2021-02-02
REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 3:35 pm by Chair Gillian Rosenquist.
Roll Call
Task Force Members Present (indicated by asterisk):
Name: Company: Name: Company:
Gillian Rosenquist* (GR) Task Force Chair, Golden Valley
City County Member
Karen Boehne* (KB) Task Force, Resident
Andy Johnson* (AJ) Task Force, Planning
Commissioner
Kathryn Simpson* (KS) Task Force, Resident
Becky Sanders* (BSa) Task Force, Resident Lucy Smith-Williams*
(LSW)
Task Force, Business
Brian Smith* (BSm) Task Force, Resident Marc Meirovitz* (MM) Task Force, Business
Cameron Selmer* (CS) Task Force, Resident Sara Barrow* (SB) Task Force, Resident
Gary Cohen* (GC) Task Force, Resident Tierre Webster* (TW) Task Force, Business
Additional Attendees (Steering Committee and Project Team)
Name: Company: Name: Company:
Marc Nevinski* Physical Development Director,
Golden Valley
Bruce
Schwartzman*
Partner in Charge, BKV Group
Cheryl Weiler* Communications Director, Golden
Valley
Susan Morgan* Project Manager, BKV Group
Jason Sturgis* Police Chief, Golden Valley Ben Janes* Designer, BKV Group
John Crelly* Fire Chief, Golden Valley Bryan Harjes* Engagement Lead, HKGi
Sue Virnig* Finance Director, Golden Valley Jeff Miller Urban Planner. HKGi
Ted Massicotte* Assistant Fire Chief, Golden Valley Andrew Cooper* Public Works Architect, Oertel
Architects
Tim Kieffer* Public Works Director, Golden
Valley
Dustin Phillips* Pre-Con & Estimation
Kraus/Anderson
Sue Schwalbe* Physical Development Assistant,
Golden Valley
Michael Healy* Police Planner, BKV Group
Kelly Naylor* City Hall Planner, BKV Group
Craig Carter* Fire Planner, BKV Group
Andrew Cooper* Public Works Planner, Oertel
Architects
February 2, 2021 – 3:30 pm
Virtual WebEx Meeting
7800 Golden Valley Road
City of Golden Valley Facilities Study Task Force Meeting Minutes
Feb 2, 2020 – 3:30 pm
2
Modified Public Meeting Protocols Followed
Throughout the minutes, Task Force members will be referred to by their initials as listed
above.
Action items referenced within discussion notes are indicated in bold.
Approval of Minutes: Minutes to be submitted for record and approval.
Discussion:
1. Discussion of Project Priorities
a. Review of project priorities as included in the T ask Force agenda
i. Those identified initially as “needs” required by operations, and those
identified as “wants” by the Steering Committee, Task Force,
stakeholders, and via the open community survey.
b. (KS) Is it possible to just have one Fire Station downtown?
i. Chief Crelly: The department has been studying right sizing for the
department, including through the 2007 Five Bugles Study: 3 stations are
not sustainable because they would drive the number of firefighters up; 1
station would serve downtown Golden Valley well but would not serve
the perimeter of the City meeting regulatory response time standards.
c. (KB) The Fire Department received a high rating in 2018 for quality [Referring to
the ISO fire insurance rating or Public Protection Classification (PPC), a score from
1 to 10 that indicates how well-protected your community is by the Fire
Department]; how might the change to a 2-station model impact this rating, and
thus, potentially impact taxpayer insurance?
i. Chief Crelly: The department is proud of its ISO rating, and is concerned
that the current operating model – paid-on-call (POC) – is in danger of
collapse, as the demands of family, work, and fire service are leading to
lower numbers of firefighters able to commit in that capacity, making it
difficult to recruit and retain the 50 firefighters needed to serve the city.
Committing to the transition to duty crew, which allows the department
to schedule staff, ensures staff are at the station available to respond to
calls and callbacks immediately, and to be able to train on shift.
d. (KB) Is there a cost difference for the proposed model?
i. Chief Crelly: Operationally the department’s study of this indicates a
modest increase in cost, which is lower than the costs that would be
incurred if the department was forced to go to a full-time department.
Right now, in the POC model, 85-90% of all firefighters respond to all
City of Golden Valley Facilities Study Task Force Meeting Minutes
Feb 2, 2020 – 3:30 pm
3
calls; in a duty crew model, staff on shift at the station would respond,
which is a savings from having all personnel respond to all calls.
e. (KB) Has the department considered joining/partnering with adjacent
departments like West Metro?
i. Chief Crelly: GVFD has reached out to West Metro, Plymouth, and Saint
Louis Park to see if they would be interested, and none found benefits to
their own programs to partner. Golden Valley would still require their
own fire stations in any partnership agreement. It was noted that the
current fire stations #2 and #3 currently better serve adjacent cities
(Minneapolis and Robbinsdale) that they do Golden Valley, because of
their geographic placement.
f. (GC) Reaffirmed from previous knowledge that the City should prioritize and
value fire department response times as a critical need.
i. Chief Crelly: The POC model would save 4 to 6 minutes on turnout time,
as staff would already be at the station; this would allow the department
to provide quicker, better service.
g. (GR) Safety of public buildings should be articulated as a priority. Reference
made New Hope’s incident driving a change in Golden Valley protocol to have a
GVPD officer present at council meetings (pre-COVID). A goal for the project
should be to provide public spaces which are open, visible, and safe.
i. Bruce Schwartzman (BSch): The current City Hall building allows the
public to move freely throughout the whole building, more deep into the
building than current planning would allow.
ii. (MN): the current council chamber was scheduled for renovation in 2020,
to address issues of safety and aging infrastructure. The city does not
want the space to feel fortified, and want people to feel invited to engage
with their governance. Creating a welcoming environment is important.
h. (AJ): Affirmed the Chair’s addition of safety as a priority. Also provided additional
suggestions:
i. Team should define the difference between access and accessibility.
ii. Team should prioritize the priorities.
a. (MN): Team will send a list of the priorities to the Task Force for
each member to rank order the priorities.
iii. For distribution to the public, team should review the language and
presentation of priorities – make them compelling and impactful.
i. (GR) A priority should be keeping people together. Can the team explore the cost
benefits of collaboration?
j. (MM) Is the sale of parcel(s) of the NE quadrant still a part of the proposed plan?
i. (SM) This project intends to carry forward the recommendations of the
Downtown Study, which has identified targeted goals for the additional
City of Golden Valley Facilities Study Task Force Meeting Minutes
Feb 2, 2020 – 3:30 pm
4
of commercial/retail/housing to this block as part of the overall civic
vision.
ii. (CS) Does the City have a plan for how to evaluate developer’s proposals
and how the City will provide feedback on proposed development
approaches?
a. (MN) The city has not developed a formal process yet, but will
develop a process for soliciting proposals and evaluating against
city goals and objectives.
k. (KS) Does building design safety – i.e. difference between 1 and 2 stories?
i. (SM) and (BSch): Either type of building can be designed for safety, for
example – managing public flow and access to stairs/elevators. Locating
primary public uses on the first floor of a two story building is one way to
manage safety overall.
2. Review of Space Programming
a. The team shared programming updates for each department, pausing at each for
input and questions from the Task Force.
b. Fire Department: Since the stations were built, NFPA standards have been
updated to reflect new science; to comply with the updated standards, which is
important in the long-term, would require significant additions and renovations
to the current facilities, achieved with greater value and effectiveness as part of
new construction. Current facilities cannot support 24-7 use – there is
insufficient bathroom and locker space, and no bunk rooms. Plan is for a staff of
60: 30 firefighters per station, with around 6 on duty for each shift.
i. (KB) Will new buildings include gender neutral facilities? Recommend
using that language in any program documents vs. highlighting changes
that only impact women, which could be off-putting.
a. Chief Crelly and Craig Carter: Facilities will be designed as gender
neutral, which is critical with a duty crew model because the
balance of staff cannot be projected – either long-term or per
shift. There may be times when an entire shift is all women or all
men.
ii. (BS) What kinds of training spaces will be provided? Will they be flexible
for different kinds of uses, or for community use?
a. (CC) Both stations will have large classrooms, designed for FD use
and to allow for use during elections. Station #1’s room will be
sized for its dual function as an EOC (Emergency Operations
Center). Stations #1 is proposed to include a training tower, useful
for a range of training types.
City of Golden Valley Facilities Study Task Force Meeting Minutes
Feb 2, 2020 – 3:30 pm
5
iii. (CS) It is important to be clear about the proposed programs for GVPD
and GVFD to be define which elements translate into increased benefit to
the public.
a. (CC): Example: proposed programs have more apparatus bays:
critical to provide space for different types of apparatus, but also
to ensure they are easily accessible quickly when needed. Current
stations are pull in/pull out, and require that specialty equipment
be stored at the rear of apparatus bays, behind other equipment.
Another example is investment in cancer prevention planning
measures: these will increase recruitment and retention.
b. Project team to continue considering this recommendation in
development of ongoing content, especially further community
engagement collateral.
iv. (MM) Will the stations be pull-through?
a. (CC) It is a goal that they be pull-through, though this will be
contingent upon available site space. This reduces potential
damage to equipment and to buildings.
v. (KB) What opportunities exist for sharing training?
a. Chief Crelly: GVFD does this a lot, for instance with West Metro.
The ability to provide more training onsite benefits service as it
doesn’t require the department to backfill staff for offsite
training. Joint training factors into ISO rating, so having facilities
with dedicated training space will benefit the department and the
community.
vi. (KS) Is there land available for a bigger fire station?
a. (CC and MN): This project will not identify specific target sites for
the relocated Station #2, but will identify requirements for site
selection, and recommendations for site features and attributes.
c. Police Department: Facility standards and requirements are provided by CALEA
(the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies), and by MN
BCA (the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension). There is a current loss of
efficiency and distinct operational challenges in the 2-story facility. There is a
lack of exterior and interior secure storage for police vehicles. The existing single
training room is shared with GVFD, and does not allow for specialized training,
which is the heart of service – situational awareness, physical training, classroom
training. The building has a minimal amount of space outside of secure areas,
which limits some operations.
i. (KS) Would training spaces be flexible and available for community use?
a. (MH) Yes, that would be the goal for the community room
especially.
City of Golden Valley Facilities Study Task Force Meeting Minutes
Feb 2, 2020 – 3:30 pm
6
b. (MN) The City hopes to provide more community training:
Brookview was intended for this purpose, but is often fully
booked. Additional community training spaces would be
beneficial.
ii. (BSch) A reminder to the Task Force that GVPD is a 24-7 department,
which is not typical for all Metro communities. This provides a higher
level of service and responsiveness.
d. Public Works: The biggest driver requiring change is the substantial increase in
equipment size since the time the city’s buildings were constructed: an example
was provided of existing plow parking spaces (392 SF) and current standard plow
spaces (810 SF). Fleet size is not increasing, but the equipment size has, to meet
best practices.
i. (BS) Is there a proposed location for relocating Public Works? (KB) Could
portions of service be located at Brookview?
a. (AC) Specific sites are not being evaluated as part of this project,
which will define requirements and recommendations for
property size and location, as service can be 24/7, so placement
adjacent to compatible zoning (i.e. not residential) is critical.
ii. (GC) From personal experience, can confirm the issues and damage when
equipment doesn’t fit. This can lead to costly vehicle repair challenges.
iii. (KB) In 1980, when Public Works originally sought to centralize in
Downtown Golden Valley, one priority listed was to increase employee
morale. Is that no longer important?
a. (TK) Employee morale is very important, and the adjacency to City
Hall is nice to have re: ability to drop in for conversations. At
present, a more critical priority is to consolidate public works
facilities to a single location, to address inefficiencies in labor and
mobilization.
e. Re: Public Space Program – Indoors and out:
i. (KS) A high priority should be to provide spaces of gathering.
ii. (BS) Want to build on the success of Brookview
a. (MN) Even with the success of Brookview, there are still
unaddressed space needs, which both define project success and
return on investment, but highlight additional needs within the
community.
f. City Hall: The existing building is spatially inefficient: two floors and separation of
work suites lead to department silos and minimize collaboration and
communication opportunities, as well as requiring dedicated space for
departments for features which might otherwise be shared. Proposed program
increases space for the DMV; there would be an option in future implementation
City of Golden Valley Facilities Study Task Force Meeting Minutes
Feb 2, 2020 – 3:30 pm
7
(at a renovated or new facility) to provide a dedicated entrance, so it could keep
separate operating hours from City Hall. The proposed program accommodates
growth, though large increases in staff are not projected. It increases shared
resources, and overall flexibility and adaptability.
i. (KS) Does the proposed program provide more flex space for working?
Might rooms be flexible for reconfigured sizing?
a. (KN) Yes, additional enclosed meeting spaces are provided, as are
spaces for open collaboration, which provide flexibility for
department changes. There is some ability to adjust room sizes,
though this would have to be reviewed for the costs associated
with special assemblies versus the benefit.
ii. (MM) Does the program include a full-service DMV?
a. (SV) Full-service would be 100% of employees working at the
counter, which is a part of this program. The city cannot do
passport processing – a federal government process – as it is
within 4 miles of Robbinsdale. Providing driver’s licenses would
require additional equipment.
iii. (KB) How much of volume will be impacted through online usage versus
in-person?
a. (KN) The current program takes into account an understanding of
volumes of service types.
iv. (GR) Important to reflect on the expanded timeline of elections
throughout the year re: increased options. How does this impact the
current need for consolidated elections storage and space and for flex
space to be used? Example: city was at approximately 90% of residents
voting in the last election, with about 350 people per week at City Hall in
November 2020.
3. Financing – Brookview Case Study
a. Due to the length of discussion about the previous two items, this agenda item
was tabled until the next meeting. Task Force members affirmed that this was
information they would like to review.
4. Review of Plans for Community Engagement Phase 2
a. Originally the project provided two touchpoints with the community: one to
engage residents about project goals and vision, and one to share and gain
feedback on planning proposals. As a result of survey feedback from Phase I, and
from dialogue with the Task Force and Steering Committee, the project’s
Communication Subcommittee is recommending two more community
touchpoints: 1.5 to revisit the “whys” of the project – needs and priorities, and
to separate that from a later session 2, which will present planning concepts for
feedback.
City of Golden Valley Facilities Study Task Force Meeting Minutes
Feb 2, 2020 – 3:30 pm
8
i. Re: (AJ) earlier comment to ensure messaging and communication to the
public is engaging and compelling.
ii. (AJ) Provide information in smaller pieces rather than as one whole
dataset. Be mindful of information overload.
a. (CS) Change the format to be less detailed and focused on what
people are most engaged by: safety, equity, and coming back
together.
iii. (GC) Offer next sessions, if live, at more than one time, to ensure access
and reach.
iv. (GR) Define the key problems and demonstrate/illustrate real-world
impacts. Can you provide a users point of view (example: a video inside a
public works truck doing the multi-point turn, or how hard it is to find
and get to the public safety training room for a community training
event)?
5. Next Steps
a. Develop Preliminary Conceptual Scenarios
b. Plan and Market Community Engagement Phase I.5 and 2
Next Meeting:
1. Task Force: Tuesday, February 16th 3:30 – 5:30pm.
ATTEST:
_________________________________
Marc Nevinski, Staff Liasion
Respectfully submitted,
Marc Nevinski, Physical Development Director