agenda packet (entire)
AGENDA
Regular Meeting
of the
City Council
Golden Valley City Hall
7800 Golden Valley Road
Council Chamber
November 18, 2008
6:30 p.m.
The Council may consider item numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7
prior to the public hearings scheduled at 7:00 p.m.
1. CALL TO ORDER
A. Roll Call
B. Minneapolis - Joint Water Commission Water Task Force Final Report
1. Presentation by Scott Harder, Environmental Financial Group, Inc.
2. Designating Creation of a Water Advisory Board and Adopting its Vision
Statement for a Sustainable Regional Water Supply 08-51
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 or citizen so requests in which
event the item will be removed from the general order of business and considered in its
normal sequence on the agenda.
A. Approval of Minutes - City Council Meeting - October 21 and November 3,2008 and
Council/Manager Meeting - November 10, 2008
B. Approval of Check Registers:
1. City
2. Housing and Redevelopment Authority
C. Minutes of Boards and Commissions:
1. Planning Commission - October 13, 2008
2. Human Services Foundation - October 6,2008
D. Letters and/or Petitions
1. Petition Regarding Little Tot Drop In
E. Authorization to Sign NightCAP Grant Contract 08-53
4. PUBLIC HEARINGS 7:00 PM
5. OLD BUSINESS
6. NEW BUSINESS
A. Announcements of Meetings
B. Mayor and Council Communications
7. ADJOURNMENT
alley
Mem rand m
Public Works
763-593-8030 I 763-593-3988 (fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
November 18,2008
Agenda Item
1. B. Minneapolis - Joint Water Commission Water Task Force Final Report
Prepared By
Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works
Summary
The Joint Water Task Force was convened in late 2005 to address several goals outlined in
the 2003 Water Purchase Agreement between the City of Minneapolis and the Joint Water
Commission (JWC). The water policy goals of the Task Force were as follows:
. Compile and review existing technical planning information needed to make joint water
supply planning decisions;
. Consider a stronger governance role for the JWC;
. Evaluate an emergency backup water supply;
. Evaluate conjunctive use of JWC groundwater and Mississippi River water; and
. Develop policy on emergency interconnections.
Membership from the Task Force consisted of officials from the cities of Minneapolis, Crystal,
Golden Valley, and New Hope. Mayor Loomis, Council Member Shaffer, and City Manager
Tom Burt served on the Task Force as Golden Valley's representatives.
Scott Harder of the Environmental Financial Group, Inc., who facilitated the work of the Task
Force, will present a summary of the accomplishments at the Council meeting. After the
presentation, staff recommends adoption of the attached resolution, which supports creation
of a Water Advisory Board.
Attachments
Resolution Designating the Creation of a Water Advisory Board and Adopting its Vision
Statement for a Sustainable Regional Water Supply (3 pages)
Recommended Action
Motion to adopt Resolution Designating the Creation of a Water Advisory Board and Adopting
its Vision Statement for a Sustainable Regional Water Supply.
Resolution 08-51
November 18, 2008
Member
introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION DESIGNATING THE CREATION OF A
WATER ADVISORY BOARD AND ADOPTING ITS VISION STATEMENT
FORA SUSTAINABLE REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY
WHEREAS, the City of Golden Valley is a member of the Joint Water Commission
along with the cities of Crystal and New Hope; and
WHEREAS, the Joint Water Commission (JWC) has purchased treated, potable water
from the City of Minneapolis since 1963 and continues to do so under the terms of a 2004
Water Purchase Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the 2004 Water Purchase Agreement between the Joint Water
Commission and the City of Minneapolis stipulates that "the parties agree to participate in a
joint Minneapolis Water Works (MWW)/JWC water task force that will meet regularly over the
next four years to consider a stronger governance role for the JWC in the MWW water system,
emergency interconnections with neighbors of the JWC, conjunctive use of JWC groundwater
and MWW river water, development of an emergency backup water supply, and the use of
JWC groundwater to augment MWW's supplies"; and
WHEREAS, the work of the Joint Water Task Force recently concluded, following the
adoption of sustainable strategy guidelines and endorsement of the creation of a water
advisory board; and
WHEREAS, stewardship of Golden Valley's Mississippi River through this regional
water partnership water supply involves diligence in conservation, drought management and
response, climate-aware planning, and other matters requiring regular coordination among our
partners; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Golden
Valley:
1. That the City of Golden Valley supports the creation of a Water Advisory Board,
which purpose, membership, operations, finance, duties, and responsibilities are
outlined in Exhibit A and attached hereto.
2. That the City of Golden Valley adopts the Vision for a Sustainable Regional Water
Supply for the MWW/JWC Task Force, which goals, objectives, and
recommendations are outlined in Exhibit B and attached hereto.
Linda R. Loomis, Mayor
ATTEST:
Susan M. Virnig, City Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Member
and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the Mayor and
her signature attested by the City Clerk.
Exhibit A
Proposed Water Supply Advisory Board
Minneapolis - Joint Water Commission Water Task Force
Purposes
The Water Supply Advisory Board shall communicate with and make
recommendations to the City of Minneapolis regarding matters relating
to its operation, maintenance, cost and cost apportionment, financing,
operating budget, and capital planning.
Strengthen the regional water partnership through enhanced advisory
governance with voting to be commensurate with the financial risks
borne by each member.
Advocate for the protection of the Mississippi River surface water
supply, groundwater sources, and provide for the management of
climate change impacts and water demand.
Membership
Minneapolis and wholesale customers shall be members. Members
shall serve staggered, three-year terms.
Voting
Minneapolis shall maintain a minimum 51 percent of voting
representation. Matters with the exception of approval of operating
budg.ets and capital projects shall require a simple majority. Financial
matters shall require a supermajority.
Operations
Advise on all matters pertaining to the quality and quantity of water
deliveries to wholesale customers.
Finance
Advise on matters pertaining to Minneapolis Water Works annual
operating budgets, capital improvement plans, and audits.
DUTIES AND RESPONSIBIUTIES
Identify criteria to be considered in prioritizing capital improvement projects. Develop and
recommend suggestions and recommendations to the proposed Capital Improvement Plan,
specific capital projects, and in the capital planning and financing process.
Review and comment on the Minneapolis Water Works Capital Improvement Plan. Make a
presentation to the Mayor of Minneapolis annually as part of the budgeting process.
Host an annual meeting to discuss the Capital Improvement Plan on a schedule sufficient to
allow wholesale customers participation in Minneapolis Water Works capital budget review
process.
Participate in review of the Minneapolis Water Works Operations and Maintenance budget.
Ensure wholesale customers effectively participate in annual budget deliberations.
Review efforts to develop and implement water conservation and drought response plans.
Make recommendations to the City of Minneapolis regarding demand management to ensure
consistency in water conservation efforts throughout the service area. Advocate for the
protection and prudent use of water resources.
Goal:
Objectives:
Exhibit B
A Vision for a
Sustainable Regional Water Supply
Minneapolis - Joint Water Commission Water Task Force
Strengthen a 30-year regional water partnership
Demonstrate a commitment to long-term water supply sustainability through
conservation, climate-aware water supply planning, proactive drought planning
and response, and preservation of future supplemental and emergency supplies
Celebrate stewardship of the Mississippi River
Position Minneapolis and its municipal partners to take advantage of emerging
state and regional funding opportunities through
"'-l> Economies of scale
"'-l> "Best Practices" demand management policies and practices
"'-l> Grantable projects offering substantial regional benefits
"'-l> Stronger drought management position with Federal government
Collectively enhance water system sustainability by
"'-l> Providing advisory governance for effective budgetary and capital
investment oversight
"'-l> Reducing material, energy, and greenhouse gas emissions
"'-l> Leveraging financial investments in system capacity through additional
wholesale agreements
= Establishing interconnections with surrounding communities
"'-l> Maintaining future ability to supplement Mississippi River water with
groundwater
"'-l> Conserving and protecting Mississippi River supply
Recommendations:
Launch new Water Supply Advisory Board with budget and capital oversight
Commit to long-term water supply sustainability
alley
M orandum
Finance
763-593-8013/763-593-8109 (fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
November 18, 2008
Agenda Item
3. B. 1. Approval of City Check Register
Prepared By
Sue Virnig, Finance Director
Summary
Approval of check register for various vendor claims against the City of Golden Valley.
Attachments
Loose in agenda packet.
Recommended Action
Motion to authorize the payment of the bills as submitted.
Hey
Memoran urn
Finance
763-593-8013/763-593-8109 (fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
November 18, 2008
Agenda Item
3. B. 2. Approval of Housing and Redevelopment Authority Check Register
Prepared By
Sue Virnig, Finance Director
Summary
Approval of check register for various vendor claims against the Housing and Redevelopment
Authority.
Attachments
Loose in agenda packet.
Recommended Action
Motion to authorize the payment of the bills as submitted.
Regular Meeting of the
Golden Valley Planning Commission
October 13, 2008
A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall,
Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota, on Monday,
October 13, 2008. Chair Keysser called the meeting to order at 7 pm.
Those present were Planning Commissioners Cera, Eck, Kluchka, McCarty, Schmidgall
and Waldhauser. Also present was Director of Planning and Development Mark Grimes,
City Planner Joe Hogeboom and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. Commissioner
Keysser was absent.
1. Approval of Minutes
September 22, 2008 Regular Planning Commission Meeting
Eck referred to the Quail Woods subdivision proposal and stated that he didn't think the
Planning Commission could legally add conditions of approval on a subdivision that
meets all of the City's requirements. Grimes stated conditions have been placed on
subdivision proposals in the past. He added that conditions could also be placed on the
property in the subdivision development agreement which could be amended in the
future. He said he would review the issue with the City Attorney.
MOVED by McCarty, seconded by Kluchka and motion carried unanimously to approve
the September 22 minutes as submitted.
2. Informal Public Hearing - Zoning Code Amendment - Regarding Height of
Buildings Allowed by Conditional Use in the High Density Residential Zoning
District (R-4)
Applicant: City of Golden Valley
Purpose: To consider the height of buildings allowed by Conditional Use in
the High Density Zoning District (R-4)
Grimes noted that this is an informal public hearing regarding the height of buildings
allowed in the R-4 zoning district without requiring a Conditional Use Permit. He
explained that this issue came about because of the Applewood Pointe PUD proposal.
The properties involved in the Applewood Pointe proposal are designated on the
General Land Use Plan Map as High Density and the corresponding zoning district for
that designation is R-4. He stated that the City Council held a public hearing regarding
the rezoning of the properties that are proposed to make up the Applewood Pointe
development and there was concern about allowing an 8-story or 96-foot high building
without some sort of City review. Because of this concern the City Council wants the
Planning Commission to review the language regarding height in the R-4 zoning district.
Grimes stated that staff is recommending the language be changed to allow 5 stories or
60 feet in height and that anything taller would need a Conditional Use Permit. He
stated that Commissioner Eck questioned if the height regulations should be linked to
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
October 13, 2008
Page 2
the Conditional Use Permit process because Conditional Use Permits can be revoked if
the conditions aren't met and the height of a building can't be revoked. He questioned if
the height issue should be considered a variance issue instead.
Cera asked about the height regulation in the R-3 zoning district. Grimes stated that the
R-3 district allows buildings to be 48 feet in height before requiring a Conditional Use
Permit.
Grimes questioned if there are different construction techniques when going from a four
story building to a five story building. McCarty said yes, a four story building would
probably be a wood frame building whereas a five story building would most likely
switch to metal frame construction.
Grimes noted that taller buildings would likely be built using the PUD process. He stated
that Commissioner Eck has a good point about using the CUP process and said he
would get the City Attorney's opinion. Eck reiterated that a CUP is granted based on
some type of condition and if an applicant failsto meet the conditions a CUP could be
revoked. He questioned how a CUP could be revoked once a building is built.
Schmidgall asked about the number of buildings currently in the City that are over 60
feet in height. Grimes stated that the Calvary co-op building is the tallest building in the
City.
Waldhauser noted that the properties in the Applewood Pointe development are all
adjacent to single family homes. Grimes referred to the zoning map and stated that
there are several R-4 properties that are adjacent to R-1 properties.
Schmidgall said he thought they were trying to get the General Land Use Plan map and
the Zoning map to match and noted that there are several properties on the Zoning map
that don't match their land use designation. He asked if the Planning Commission could
discuss making the two maps match each other. Grimes said yes, he is planning to
bring the two maps back to the Planning Commission for review.
Kluchka asked why the Applewood Pointe development is a PUD. Grimes stated that
some of the reasons Applewood Pointe is being considered as a PUD is because the
proposed two buildings share parking and access, the proposed setbacks are less than
required and the value of the land dictates the use of the property. Waldhauser said it
seems like the density is also what drives a development to use the PUD process.
Kluchka asked about other differences between the R-3 and R-4 zoning districts and
questioned if the setback requirements should be increased in the R-4 zoning district.
Grimes stated that the setbacks in the R-3 and R-4 zoning districts were recently
reduced in order to create a more "urban" setting. Cera suggested having different
. guidelines depending on what is adjacent. Grimes explained that the zoning code used
to divide the districts according to density but it was decided by the Planning
Commission and City Council to implement height requirements and lot coverage
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
October 13, 2008
Page 3
requirements instead. He said that staff would do additional research and talk to the
City Attorney regarding the issue of height and Conditional Use Permits.
Schmidgall said he likes the idea of allowing 60 feet in height for buildings in the R-4
zoning district but he thinks Commissioner Eck is correct about not tying the height to
the Conditional Use Permit process.
Cera said he thinks the Planning Commission should look at the setback requirements
in the R-4 zoning district and whether taller buildings should have to seek a variance or
a PUD instead of a CUP. Grimes questioned what the hardship would be if an applicant
wanted a taller building.
Waldhauser said she can't imagine anything over 4 stories in height being acceptable to
residents in an adjacent single family area. She questioned if the City even wants to
keep the R-4 zoning district.
McCarty said he would like to eliminate any reference to "stories" and just deal with
heig ht.
Waldhauser opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to
comment, Waldhauser closed the public hearing.
Kluchka said he is reluctant to change the R-4 zoning district right now. He said if the
City has an R-3 zoning district and a person can ask for a variance to build something
taller then it seems superfluous to have an R-4 zoning district. Waldhauser stated that
there is higher density allowed in the R-4 zoning district. She asked about the density
for the Applewood Pointe proposal. Grimes said the density for the Applewood Pointe
proposal is approximately 30 units per acre.
McCarty stated that many of the apartment buildings in the City have a higher density
so he thinks they need to keep the R-4 zoning district.
Cera suggested requiring larger front yard setbacks if a property is across the street
from R-1 single family properties like they are for side and rear yard setbacks. Grimes
stated the reason for the smaller front yard setback in the R-4 zoning district is because
there is a street between the properties with 60 feet of right-of-way and 35 feet of front
yard setback area on the properties across the street.
Schmidgall questioned why the Planning Commission should review the setback
requirements. Cera said he would like to address the issue of massing and the
transition of large high rises next to residential neighborhoods. Grimes suggested
looking at each lot zoned R-4 individually and then discuss setback language.
Schmidgall said he is in favor of changing the allowed height in the R-4 zoning district to
60 feet.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
October 13, 2008
Page 4
Grimes referred to the language in the R~4 zoning district and suggested removing
Subdivision 5(C) regarding requiring a Conditional Use Permit for buildings over 8
stories or 96 feet in height and adding Subdivision 10(8) stating that buildings shall not
exceed 60 feet in height. He suggested the same amendment to the R~3 zoning district.
McCarty said he would prefer to allow taller buildings because there would then be
more green space. He suggested allowing 72 feet of height for buildings in the R~4
zoning district.
Schmidgall said he doesn't think the Planning Commission is suggesting that no
building over 60 feet in height would ever be built he would just like buildings taller than
60 feet in height to have to go through the review process.
Waldhauser said she is concerned about the massing issue.
Cera suggested waiting to discuss building height until they have further discussion
about the rest of the language in the R~4 zoning district.
McCarty said he thought the City Council gave this issue back to the Planning
Commission strictly to discuss height. He said he is confused if they are talking about
rezoning the Applewood Pointe properties or not.
Schmidgall said his understanding was that the City Council was concerned about
allowing a 96 foot tall building in the R~4 zoning district before a Conditional Use Permit
would be required.
Grimes explained that the City Council did not rezone the Applewood Pointe properties
yet. Waldhauser questioned if the City Council can go to the next step in the Applewood
Pointe approval process without rezoning the properties involved. Kluchka asked why
the zoning of the property matters if the proposal is a PUD. Grimes stated that it has
been the opinion of the City Attorney that the PUD use should match the underlying
zoning district and be consistent with the General Land Use Plan map.
Schmidgall said his understanding is that the struggle to keep Applewood Pointe off this
property is lost so now the concern is about allowing buildings in the future to be 96 feet
in height without requiring a Conditional Use Permit.
McCarty said if the Applewood Pointe properties are not yet rezoned maybe they should
reconsider the decision to rezone them to R~4.
Cera asked Grimes how long it would take staff to research the issues that have been
discussed. Grimes said approximately one month.
MOVED by Schmidgall, seconded by Cera and motion carried 6 to 1 to amend the
language in the R~3 zoning district to state that buildings shall not exceed 48 feet in
height and that in the R~4 zoning district buildings shall not exceed 60 feet in height.
Commissioner McCarty voted no.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
October 13, 2008
Page 5
---Short Recess---
3. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City
Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings
No other meetings were discussed.
4. Other Business
A. Presentation by Michael Schroeder (LHB) regarding the Douglas Drive
Corridor Study
Hogeboom introduced Michael Schroeder from LHB, the consultant working on the
Douglas Drive Corridor Study.
Schroeder explained that the Douglas Drive Corridor Study Group has listened to the
community and is ready to start working on some concept plans. He noted that Douglas
Drive is a county road and there is no money available at this point to make significant
improvements in the corridor so this is truly a planning study.
Waldhauser stated that it has been very encouraging to see how many people have
been interested in this study and what she has heard people say is that whatever is
done in the corridor they want to make sure it enhances the quality of the single family
properties.
Schroeder referred to a PowerPoint presentation and discussed the boundaries of the
study. He explained that the study is trying to accommodate existing users, especially
pedestrians and bicycles and that safety is a prime concern.
Schroeder discussed the stakeholder and community input from a workshop conducted
on October 6,2008. He referred to a map that showed potential for change and
explained that the map will help define the policies that will affect the future of the
corridor.
Schroeder discussed the next steps in the study process including the beginning of
development concepts, pedestrian and bicycle networks, roadway options, future traffic
projections and stormwater management concepts.
Hogeboom stated that they are planning to have an open house in December 2008 or
early 2009 and they hope to wrap-up the study early next year and bring it to the
Planning Commission and City Council for review and approval early in 2009.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
October 13, 2008
Page 6
B. Discussion - Setbacks for patios and other paved areas in the Single
Family Zoning District (R-1)
Hogeboom explained that the issue regarding setback requirements for patios has been
brought to staff's attention due to a recent variance request. He stated that currently the
Zoning Code has a 3-foot setback requirement for driveways, but not for patios or other
paved areas. He stated that he would like the Planning Commission to give staff
direction on what they would like see regarding this issue.
Schmidgall stated that a 3-foot setback requirement for patios seems reasonable. He
asked about the rules regarding parking on grassy areas. Hogeboom explained that
people are allowed drive over any type of surface they just can't park anywhere except
on a driveway.
Eck asked about the definition of a patio. Hogeboom stated that the Zoning Code
doesn't define "patio" so staff uses the dictionary definition.
Grimes noted that a deck or platform less than eight inches in height could also be built
right up to the property line.
Schmidgall asked about shared driveways. Grimes said the City does allow shared
driveways.
Waldhauser asked about retaining walls. Grimes said retaining walls can located in
setback areas.
Kluchka questioned the difference between requiring a 3-foot setback for patios versus
the setback requirements for a structure.
Hogeboom said he also is questioning setback requirements for sidewalks. Grimes said
he is concerned about requiring a setback for sidewalks because there are many 40-
foot wide lots in Golden Valley and a sidewalk setback would not leave much room for a
person to build a sidewalk. Cera stated he thinks that would be considered a hardship.
Hogeboom said he would work on potential language to add to the Zoning Code and
bring it back to the Planning Commission for their review.
5. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 8:40 pm.
Lester Eck, Secretary
Golden Valley Human Services Foundation (GVHSF) Meeting Minutes
October 6, 2008
Present: Daniel Blumb, Hilmer Erickson, Gloria Johnson, Chris Monroe, Connie Sandler,
Steve Schumacher and Toots Vodovoz. Also present Jeanne Fackler, Staff Liaison.
Not Present: Shannon Breimhurst, Elissa Heilicher, Teri Holgate, Bob Hoyt and Diane
Nimmer,
Call to Order: Chairperson Blumb called the meeting to order at 6:40 p.m.
September 8 minutes: Johnson moved and Monroe seconded the motion to approve the
minutes of September 8. The motion passed unanimously.
Allocation of funds:
After much discussion the Commission will recommend to the Council the following
allocations for approval:
Northwest Suburban Dinner At Your Door -$5,000
Tree House -$5,000
Greater Minneapolis Crisis Nursery -$10,000
The Bridge for Youth -$5,000
Senior Community Services HOME -$6,000
Senior Community Services Outreach -$3,000
Home Free Shelter -$2,500
Community Mediation Services -$2,500
Crisis Connection - requesting $3,000
The Commission did not fund Right to Live USA and Neighborhood Involvement Program
for 2009 but would encourage the agencies to apply 2010 funding emphasizing their work
with Golden Valley residents. PRISM did not apply for funding in 2009.
Taste of Golden Valley: Monroe reported that 48 restaurants were sent letters asking for
their participation. Doolittles and Noodles & Company have committed to the event.
Sandler will be going to the city commission meetings urging their support of the event.
Nimmer has contacted John Ewald, StarTribune columnist, who will attend. Nimmer is
meeting with Nina Cook, host of Seniors on Screen" to promote the event. It was suggested
to give each participating restaurant a plaque as a thank you for participating. Town Crier
Promotions will order the plaques at cost.
Golf Tournament: Golfers enjoyed the tournament .Approximately $4,800 was raised.
The Commission recommended offering the event in 2009 and re-evaluate. Discussion
centered on other revenue resources since the golf tournament numbers were low.
Suggestions included a 4 on 4 basketball tournament, baseball or soccer tournament. The
Commission will discuss the suggestions at a future meeting.
Other Business:
Solicitation letter: Fackler reported the letter will be drafted by the Communications
department and sent in November to residents.
Council meeting: Blumb will present the Commission's recommendations for funding to
the Council. Fackler will contact the City Clerk to be placed on the agenda.
Valley Days: Schumacher will contact the chairs of the Valley Days Committee to discuss
how the groups can support each other. It was felt that the GVHSF should have a
table/booth at Valley Days promoting the Foundation.
Adjournment: Monroe moved to adjourn the meeting, Johnson seconded the motion. The
meeting was adjourned at 7:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jeanne Fackler
GVHSF Staff Liaison
561 0 -1 'l~
1ft'S .... 5CIC)tX)3~
~ 9sJ -- 54ro - o3foO
6. ~cJAIL ~~ ~ .
7. ~ ~ ry'\OC ~tJW\.on qS)~ q?:>o- r;rq ;;;L
~.
9.~ri5)j Q\A\IIJ
10. .{\\~ ~~
\ ~\
\\.~~ \!JOIN 1.e11-lP7D-}D11
\ z.. Co...to\< 1\ ~~ ffiE()E'S: (l{"~3Jr\ '1S1 '\';) l? 'lfi q oS'
I;. ~~ 1c;t--2?6t Sf/4
NOV 1 fJ 2008
We the ~~~A of Golden Valley would appreciate the opportunity to have a
"Little Tot Drop In", at Brookview Community Center. This would be a program
fashioned after what is offered at the Saint Louis Park Recreation Center.
This unsupervised activity would be for children ages 1-5 and would meet weekly,
preferably in the morning ~uch as 9:30-11 :30. Children would have the opportunity to
play with riding toys, balls, blocks and other toys.
We see this as an opportunity to build community and connect with other parents and
children who live in Golden Valley. How wonderful it would be to have a gathering place
in Golden Valley where parents of young children can come together during the day to
share common interests and form new friendships.
Signatures
1.
S8~ ~ fl'7{PfJ
74>3-'-('8(,' 8350
2.
7~1.
3.
4.
5.
fifeJ{ 1>lAd
8.
103 .
77~ql7a
g52-qZJD~02-B2-
lb~- 33\- D5~)
~
We the young mothers of Golden Valley would appreciate the opportunity to have a
"Little Tot Drop In", at Brookview Community Center. This would be a program
fashioned after what is offered at the Saint Louis Park Recreation Center.
This unsupervised activity would be for children ages 1-5 and would meet weekly,
preferably in the morning such as 9:30-11 :30. Children would have the opportunity to
play with riding toys, balls, blocks and other toys.
We see this as an opportunity to build community and connect with other parents and
children who live in Golden Valley. How wonderful it would be to have a gathering place
in Golden Valley where parents of young children can come together during the day to
share common interests and form new friendships.
Signatures
L amI} ;/~'-
2. ~fo~
3. ~0J\
4. (fU ~
5.
6.
1(jli t~lJ'5 &v[jJ
d\ckGt 1UYS~ 3 otkWs...
C~tyl'~tv~ ~ttt.X>y1~ ~ ~
7.
8.
9.
~
LCiV t'JA- -tt.. ~
10.
1v~ M~t~
We the young mothers of Golden Valley would appreciate the opportunity to have a
"Little Tot Drop In", at Brookview Community Center. This would be a program
fashioned after what is offered at the Saint Louis Park Recreation Center.
This unsupervised activity would be for children ages 1-5 and would meet weekly,
preferably in the morning such as 9:30-11:30. Children would have the opportunity to
play with riding toys, balls, blocks and other toys.
We see this as an opportunity to build community and connect with otI,.er parents and
children who live in Golden Valley. How wonderful it would be to have a gathering place
in Golden Valley where parents of young children can come together during the day to
share common interests and form new friendships.
Signatures
LilJkm jgck~
2. ~7 t~~
3.~ ~-~
J}Jo ~
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
petlon
Page 1 of 1
petion
ChriS GUMZ [cbabgumz@q.com)
Sent: Wednesday, November 05,20081:01 PM
To: Scanlon, DeDe
We the young mothers of Golden VaHey would appreciate the opportunity to have a "Little Tot Drop In", at
Brook-view CA)mmunity C-enter. This would be a program fashioned after what is offered at the Saint Louis Park
Recreation Center.
This unsupervised activity would be for children ages] -5 and would meet weekly, preferably in the morning such
as 9:30-11 :30. Children would have the opportunity to play with riding toys, balls, blocks and other toys.
We see this as an opportunity to build comnllmity and connect with other parents and children who live in Golden
Valley How wonderfi.ll it would be to have a gathering place in Golden Valley where parents of young children
can come together during the day to share common interests and form new friendships.
Signatures
1. BeckyGumz
2.
'"
.,.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
MAY CONTAI~J COMCi[)UJTiAL Ar..JDIOF;
review', use, disclosure (1lstribution is If you
PFOPFIETARY MATERIAL and is thus for use by the intended recipient
notify the sender' and delete e-mail and its attachments
from aH
https://mail.ci .golden-valley .mn.us/owa/?ae=Ttem&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAADISlk5IzxB... 11/912008
w~ thp '-'0~!nCJ" m~1thP'r~ nf(-~~lrh~n \r~~H~v '-J.Jonhi
- ---- J ~ ~---o ---- -~~--- -- - ~~-- --~--.i
GGT ~". 'I ~ 6"Y""'1ir. T"". T""!> 'I ,r'"( ~ .
LiLLi~ lUL i..iiUP ill, alDiUUK-ViC\-V L.UiiiiiiU.HH,y
~nnr~r1~t,::. th,::. nnnt,rtu"it" 1-1" h~-,,"P a
-~::'r-.a:---"---u~,-,,-,,---::,::,--' ::.:::.-"----'" --"c-c----"-"-"---=-"--"--"-::..J "- - _n_ -:;"'--
r"'t o. 1l"T"l'l" '1'1'1
,-,~Ui~i. ums WUUiti U~ a pi ugumi
fashIOned after what is offered at the saint Louts Park RecreatIOn Center.
ThtQ !,n~!,nprv-!~prl ~M1v';t'l '1;/["'1,-1 hp h-H~ ,.hl1rlrf:loTl !top~ 1_" ~nri ,\J./,.-",I,-1 m~pt '1./~~Jt.lu
-"-- -"--"--"--- ::..=-"--"-~-::..= j:---- -"- - -,,---.:_~n_= ::..::.-_::..-"- -. -"-::".J -:; -:; -..,.--:..~.::.----= "-----~. ..::..----"- --''::''::''::''::'--=-'::' --".::..::. ::"::'0.--'-- "'- ~' ::..::.-,,--,,--_= - ~ -_- -:"0-"--_= -,,--=--,,--- -~'::' '::- -:; -~ --'-=-~ -
~ .... ,.. 'I .""1. "'^ -'I" .....^ ~.. ~1 .. 'I 'I '1.'1 6 6
pi~l~lalHY ill tli~ iiiUiiiiilg SU\,;ii CiS 7..JU-ll..JV. \....-iiiiUiCii vVUUiU iiiiV~ lIlt;; UPPUilUiiiLY Lv
.. .. ... .. 'I ~ ~ 'I '1'1 .... 'I ... 'I .
pmy WUii iitiiiig WYlS, uams, UiO\;KS amj Ui.ii~i iUYlS.
We see this ~1S an opportunity' tC1 build c()mmurrity and connect ~~ith c~ther pHrents ~rU1
.. .... .. .. 'too '"" .... T T 11.. TT .. ,......, '1'1'1. 'I .11 ..
\';iliiUi~ii "ViiU iiV~ iii UUiU~ii v ali~Y. nUl-V WUiiUCiiUi ii. WUUIU UC Lv iiav~ (i gal.ilCiiiig pie:U.;t:;
1n hr,ltlpn 'J'!lH~'U '~fhprp n2rpnt~ C"'l-fut'\"no f':h~Lrirp-n r:2fi r.t~,rn~ tr'f"~hpr rhrrinfT thp rl~v to
-=--=-.::. --:-_-...::...o",--'-=--=- - -----.J -:;-:;-=---=-'"'-----"---' r--::""-"-,",---'--=-"'::'~- ---;... J---=-=--=--=-i;:J -_......-=--"--:....~-=-"'--=--=- -_::..::.-=--"- __n_---=-"'--=--_ ::'---o-_-::";::'-=---'-=- "----=--~--~o ---- ---~J ~-
, ~ . 'I~ ~.. ..,-
;Siiill~ \;UiiiiiiUii iiii.~i~lSilS aUti iUiiii iit;W iii~iiUlSiiip;:,.
Signaiw ~s
,
1_
Barb BusiddVoge! 4T~h (Henwood Ave
^
~.
'"
J.
.
.:..t.
.J.
6.
,..,
f.
n
o.
r..
J.
'"
IV.
Public ~U~Y
Memorandum
Police Department
763-593-8079 I 763-593-8098 (fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
November 18, 2008
Agenda Item
3. E. Authorization to Sign NightCAP Grant Contract
Prepared By
Mike Meehan; Operations Commander
Summary
The Police Department requests the approval of the NightCAP (night-time concentrated
alcohol patrol) Grant Contract with the Commissioner of Public Safety, State Patrol Division.
The Golden Valley Police Department was awarded the NightCAP grant by the Minnesota
State Patrol. The grant awards the Police Department up to $14,245.00 in compensation and
reimbursement for NightCAP enforcement duties with no matching fund requirement to be
incurred by the City. The City is responsible for operating costs including the maintenance
and repair of squad cars used in the performance of the grant.
Operation NightCAP is an impaired driving prevention program that involves law enforcement
saturation efforts throughout the state. These saturation efforts are coordinated by staff in
each of the Minnesota State Patrol districts and include participation by state, county, and
local law enforcement agencies. Saturation efforts are directed toward those counties that
have the greatest number of alcohol-related serious and fatal crashes.
The Golden Valley Police Department has been a strong contributor to the NightCAP
program and has been awarded a relatively high percentage of the grant fund compared to
other agencies.
Attachment
Resolution Authorizing Execution of Grant Contract for Operation NightCAP (1 page)
Recommended Action
Motion to adopt Resolution Authorizing Execution of Grant Contract for Operation NightCAP.
Resolution 08-53
November 18, 2008
Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF
GRANT CONTRACT FOR OPERATION NIGHTCAP
WHEREAS, the Golden Valley Police Department was awarded the NightCAP grant
by the Minnesota State Patrol; and
WHEREAS, Operation NightCAP is an impaired driving prevention programs that
involves law enforcement saturation efforts throughout the State that are coordinated by
staff in each of the Minnesota State Patrol districts and includes participation by various
law enforcement agencies
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Golden Valley Police Department
enter into a Grant Contract with the State of Minnesota, acting through its Commissioner of
Public Safety, State Patrol Division for the period of October 1,2008 to September 30,
2009.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Chief of Police of the City of Golden Valley is
hereby authorized to execute such Grant Contracts, and amendments thereto, as are
necessary to implement the program entitled Operation NightCAP on behalf of the Golden
Valley Police Department.
Linda R. Loomis, Mayor
ATTEST:
Susan M. Virnig, City Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Member
and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the Mayor
and her signature attested by the City Clerk.