transportation, sale or use of a weapon.
(Code 1988, § 6.29(5))
Sec. 16-58. - Disorderly Conduct Violations.
(a) Disorderly conduct at a rental dwelling shall be determined and handled by the Police Department.
(b) A determination that disorderly conduct has occurred at a rental dwelling shall be made upon
substantial evidence to support such a determination and shall be subject to Minn. Stats. §
504B.205, subd. 3. It shall not be necessary that criminal charges be brought to support a
determination of disorderly conduct, nor shall the fact of dismissal or acquittal of such a criminal
charge operate as a bar to adverse license action under this article based on such disorderly
conduct.
(c) Upon notification from the Police Department to the Code Official that there have been three or
more events of disorderly conduct at a rental dwelling with a 36-month period, the Code Official shall
send a written warning to the owner of such rental dwelling, notifying the owner that:
(1) If there is an additional event of disorderly conduct at the identified rental dwelling within the
12-month period following the date of the warning, such disorderly conduct shall constitute a
violation of this article and shall entitle the City to the remedies set forth herein, including the
revocation, suspension, non-renewal or denial of a rental license
(2) Within 10 days after the Code Official's issuance of the written warning, the owner shall submit
to the Code Official and the Police Department a written management plan detailing the actions
taken and proposed to be taken by the owner to prevent further disorderly conduct at the
identified rental dwelling
(3) Within 20 days after the acceptance of the management plan by the Code Official and the
Police Department, the owner shall implement all the provisions of the management plan; and
(4) If the owner fails to submit or implement a management plan as required, such failure shall
constitute a violation of this article and shall entitle the City to the remedies set forth herein,
including the revocation, suspension, non-renewal or denial of a rental license.
(d) If the owner fails to provide or implement a management plan within the period required, or there is
an event of disorderly conduct at the rental dwelling within 12 months after the written warning, such
failure shall be a violation under this article.
(Code 1988, § 6.29(6))
Sec. 16-5957. - Revocation or Suspension of Rental License.
(a) In addition to its powers under Section 16-23, the City Council may revoke, suspend, deny or
decline to renew any rental license applied for or issued under this article based on any of the
following circumstances:
(1) The rental license was procured by misrepresentation of material facts with regard to a rental
dwelling or the ownership of a rental dwelling.
(2) The applicant, or one acting in the applicant's behalf, made oral or written misstatements
accompanying the application.
(3) The applicant has failed to comply with any condition set forth in any other permits/licenses
granted by the City.
(4) The activities of the owner create or have created a danger to the public health, safety or
welfare.
(5) The rental dwelling, the building of which such dwelling is a part, or any portion thereof,
contains conditions that might injure, or endanger the safety, health or welfare of any member of
the public.
(6) Failure to correct violations of the City's Property Maintenance Code in the time period
specified in the notice of violation and correction.
(7) Failure to continuously comply with any condition required of the applicant for the approval or
maintenance of the rental license.
(8) Failure to include the crime-free/drug-free lease addendum in all leases as required by Section
16-56(i).
(9) A violation under Section 16-58(d).
(10) Any other violation of this article.
(b) Prior to any revocation, suspension, denial or declination by the City Council under this article, the
Code Official shall send written notice to the owner specifying the ordinance or law violations with
which they are accused and the affected rental dwelling. The notice shall also specify the date for the
hearing before the City Council, which shall not be less than 10 days from the date of the notice. At
the hearing before the City Council, the owner or their representative may submit and present
evidence on their behalf. After the hearing, the City Council may revoke, suspend, deny or decline to
renew the rental license.
(c) If the affected rental dwelling is within a building containing more than one rental dwelling owned by
the same owner, the revocation, suspension, denial or declination may apply to one or more rental
dwellings within that building, at the discretion of the City Council.
(d) If a rental license is suspended, revoked or not renewed pursuant to this article, then until such time
as a valid rental license has been restored it shall be unlawful for the owner to thereafter permit any
occupancy of the formerly licensed rental dwelling by a tenant. The affected rental dwelling shall be
vacated by all tenants, giving tenants a reasonable time to arrange new housing and to move their
possessions.
(e) Rental licenses may be suspended for up to 120 days and may, after the period of suspension, be
reinstated subject to compliance with this article and any conditions imposed by the City at the time
of suspension. Rental licenses that are revoked shall not be reinstated for a period of up to 120 days
and until the owner has applied for and secured a new rental license and complied with all conditions
imposed at the time of revocation and all applicable sections of the City Code.
(Code 1988, § 6.29(7))
Sec. 16-6058. - Maintenance Standards.
Every rental dwelling shall be maintained in accordance with the minimum standards set forth in State law
and the City Code, in addition to any other permits issued by the City or by the State.
(Code 1988, § 6.29(8))
Sec. 16-6159. - Conflicts.
Where there are conflicts between this article and any other provision of the City Code or other State or
Federal laws, regulations, or rules, the more restrictive shall govern.
(Code 1988, § 6.29(9))
Sec. 16-6260. - Enforcement.
The Code Official is hereby authorized and directed to enforce all of the provisions of this article and all
the provisions of the City's Property Maintenance Code with respect to rental dwellings.
(Code 1988, § 6.29(10))
Sec. 16-6361. - Owner and Tenant Responsibilities.
(a) Owner.
(1) Owners of rental dwellings shall construct and maintain said dwellings in accordance with the
requirements of the City Code.
(2) No person shall lease to another for occupancy any rental dwelling which does not comply with
the applicable fire prevention provisions of the City Code.
(b) Tenant.
(1) Each tenant of a rental dwelling shall keep in a clean and sanitary condition that part of the
dwelling and related premises which that person occupies or controls.
(2) No person shall occupy any rental dwelling which does not comply with the applicable fire
prevention provisions of the City Code.
(Code 1988, § 6.29(11))
Sec. 16-6462. - Notices and Orders of Code Official.
(a) Notice. Whenever the Code Official determines that a rental dwelling, a building of which such
dwelling is a part, or any portion thereof violates any section of the City Code or that there are
reasonable grounds to believe that a violation exists, notice shall be given in the manner set forth in
Section 107 of the City's Property Maintenance Code, provided in all instances such notice shall also
be provided to the applicable owner, if such Section 107 does not require such notice to be sent to
the owner.
(b) Emergency Orders. Whenever the Code Official finds that an emergency exists in relation to the
enforcement of the provisions of this article which requires immediate action to protect the health,
safety or welfare of occupants of any rental dwelling, a building of which such dwelling is a part, or
any portion thereof, the Code Official may issue an order reciting the existence of such emergency
and requiring that such action be taken as deemed necessary to meet the emergency,
notwithstanding any other provision of this article.
(Code 1988, § 6.29(12))
Sec. 16-6563. - Administrative Citation.
The Code Official may issue one or more administrative citations under Section 1-9, to enforce any
provision in this article and, in addition to imposing monetary fines, such citations may require corrective
actions.
(Code 1988, § 6.29(13))
Sec. 16-6664. - Appeal Process.
Any person directly affected by an administrative citation, decision or order issued by the Code Official
pursuant to this article shall have the right to appeal to a hearing officer in an administrative hearing as
provided for in Section 2-4. The City Council may establish by ordinance a fee that must accompany any
such appeal under this article.
(Code 1988, § 6.29(14))
Sec. 16-6765. - No Warranty By City.
By enacting and undertaking to enforce this article of the City Code, neither the City nor its Council,
agents, or employees warrant or guaranty the safety, fitness or suitability of any rental dwelling or
dwelling unit in the City and any representation to the contrary by any person is a misdemeanor. Owners,
their agents, property managers and tenants should take whatever steps they deem appropriate to
protect their interests, health, safety and welfare.
(Code 1988, § 6.29(15))
Sec. 16-6866. - Violation a Misdemeanor.
Every person who violates a section, paragraph or provision of this article when such person performs an
act thereby prohibited or declared unlawful or fails to act when such failure is thereby prohibited or
declared unlawful, and upon conviction thereof shall be punished as for a misdemeanor except as
otherwise stated in specific provisions hereof.
(Code 1988, § 6.29(16); Ord. No. 564, 2nd Series, 7-31-2015)
Secs. 16-6967—16-94. - Reserved.
Golden Valley Council/Manager Meeting
October 13, 2020
Agenda Item
3. Proposed Revisions to Disorderly Conduct Ordinance
Prepared By
Maria Cisneros, City Attorney
Jason Sturgis, Police Chief
Nicole Appelbaum, Chestnut Cambronne
Summary
In looking at the Crime Free Housing Ordinance, staff noticed that the current disorderly conduct
ordinance (City Code § 18-2) contains some ambiguities and overlap with state statute. Staff discussed
the ordinance with the City Prosecutor, Chestnut Cambronne, and recommends making the following
changes to the ordinance:
• Remove paragraphs 1, 4, 5, 8 and 9 because they overlap with existing state statute.
• Broaden the language in paragraph 2 to include additional bodies of water in Golden Valley.
• Modify the language in paragraph 3 to simplify the section, and to add the requirement that the
offending conduct occur in a place in which it could be observed by a member of the public.
• Modify paragraph 6 so that it applies to sound on public and private property and to clarify the
standard of conduct.
• Modify paragraph 7 to add lasers and strobe lights, and change the standard from “annoy or
endanger” to “disturb or endanger.”
Staff requests the Council’s input and direction regarding the proposed changes.
Financial Or Budget Considerations
None
Supporting Documents
• Proposed redline of City Code § 18-2
Sec. 18-2. - Disorderly Conduct—Generally.
It is unlawful for any person, in a public or private place, knowing, or having reasonable grounds to know,
that it will, or will tend to, alarm, anger or disturb others or provoke any assault or breach of the peace, to
do the following:
(1) Knowingly engage in, offer, or attempt to engage in, aid or assist another to engage in, or
congregate because of lewd, lascivious or immoral conduct; or the use of words which are
slanderous and tend to injure the reputation of others, obscene, or personally abusive and
inherently likely to provoke a violent reaction or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace
(2) Whether or not posted with signs so prohibiting, voluntarily enter the waters of any river, lake,
creek, pond, or public swimming pool at any time when said waters are not properly supervised
by trained life-saving personnel in attendance for that purpose, or enter such waters without
being garbed in a bathing suit sufficient to cover his/hertheir person and equal to the standards
generally adopted and accepted by the public.
(3) Urinate or defecate on any public street, alley, sidewalk or floor of any public building or of
any building where the public gathers or has access, or in any other place, whether public
or private, where such act could be observed by any member of the public, except in
such place that has been designated as a restroom. in a place other than:
a. If on public property, then in a plumbing fixture provided for that purpose
b. If on the private property of another, then in a plumbing fixture provided for that purpose; or
c. If on private property not owned or controlled by another, then within a building
(4) Look, peer, or peep into any window, door, skylight, or other opening in a house, room, or
building located on property not owned or controlled by such person with intent to observe the
actions of occupants of any such house, room or building, or loiter around or within view of any
such window, door, skylight or other opening for the purpose of observing the occupants thereof
(5) Cause the making or production of an unnecessary noise by shouting or by any other means or
mechanism including the blowing of any automobile or other vehicle horn
(6) Use a sound amplifier upon streets and public property without prior written permission from
the City, or on any private property in a manner knowing or having reasonable grounds to know,
that it will, or will tend to, alarm, anger or disturb others or provoke any assault or breach of the
peace.
(7) Use a flashlight, laser, strobe light, or spotlight in a manner so as to annoy disturb or endanger
others
(8) Cause defacement, destruction, or otherwise damage to any premises or any property located
thereon
(9) Strew, scatter, litter, throw, dispose of or deposit any refuse, garbage, or rubbish unto any
premises except into receptacles provided for such purpose; or
(10) Enter any motor vehicle of another without the consent of the owner or operator.
(Code 1988, § 10.60)
MEETING AGENDA
This meeting will be held via Webex in accordance with the local emergency declaration made by
the City under Minn. Stat. § 12.37. The public may monitor this meeting by watching on Comcast
cable channel 16, by streaming on CCXmedia.org, or by calling 1-415-655-0001 and entering the
meeting code 133 857 6413. The public may participate in this meeting during public comment
sections, including the public forum beginning at 6:20 pm, by calling 763-593-8060. Additional
information about monitoring electronic meetings is available on the City website. For technical
assistance, please contact the City at 763-593-8007 or webexsupport@goldenvalleymn.gov. If
you incur costs to call into the meeting, you may submit the costs to the City for reimbursement
consideration.
Pages
1. Call to Order
A. Roll Call
2. Approval of Agenda
3. Consent Agenda
4. Public Hearing
5. Old Business
6. New Business
A. Metropolitan Council Housing Goals (Zimmerman)
7. Adjournment
October 20, 2020 – 6:30 pm
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
1. Call to Order
A. Pledge of Allegiance Pages
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. City Council Meeting – October 7, 2020
B. Approval of City Check Register
C. Licenses:
1.
D. Minutes of Boards and Commissions:
1.
2.
Human Services Commission Resignation
Human Services Commission Appointment
3. Environmental Commission Minutes, August 24, 2020
E. Approval of Bids, Quotes and Contracts:
1. Award 2021 PMP Construction Observation and Engineering Services--TENTATIVE
2. Approve Consultant Contractor for the City Facilities Study
3. Approve Contract for Custodial Services with Jani-King - TENTATIVE
4. Amendments to extend catering agreements for 2021
5. Approve Contract for Fixed Fuel Pricing
F. Acceptance of Grants and Donations:
1.
G. Approve City Facilities Study Task Force
1. Appointing Facility Study Task Force Members
2. Adopting the Facility Study Task Force Charter
4. Public Hearing
A. Public Hearing - 2021 PMP Council Order Bids--TENTATIVE
5. Old Business
October 20, 2020 – 6:30 pm
City of Golden Valley City Council Regular Meeting
October 20, 2020 – 6:30 pm
2
6. New Business
All Ordinances listed under this heading are eligible for public input.
A. Review of Council Calendar
B. Mayor and Council Communications
1. Other Committee/Meeting updates
7. Adjournment
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
1. Call to Order
A. Pledge of Allegiance Pages
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. City Council Meeting – October 20, 2020
B. Approval of City Check Register
C. Licenses:
1.
D. Minutes of Boards and Commissions:
1.
E. Approval of Bids, Quotes and Contracts:
1.
F. Acceptance of Grants and Donations:
1.
G. MnDOT Winnetka to Glenwood – Limited Use Permit and Resolution
H.
I.
Approve Professional Services to Update City’s 5-Year MS4 Stormwater Permit
Appoint Police Task Force Members
4. Public Hearing
A. Public Hearing - Zoning Text Amendment - R-2 Text Amendment (adding Townhouses)
[tentative]
5. Old Business
Wednesday, November 4, 2020 – 6:30 pm
City of Golden Valley City Council Regular Meeting
November 4, 2020 – 6:30 pm
2
6. New Business
All Ordinances listed under this heading are eligible for public input.
A. Review of Council Calendar
B. Mayor and Council Communications
1. Other Committee/Meeting updates
7. Adjournment
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
This meeting will be held via Cisco Webex in accordance with the local emergency declaration
made by the City under Minn. Stat. § 12.37. The public may monitor this meeting by calling 1-415-
655-0001 and entering the meeting code . For technical assistance, please contact
support staff at 763-593-8007 or webexsupport@goldenvalleymn.gov. If you incur costs to call
into the meeting, you may submit the costs to the City for reimbursement consideration.
Additional information about for monitoring electronic meetings is available on the City website.
Pages
1. 25 Mile Per Hour Speed Limit Discussion
2. Review 2021 Master Fee Schedule
3. Amendment to the Hennepin County Residential Recycling Grant Agreement
4. Council Review of Future Draft Agendas:
Council/Manager meetings have an informal, discussion-style format and are designed for the
Council to obtain background information, consider policy alternatives, and provide general
directions to staff. No formal actions are taken at these meetings. The public is invited to attend
Council/Manager meetings and listen to the discussion; public participation is allowed by
invitation of the City Council.
November 10, 2020 – 6:30 pm
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
1. Call to Order
A. Pledge of Allegiance Pages
B. Roll Call
B. Acceptance of Human Services Commission annual report (RICK WILL CONFIRM TITLE)
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. City Council Meeting – November 4, 2020
B. Approval of City Check Register
C. Licenses:
1.
D. Minutes of Boards and Commissions:
1.
E. Approval of Bids, Quotes and Contracts:
1. 2021-2022 Tree Trimming and Removal with Contractor
2. Award Contractor Contract for the 2020 Pond Maintenance Project
F. Acceptance of Grants and Donations:
1.
G. Designate Polling Places for the 2021 Election Cycle Res. 20-
4. Public Hearing
5. Old Business
6. New Business
All Ordinances listed under this heading are eligible for public input.
A. First Consideration – Amendment to the 2021 Master Fee Schedule
B. Review of Council Calendar
C. Mayor and Council Communications
1. Other Committee/Meeting updates
November 17, 2020 – 6:30 pm
City of Golden Valley City Council Regular Meeting
June 2, 2020 – 6:30 pm
2
7. Adjournment
SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA
This meeting will be held via Webex in accordance with the local emergency declaration made by
the City under Minn. Stat. § 12.37. The public may monitor this meeting by watching on Comcast
cable channel 16, by streaming on CCXmedia.org, or by calling 1-415-655-0001 and entering the
meeting code 133 857 6413. The public may participate in this meeting during public comment
sections, including the public forum beginning at 6:20 pm, by calling 763-593-8060. Additional
information about monitoring electronic meetings is available on the City website. For technical
assistance, please contact the City at 763-593-8007 or webexsupport@goldenvalleymn.gov. If
you incur costs to call into the meeting, you may submit the costs to the City for reimbursement
consideration.
Pages
1. Call to Order
A. Roll Call
2. Approval of Agenda
3. Consent Agenda
4. Public Hearing
5. Old Business
6. New Business
A. Adoption of the HRA 2021 Budget and Levy for a Housing Program
7. Adjournment
December 1, 2020 – 6:30 pm
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
1. Call to Order
A. Pledge of Allegiance Pages
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. City Council Meeting – November 17, 2020
B. Approval of City Check Register
C. Licenses:
1.
D. Minutes of Boards and Commissions:
1.
E. Approval of Bids, Quotes and Contracts:
1.
F. Acceptance of Grants and Donations:
1.
G. Authorize MOU with Xcel Energy for PIE Phase II Plan Implementation
H. Adoption of 2021-2022 Budgets for Enterprise, Special Revenue, and Internal Services
Funds
I. Adoption of 2021-2030 Capital Improvement Program
4. Public Hearing
A. Adoption of the 2021-2022 General Fund Budget and Property Tax Levies for Taxes
Payable 2021
5. Old Business
6. New Business
All Ordinances listed under this heading are eligible for public input.
A. Approve Consent and Authorization for the HRA Tax Levy Payable in 2021
B. Second Consideration – Amendment to the 2021 Master Fee Schedule
December 1, 2020 – 6:30 pm
City of Golden Valley City Council Regular Meeting
December 1, 2020 – 6:30 pm
2
C. Review of Council Calendar
D. Mayor and Council Communications
1. Other Committee/Meeting updates
7. Adjournment
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
Pages
1. Discussion of Review of the 2021 Legislative Policies
2. Review Employee Handbook Updates
3. Section 8 Housing Ordinance
4. Council Review of Future Draft Agendas: City Council December 15, 2020, City Council
January 5, 2021 , Council/Manager January 12, 2021
Council/Manager meetings have an informal, discussion-style format and are designed for the
Council to obtain background information, consider policy alternatives, and provide general
directions to staff. No formal actions are taken at these meetings. The public is invited to attend
Council/Manager meetings and listen to the discussion; public participation is allowed by
invitation of the City Council.
December 8, 2020 – 6:30 pm
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
1. Call to Order
A. Pledge of Allegiance Pages
B. Roll Call
C.
D.
Presentation of Bill Hobbs Award Presentation of MLK Human Rights Contest Winners
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. City Council Meeting – December 1, 2020
B. Approval of City Check Register
C. Licenses:
1. Approve Cigarette/Tobacco License Renewals
2. Approve Therapeutic Massage Facility License Renewals
D. Minutes of Boards and Commissions:
1.
E. Approval of Bids, Quotes and Contracts:
1. Purchase of a Dump Truck
2. Purchase of Two Police Vehicles
3. Approve Contract with Audit Service (SUE VIRNIG TENTATIVE)
F. Acceptance of Grants and Donations:
1.
G. Approval of Employee Handbook Updates
4. Public Hearing
A.
5. Old Business
6. New Business
All Ordinances listed under this heading are eligible for public input.
A. Approval of 2021 Legislative Policies
B. Review of Council Calendar
C. Mayor and Council Communications
December 15, 2020 – 6:30 pm
City of Golden Valley City Council Regular Meeting
June 2, 2020 – 6:30 pm
2
1. Other Committee/Meeting updates
7. Adjournment