10-06-09 CC Agenda Packet
AGENDA
Regular Meeting
of the
City Council
Golden Valley City Hall
7800 Golden Valley Road
Council Chamber
October 6, 2009
6:30 p.m.
The Council may consider item numbers 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6
prior to the public hearings scheduled at 7:00 p.m.
1. CALL TO ORDER
A. 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 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 - September 1, 2009
B. Approval of Check Register
C. Licenses:
1. Gambling License Application to Conduct Excluded Bingo - Ladies Auxiliary to
the Veterans of Foreign Wars Post #7051
2. Gambling License Exemption and Waiver of Notice Requirement - Community
of Recovering People - The Retreat
3. Solicitor's License - Window Concepts of MN Inc.
D. Minutes of Boards and Commissions:
1. Planning Commission - June 22, 2009
2. Human Services Foundation - August 10, 2009
3. Board of Zoning Appeals - August 25, 2009
4. Open Space and Recreation Commission - July 27, 2009
5. Joint Water Commission - June 10, 2009
6. Envision Connection Project Board of Directors - August 20,2009
7. Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission - August 20,2009
E. Letters and/or Petitions:
1. Letter from Christopher and Meriah Chamberlain Appealing Delinquent Utility
Bill
2. Letter from Ryan Chandlee Regarding Resignation from Environmental
Commission
F. Approval of Plat - Ralph Addition - 1425 Rhode Island Avenue North 09-46
G. Approving Appointment of Election Judges for City Election 09-47
H. Financing the 2010 Pavement Management Program and Establishing Compliance
with Reimbursement Bond Regulations 09-48
I. Approval of One Year Extension for Filing of Plat - 1017 Ravine Trail
J. Set Date for Canvassing Board Meeting
K. Authorization to Sign Agreement with Hennepin County for Reimbursement of Active
Living Related Staff Expenses
4. PUBLIC HEARINGS 7:00 PM
A. Public Hearing - Special Assessments - Delinquent Utility Bills 09-49
B. Public Hearing - Special Assessments - Miscellaneous Charges 09-50
5. OLD BUSINESS
A. Second Consideration - Ordinance #423 - Amending Section 10.30, Regarding
Registration of Dangerous Dogs and Approve Summary Publication
6. NEW BUSINESS
A. Authorization to Sign Amended Agreement with Metropolitan Council for Park and
Ride and 1-394 Frontage Road Rehabilitation
B. Announcements of Meetings
C. Mayor and Council Communications
7. ADJOURNMENT
alley
emorandum
Finance
763-593-8013/763-593-8109 (fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
October 6, 2009
Agenda Item
3. B. 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.
alley
Memorandum
City Administration/Council
763.593.8006/763.593.8109 (fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
October 6, 2009
Agenda Item
3. C. 1. Gambling License Application to Conduct Excluded Bingo - Ladies Auxiliary to the
Veterans of Foreign Wars Post #7051
Prepared By
Judy Nally, Administrative Assistant
Summary
As per State Statute organizations that conduct gambling within the City limits have to submit
an application for a lawful gambling permit to the State after the permit has been approved or
denied by the City.
Attachments
Application to Conduct Excluded Bingo (2 pages)
Letter from Ladies Auxiliary to the Veterans of Foreign Wars #7051 requesting waiver of 30
day waiting period (1 page)
Recommended Action
Motion to approve the gambling license application to conduct excluded bingo for the Ladies
Auxiliary to the Veterans of Foreign Wars Post #7051.
Minnesota Lawful Gambling
LG240B Application to Conduct Excluded Bingo
ORGANIZATION INFORMATION
7/09
Page 1 of 2
No fee
Previous gambling permit number
X - q
Type of nonprofit ~rganlzatlon: Check (V) one.
D Fraternal D Religious ,I:;J Veterans
Mailing address
777~ Medicine lake Roan
D Other nonprofit organization
City
~olnen Valle
StatelZip Code
Mn. !i!i42.7
County
Hennepin
ATTACH A COpy OF Q.ti!;, OF THE FOLLOWING FOR PROOF OF NONPROFIT STATUS
* Do not attach a sales tax exempt status or federallD employer number as they are not proof of nonprofit status.
_ Nonprofit Articles of Incorporation OR a current Certificate of Good Standing.
Don'thave a copy? This certificate must be obtained each year from:
Secretary of State, Business Services Div., 180 State Office Building, St. Paul, MN 55155 Phone: 651-296-2803
_ Internal Revenue Service -IRS Income tax exemption [501 (c)] letter In your organization's name.
Don't have a copy? To obtain a copy of your federal income tax exempt letter, have an organization officer
contact the IRS at 877-829-5500.
_Internal Revenue Service - Affiliate of national, statewide, or International parent nonprofit organization (charter)
If your organization falls under a parent organization, attach copies of Qg!!J. of the following:
a. IRS letter showing your parent organization is a nonprofit 501 (c) organization with a group ruling, and
b. the charter or letter from your parent organization recognizing your organization as a subordinate.
~Internal Revenue Service - proof previously submitted to Gamblng Control Board
If you previously submitted proof of nonprofit status from the Internal Revenue Service, no attachment is required.
EXCLUDED BINGO ACTIVITY
1XX-No _Yes Has your organization held a bingo event in the current calendar year?
If yes, list the dates when bingo was conducted
2. The proposed bingo event for which we are applying will be:
XX- one of four or fewer bingo events held this year. Dates 11- 20-09
OR
_conducted up to 12 consecutive days in connection with a:
_county fair.
_civic celebration.
Dates
Dates
_Minnesota state fair. Dates
3. Person in charge of bingo event Oorothy \.Ie" er
4. Name of premises where bingo will be conducted
5. Premises street address
Daytime phone
6. City GoldeR 'ia 11 ey
If township, name of township
County Hennep; R
Bingo hard cards and bingo number selection devices may be borrowed from another organization
authorized to conduct bingo. Otherwise, bingo hard cards, bingo paper, and bingo number selection
devices must be purchased from a distributor licensed by the Gambling Control Board. To find a licensed
distributor, go to www.gcb.state.mn.us and click on List of Licensed Distributors. Or call 651-639-4076.
Be sure to complete page 2
LG240B Application to Conduct Excluded Bingo
Chief Executive Officer's Signature
Page 2 of 2
7/09
The information provided in this app ication is complete and accurate to the best of my knowledge.
,.
Phone number 7 r"5 - J'-Itp.-Jrll
Date '1 /~.;J..o OC
Chief executive officer's signature
Name (please print) b er'" We s ..f- t
Local Unit of Government Acknowlellgment and Approval
If the gambling premises Is within city limits, the city must sign this application.
On behalf of the city, I approve this application for P . t 'ty () IJ Itle fl
excluded bingo activity at the premises located within nn CI name
the city's jurisdiction.
Date q /~
If the gambling premises Is located In a township, only the county Is required to sign this application.
For the county: On behalf of the county, I approve
this application for excluded bingo activity at the
premises located within the county's jurisdiction.
For the township: On behalf of the township,
I acknowledge that the organization is applying for
excluded bingo activity within the township limits.
A township has no statutory authority to approve or
deny an application (Minn. Stat. 349.166, Subd. 2).
Mail Application and Attachment(s)
Send the application and proof of nonprofit
status to:
Gambling Control Board
Suite 300 South
1711 W. County Rd. B
Roseville, MN 55113
Print county name
Signature of county personnel receiving application
Title
Date~~_
(Township signature is not required)
Print township name
Signature of township official acknowledging application
Title
Date~~_
You will receive a document from the Gambling Control Board with
your excluded permit number for the gambling activity. Your
organization must keep its bingo records for 3-1/2 years.
Questions? Contact the Gambling Control Board at 651-639-4000.
Or, you may fax It to 651-639-4032.
This form will be made available in alternative format (i.e. large print.
Braille) upon request.
Data Privacy Notice: The information requested on this form
(and any attachments) will be used by the Gambling Control Board
(Board) to determine your qualifications to be involved in lawful
gambling activities in Minnesota. You have the right to refuse to
supply the information requested; however, if you refuse to supply
this information, the Board may not be able to determine your
qualifications and, as a consequence, may refuse to issue you
an authorization. If you supply the information requested, the
Board will be able to process your application.
Your name and your organization's name and address will be
public information when received by the Board. All the other
information will be private data until the Board issues your
authorization and the information then becomes public. If the
Board does not issue you an authorization, all information provided
remains private, with the exception of your name and your
organization's name and address which will remain public.
Private data about you is available to: Board members, Board staff
whose work requires access to the information; Minnesota's
Department of Public Safety, Attorney General; Commissioners of
Administration, Finance, and Revenue; Legislative Auditor, national
and international gambling regulatory agencies; anyone pursuant to
court order; other individuals and agencies that are specifically
authorized by state or federal law to have access to the information;
individuals and agencies for which law or legal order authorizes a
new use or sharing of information after this Notice was given; and
anyone with your consent.
ladies Auxiliary to the
Veterans of Foreign Wars
Golden Valley #7n~1
777n Mpnicinp '~~p Dn~n
Golden Valley, Mn. 55427
Se~tember 201 ?OOq
Golden Valley City O~ficps
7800 Golden Valley Ro~n
GoJden Valley, Mn. 55427
Re: Turkey Bingo
November 20, 2009
Attn: Mayor and City Council
In reference to our lG240B Application to Conduct Excludpn Bi"~o
ladies Auxiliary to Veterans of Foreign Wars requests that you waive the usual
30 days waiting period.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincer~ ~
t/~~7~
Dorothy Weller,
Chairman
36007 Co. Rd. 3
Crosslake, mn. 56442
218-692-2806
Hey
ran urn
City Administration/Council
763-593-8006/763-593-8109 (fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
October 6, 2009
Agenda Item
3. C. 2. Gambling License Exemption and Waiver of Notice Requirement - Community of
Recovering People - The Retreat
Prepared By
Judy Nally, Administrative Assistant
Summary
As per State Statute organizations that conduct gambling within the City limits have to submit
an application for a lawful gambling permit to the State after the permit has been approved or
denied by the City. Depending upon the timing of the permit the applicants may request the
City to waive the 3D-day waiting period.
Attachments
Application for Exempt Permit (2 pages)
Letter from Community of Recovering People - The Retreat requesting waiver of 3D day
waiting period (1 page)
Recommended Action
Motion to receive and file the gambling license exemption and approve the waiver of notice
requirement for the Community of Recovering People - The Retreat.
Minnesota Lawful Gambling
L
, .
Application fee '"
G220 Application for Exempt Permit If aoolication oostmarked or received:
An exempt permit may be issued to a nonprofit organization that less than 30 days more than 30 days
- conducts lawful gambling on five or fewer days, and before the event before the event
- awards less than $50,000 in prizes during a calendar year. $100 $50
ORGANIZATION INFORMATION Check # $
Organization name Previous gambling permit number
Community of Recovering People dba The Retrei X-34583
Type of nonprofit organization. Check one.
D Fraternal D Religious D Veterans [8] Other nonprofit organization
Mailing address City State Zip Code County
1221 Wayzata Boulevard E Wayzata MN 55391 Hennepin
Name of chief executive officer (CEO) Daytime phone number Email address
John H. Curtiss 952-476-0566 djohnson@theretreat.org
Attach a copy of ONE of the following for proof of nonprofit status. Check one.
Do not attach a sales tax exempt status or federal ID employer numbers as they are not proof of nonprofit status.
D Nonprofit Articles of Incorporation OR a current Certificate of Good Standing.
Don't have a copy? This certificate must be obtained each year from:
Secretary of State, Business Services Div., 180 State Office Building, St Paul, MN 55155 Phone: 651-296-2803
D IRS Income tax exemption [S01(c)] letter In your organization's name.
Don't have a copy? To obtain a copy of your federal income tax exempt letter, have an organization officer
contact the IRS at 877-829-5500.
D IRS - Affiliate of national, statewide, or International parent nonprofit organization (charter)
If your organization falls under a parent organization, attach copies of both of the following:
a. IRS letter showing your parent organization is a nonprofit 501 (c) organization with a group ruling, and
b. the charter or letter from your parent organization recognizing your organization as a subordinate.
[g] IRS - proof previously submitted to Gambling Control Board
If you previously submitted proof of nonprofit status from the IRS, no attachment is required.
GAMBLING PREMISES INFORMATION
Name of premises where gambling activity will be conducted (for raffles, list the site where the drawing will take place)
Metropolitan Ballroom
Address (do not use PO box) City Zip Code County
5418 Wayzata Boulevard Golden ValleylMinneapolis 55416 Hennepin
Date(s) of activity (for raffles, indicate the date of the drawing)
November 14, 2009
Gheck the box or boxes that indicate the type of gambling activity your organization will conduct
D Bingo* IZI Raffles D Paddlewheels* DPull-Tabs* DTipboards*
* Gambling equipment for pull-t:lbs, bingo paper, tlpboards, and Itlso complete .I
paddlewheels must be obtained from a distributor licensed by the
Gambling Control Board. EXCEPTION: Bingo hard cards and bingo Page 2 of this form.
number selection devices may be borrowed from another organization I . PrintForm I
authorized to conduct bingo.
To find a licensed distributor, go to www.gcb.state.mn.us and dick on Ust IR~set Form I
of Ucensed Distributors, or call 651-639-4076.
Page 1 of 2 ' 7/09
LG220 Application for Exempt Permit Page 2 of2 1/09
LOCAL UNIT OF GOVERNMENT ACKNOWLEDGMENT
If the gambling premises is within city limits, If the gambling premises Is located In a township, a
a city official must check the action that the city is county official must check the action that the county is taking
taking on this application and sign the application. on this application and sign the application.
. A township official is not required to sign the application.
~The application is acknowledged with no waiting period.
_The application is acknowledged with a 30 day waiting
period, and allows the Board to issue a permit after 30
days (60 days for a 1 st class city).
_The application is denied.
ld~
Print city name
On behalf of the city, I acknowledge this a Iication.
Title
Date~ /7 IIJ~
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER'S SIGNATURE
_The application is acknowledged with no waiting period.
..:....- The application is acknowledged with a 30 day waiting
period, and allows the Board to issue a permit after 30
days.
_The application is denied.
Print county name
On behalf of the county, I acknowledge this application.
Signature of county official receiving application
Title
Date~~_
(Optional) TOWNSHIP: On behalf of the township, I
acknowledge that the organization Is applying for exempted gambling
activity within township limits. [A township has no statutory authority
to approve or deny an application [Minnesota Statute 349.166)]
Print township name
Signature of township official acknowledging application
Title
Date
I
I
The information provided in this application is com let and accurate to the best of my knowledge. I acknowledge that the
financial report will be completed and returned to arel w" days of the date of our gambling activity.
Chief executive officer's signature Date 9/15/2009
Complete a separate application for
- one day of gambling activity,
- two or more consecutive day f gambling activity,
- each day a raffle drawing is held
Send application with:
- a copy of your proof of nonprofit status, and
- application fee for each event
Make check payable to "State of Minnesota."
To: Gambling Control Board
1711 West County Road B, Suite 300 South
Roseville, MN 55113
Financial report and recordkeeplng required
A financial report form and instructions will be sent with
your permit, or use the online fill-in form available at
www.gcb.state.mn.us. Within 30 days of the activity date,
complete and return the financial report form to the
Gambling Control Board.
Questions?
Call the Licensing Section of the Gambling Control
Board at 651-639-4076.
Print Form I
ResetForm
Data privacy. This form will be made available the Board will be able to process your
in alternative format (i.e. large print, Braille) application. Your name and and your
upon request The information requested on organization's name and address will be public
this form (and any attachments) will be used by information when received by the Board. All
the Gambling Control Board (Board) to the other information you provide will be private
determine your qUalifications to be involved in data until the Board issues your permit. When
lawful gambling activities in Minnesota. You the Board iesues your permit, all of the
have the right to refuse to supply the Information provided to the Board will become
information requested; however, if you refuse to public. If the Board does not issue a permit, all
supply this Information, the Board may not be information provided remains privete, with the
able to determine your qualifications and, as a exception of your name and your organization's
consequenca, mey refuse to issue you a permit. name and address which will remain public.
If you supply the information requested, Private data are available to: Boerd members,
Board staff whose work requires access to the
information; Minnesota's Department of Public
Safety; Attorney General; Commissioners of
Administration, Finance, and Revenue;
Legislative Auditor, national and international
gambling regulatory agancies; anyone pursuant
to court order; other individuals and agencies
that are specifically authorized by state or
federal law to have access to the information;
individuals and agencies for which law or legal
order authorizes a new use or sharing of
information after this Notice was given; and
anyone with your consent
Directors
George Mann, MD, Chairman
John Curtiss, President
Terry Troy, Vzce Chairman
Robert Harvey, Secretary
Gale Sharpe, Treasurer
Robert Bisanz, Life Member
Bud Prerner, MD, Emeritus
Greg Amer, MD
John Beal
John Brown, Jr.
Fran Coyne
Kevin Hart
Larry Hendrickson
Larry Koll
Todd Miller, MD
Patrick O'Neill
Joanne Sitt
Peter Vogt, MD
Staff
John Curtiss
President
Bruce Binger
v.P. Development
Diane Poole
Program Director
John Leonard
Dir. of Marketing/Outreach Services
Debbie Johnson
Business Manager
Ellie Hyatt
Dir. Family & Spiritual Recovery
Bob Schnell
Men's Program Coordinator
Andrea Bruner
Women's Program Coordinator
Debbie Jones
Adm. Coordinator/Supervisor
Lisa Maddalena
Adm. Coordinator/Supervisor
Peggy Keefe
Business Specialist
Russell Holm
Sr. Retreat Assistant
Mike Humphrey
Sr. Retreat Assistant
Sharry Weidner
Sr. Retreat Assistant
Peter Farley
Facilities Manager
Jim Mendesh
Facilities & Grounds
Ken Chipongian
Chef Manager
Jamie Huffman
Overnight Assistant/Security
Dick Rice
Dir. of Spiritual Development
Harry Cunliffe
Non-Residential Coordinator
Duane Jackson
Spiritual Director
September 14, 2009
Judy Nally
City of Golden Valley
7800 Golden Valley Road
Golden Valley, MN 55427
Dear Judy:
The Community of Recovering People (dba The Retreat) will host our annual
IMAGINE fundraising event at the Metropolitan Ballroom and Clubroom on
Saturday, November 14, 2009. We are requesting permission to hold a raffie
at this event and respectfully request that the City Council waive the
customary 30-day waiting period for the exemption for lawful gambling
permit required for this type of event. I have attached a completed LG220 for
your review and signature.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
~t~
Debbie L. Johnson
Business Manager
Enclosure
www.theretreat.org . 952.476.0566 · 1.877.446.9283 . 1221 Wayzata Blvd. East. Wayzata, MN . 55391
alley
Memorandum
City Administration/Council
763-593-8002/ 763-593-8109 (fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
October 6, 2009
Agenda Item
3. C. 3. Solicitor's License - Window Concepts of MN Inc.
Prepared By
Christine Columbus, Administrative Assistant
Summary
As per City Code, any individual or group intending to go door-to-door within the City selling
products, taking orders or soliciting for business or donations must be licensed by the City to
do so.
Attachments
Peddler/Solicitor License Application (2 pages)
Recommended Action
Motion to approve the solicitor's license for Window Concepts of MN Inc.
Application and fee must be submitted to the City Manager's Office the Wednesday prior to the City
Council Meeting. Council Meetings are normally held the first and third Tuesday of each month.
PEDDLER/SOLICITOR LICENSE APPLICATION
c'~
TO: Golden Valley City Council Fee Paid: $ SO
7800 Golden Valley Road Number. of Persons: ~ I
Golden Valley, MN 55427 Type of License Requested: ~s
tpc#
Enclose the sum of $ S 0 ~r LA (number) peddlers/solicitors as required by City Code
of the City of Golden Valley and ha~ied with all the requirements of said Code necessary
for obtaining this license.
W C~,^-(j ~ a+- M;J.I ./ t (..
( usiness or ndividual Name to be censed)
q () J O'I)J;> 00. \.-C c9- ~ v,,~\~) \ q E~ ~...'l 1'1.;/5-=5 t '2.. {
(A~ress, including City, State and Zip Code)
C/51-CJ05 -01 b 5
(Telephone Number, including Area Code)
NOW, THE~.B~E, A ~"'- Y R -s \- ( o"\. ~ hereby makes application for the
EO/4~ (Applicant Name)
period of ~ through 6/30/ ID , subject to the conditions and provisions of said City Code.
REQUIRED LICENSE INFORMATION
Applicant (if different from above):
Name
Address
(Include City, State and Zip Code)
Telephone Number (including area code)
Date of Birth (if an individual)
Business Name of Applicant
Address
(Include City, State and Zip Code)
.
Or: 2l ~
(Corporatio ,Proprietorship, Partnership, etc.; State of Incorporation)
Description of goods or services for sale (include prices) or indicate if soliciting donations. If more
space is needed, attach additional sheets (be specific): (~)' 11 till UJ \
Define Business
NOTE: If the products for sale are changed or modified, you must give the City complete
information regarding such change or modification.
If the Peddler or Solicitor is so engaged on behalf of an organization, supply:
NameOfOrganization.w,\ ^-~~V.J ~c)l\.CeP\~ o~ ~\.v' t .....t,"'~.
Address of Organization cr ~ 0 (() I/VL ~ ~k f'J.. SV\.~ ~ \ \ L\
(Include City, State and Zip Code)
T~ept)one Number (Includil)Q Area Code)
~ u\ -crCY5 -0 lO'5
Define Business LD\f' . O!,o...,~ ....\.Cr/\.
(Corpor ion, Proprietorship, Partnership, etc.; State of Incorporation)
List the names and addresses of EACH person who will be peddling or soliciting on behalf
of said organization in the City, or, in the alternative, the name, address and telephone
number or numbers where a responsible person of said organization will maintain a list of
names and addresses of all persons engaged in peddling or soliciting in the City:
~ h Yr hit {' IV- {),.v....
l'-\.rJ
(If more spaee is needed, attach additional sheets)
STATE OF fJJ/!ffJf$011t"")
) ss.
TV OF HtN IJtfIlI) )
I, Vl,1tcon. S \-r~
( leer/Individual)
of_ll\,~ ~ I\.~Ou0 ~~c~~'\-)
(Name of Organization)
being first duly sworn, depose and say that all the foregoing information is true to his/her own
knowledge exeept as to matters therein stated on information and belief, and as to such matters,
he/she believes them to be true.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this
Z~ay of Ue/r~~ ,20 01
~.~ a '11~
(Signature)
JUDITH A. NALLY
NOTARY PUBLIC - MINNESOTA
My Commission Expires Jan. 31,2010
Regular Meeting of the
Golden Valley Planning Commission
June 22, 2009
A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall,
Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota, on Monday, June
22, 2009. Vice Chair Waldhauser 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
and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. Chair Keysser was absent.
1. Approval of Minutes
June 8, 2009 Regular Planning Commission Meeting
MOVED by Eck, seconded by McCarty and motion carried unanimously to approve the
minutes as submitted.
2. Informal Public Hearing - Conditional Use Permit - Amendment #1 -
9405 Medicine lake Road - CU-67 A 1
Applicant: Winner Gas/Convenience Store, George Kabalan
Address: 9405 Medicine Lake Road
Purpose: To allow the applicant to rent U-Haul trucks at his existing location in the
Commercial zoning district
Grimes referred to a location map and noted that this property is at the intersection of
Highway 169 and Medicine Lake Road. He explained that the applicant would like to
amend the existing Conditional Use Permit for this property to allow him to rent two U-
Haul trucks along with his gas station, car wash and convenience store.
Grimes explained that the original gas station did not require a Conditional Use Permit. In
1995 when the owner wanted to install his car wash, the City required him to obtain a
Conditional Use Permit. He referred to the existing Conditional Use Permit and the site
plan and showed the area where the applicant would like to park the rental trucks. Grimes
stated that he would like the trucks to be located in the two furthest west parking spaces
behind the building and not where the applicant is proposing in order to allow better
access to the car wash.
Grimes stated that the applicant has been renting U-Haul trucks for a couple of years.
However, it was only recently brought to his attention because there were several trucks
parked along an easement area which was supposed to be posted "no parking" according
to the original Conditional Use Permit. He added that he allowed the applicant to continue
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
June 22, 2009
Page 2
renting two trucks during the time it took to go through this Conditional Use Permit
amendment process and upon visiting the site this evening he noticed that there are
currently two trucks and two trailers parked on this lot which is disappointing because that
was not his agreement with the applicant.
Grimes referred to the site plan and stated that originally the City required 15 parking
spaces on this site for the gas station/convenience store. He stated that he did a
recalculation of the parking spaces needed based on current parking requirements and
feels 7 parking spaces will meet the needs of this property. He said he doesn't think the
number of parking spaces will be an issue; however, cars should not be parked in the
access easement area and the "no parking" signs should be installed per the original
Conditional Use Permit agreement.
Grimes stated that another issue he is concerned about is the non-conforming signage on
the property. He explained that the City's sign code administrator, Roger McCabe, has
been dealing with the property owner regarding the amount of signage on the property.
Therefore he is recommending as a condition of approval that the signage on the property
be brought into conformance by August 31,2009.
Kluchka asked Grimes to clarify what the sign problem is. Grimes showed the
Commissioners photos of the site and stated that the applicant probably has double the
amount of signage allowed. Waldhauser asked about the allowed amount of signage.
Grimes said he doesn't know what the allowed amount of signage is for this property
because some of the signs may be "grandfathered" in. He added that the sign code is not
part of the zoning code and suggested that the applicant meet with Roger McCabe to
come up with a sign plan in order to bring his property into conformance.
Grimes reiterated that if the applicant rents two U-Haul trucks or trailers he doesn't think
this proposal will be an issue. If however there starts to be more trucks or trailers on the
property there could be issues with the access to the car wash and the un-striped parking
area in the back of the building. Kluchka asked how many available parking spaces would
be available for rental activity. Grimes referred to the site plan and pointed out that there
are 4 parking spaces in the front of the building and 11 spaces behind the building. He
reiterated that he feels the parking requirement for this property can drop from 15 spaces
to 7 spaces leaving them with 8 spaces more than what is required. Kluchka asked how
many spaces would be used for the rental trucks. Grimes stated that the applicant is
asking for permission to have 2 rental trucks on his property. Waldhauser asked if some
of the spaces behind the building are not usable for parking because of the need to
access the car wash. Grimes said it is his understanding that the spaces in the back
haven't been striped because there really isn't a need for them.
Waldhauser asked why it would be a problem to allow the applicant to have more than 2
rental trucks on this property since they have enough parking spaces. Grimes said. the
Planning Commission could recommend that the applicant be allowed to have more than
2 rental trucks however he is concerned at this point that more trucks would be parked on
this property than are allowed.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
June 22, 2009
Page 3
McCarty referred to the signage requirements and asked about the City's recourse on
businesses that don't comply with the sign code requirements. Grimes stated that it would
be considered a misdemeanor violation of the City Code, however staff likes to work with
people first to try to bring their properties into conformance. If that doesn't work then the
matter could be taken to court.
McCarty asked if the owner has been approached by the City regarding the non-
conforming sign issues. Grimes said it is his understanding that Roger McCabe has
spoken with the property owner regarding the signage at this property.
Waldhauser referred to the easement on the east side of the parking lot and asked if
landscaping or planting can be done in easement areas. Grimes said that plants can be
placed in easement areas.
Kluchka asked Grimes what part of the City Code or what department deals with the
striping of parking lots. Grimes said the Planning and Public Works Departments would
work with applicants regarding the striping of their parking lot. Kluchka asked if it would be
appropriate to require as a condition of approval that the parking lot be appropriately
striped to encourage good circulation and access to the car wash.
George Kabalan, Applicant, stated that he has parked U-Haul trucks on this lot and in the
easement area for 2 years now and no one has said anything. He agreed that Mr. Grimes
allowed him to keep renting 2 trucks during this Conditional Use Permit amendment
process and that the 2 trailers Mr. Grimes saw on the property earlier this evening belong
to an employee who wasn't aware that there were only supposed to be 2 trucks on the
property. He added that the trailers will be removed in the morning. He stated that he
would like to be allowed to rent two trucks to help him improve his business. He referred
to the signage issues and said he would work with Roger McCabe to come up with a
signage plan. Waldhauser asked the applicant if he has spoken with Mr. McCabe in the
past. Kabalan said he has not. Waldhauser asked about the "no parking" signs that are
supposed to be located on the west access road. Kabalan said there are no signs
regarding parking at all on his property. Waldhauser noted that the requirement regarding
the installation of "no parking" signs pre-dates this current property owner.
Kluchka asked the applicant if it would be helpful or useful to him to have more than 2
rental trucks. Kabalan said it would help him get more business if he could have more
trucks but he would do whatever the City allows him to do.
Grimes asked the applicant about the size of trucks he would be renting. Kabalan said the
longest truck he would rent will be 17 feet.
Waldhauser referred to the 5 parking spaces behind the building that aren't routinely used
and asked if that is where people drive to access the car wash. Kabalan said he would be
willing to re-strip the parking lot in order to make parking, circulation and access easier.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
June 22, 2009
Page 4
Cera asked the applicant to describe the rental business. Kabalan said he would have 2
trucks and people can rent them for "in town" or local use. He said there would not be
customers dropping off trucks from different locations.
Waldhauser opened the public hearing.
Kimberly Vedo, representing Hillsboro Court Apartments, 2911 Hillsboro Ave. N., New
Hope, said she opposes this proposed use because she doesn't think it's attractive to the
community particularly with the improvements other property owners in the area have
made and this use will not enhance the community at all. She said that typically U-Haul
dealerships are found in communities that have a lot of economic and crime issues. She
added that this comer with the gas station and liquor store is already not very attractive
and a U-Haul dealer won't help the situation.
Waldhauser asked Vedo if her concern is just the appearance of the U-Haul vehicles or
something else. Vedo said she thinks the U-Haul trucks would reflect negatively on the
neighborhood and would give people a bad perception of the area. She added that a U-
Haul dealership is not something she would consider to be an attractive attribute when
marketing her apartments.
McCarty stated that the U-Haul dealership could be seen as an attractive amenity to the
apartment residents. Vedo said that she generally doesn't encourage her residents to
move.
Waldhauser questioned if it would make a difference from an appearance stand point if
the U-Haul trucks were located behind the gas station. Vedo said that would be preferable
to having them in the front or on the side. She added that there are just certain things that
don't necessarily reflect positively on a community such as pawn shops, U-Hauls, check
cashing stores, tobacco shops, etc. and those types of things fall into neighborhoods that
are not as desirable as she would like hers to be. Grimes referred to the location map and
reiterated where he is recommending the trucks be parked. He said he thinks it will be
hard for people to see the trucks if they are parked where he is recommending and not in
the easement area. He said he thinks the signage on the site is more of an issue.
Eck asked Vedo who she is referring to when she says "we". Vedo said she is speaking
for the owner and partnership group for the property. Eck asked if she is speaking on
behalf of the renters or if any of the renters have complained. Vedo said she is not
speaking on behalf of the renters and she hasn't had any complaints yet, but typically she
hears from renters about issues after the fact.
Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Waldhauser closed the public
hearing.
McCarty asked the applicant how long he has had U-Haul trucks at his location. Kabalan
said he has been renting the U-Haul trucks for two years. He added that he realizes the
Sinclair station across the street is newer but that is not what is important. What is
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
June 22, 2009
Page 5
important is how he serves people in the community. He said he is willing to find a
solution regarding the signage and he is willing to park the trucks in the specified location
but he feels no one from the apartments will be able to see the trucks.
Waldhauser said she doesn't have too much concern about this proposal except for the
signage issues. She said the appearance of this property is important because it is an
entrance to Golden Valley. She noted that there is landscaping in the front and trees on
the highway side of the property, however she wishes there were trees between this
property and the McDonald's next door to the east. She said there seems to be adequate
parking even with a couple of trucks parked in the back. She added that it would be nice
to have the parking clarified with "no parking" signs in the easement area and striping to
indicate where cars should go.
Schmidgall said he doesn't want to cripple a thriving business but this property is visually
chaotic and he is disappointed that it has been out of compliance with the sign ordinance
for 14 years and the "no parking" signs haven't been installed in 14 years. He would really
like to see this property brought into compliance with the original Conditional Use Permit.
He said he would also like to limit the number of U-Haul trucks to 2 in order to keep the
visual chaos to a minimum.
McCarty agreed that the number of rental trucks should be limited to 2 and added that the
City also needs to do its part to enforce the conditions in the Conditional Use Permit. Cera
also agreed with the idea of limiting the number of trucks to 2 and suggested a condition
be placed on the approval that the property should be brought into compliance before the
proposal goes to the City Council. Kluchka said he agrees that progress toward sign
compliance should be shown.
Waldhauser reviewed the conditions in the original Conditional Use Permit. She stated
that the suggested new conditions for this amendment request are as follows: 1) The
parking spaces on the property shall be clearly designated and striped and the two
spaces for the rental trucks should be clearly marked; 2) All signage shall meet the City's
sign code requirements by no later than August 31, 2009 and 3) "no parking" signs shall
be installed per the Fire Marshall, along the west side of the shared driveway adjacent to
TH 169 by no later than August 31,2009.
Kluchka suggested they add a condition regarding landscape screening of the parking
area for adjacent properties. McCarty said he would be in favor of requiring landscape
screening if there were adjacent residential properties but it doesn't seem fair to put the
landscape cost burden on this applicant. The Commissioners agreed.
McCarty asked about the process for revoking a Conditional Use Permit if the conditions
are not met. Grimes said staff typically tries to work with property owners before revoking
their Conditional Use Permits. He added that for a Conditional Use Permit to be revoked
staff would have to receive a complaint or notice some gross violation of the Conditional
Use Permit.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
June 22, 2009
Page 6
McCarty said he is concerned that the deadline of August 31 to bring the property into
compliance is arbitrary and won't mean anything to the applicant or the City so he'd like to
see some progress on the site before the applicant is allowed to go to the City Council.
Cera agreed he would like to see some progress before the proposal gets approved by
the City Council. Grimes stated that the applicant has been working with Roger McCabe
to bring his property into conformance with the sign code.
Waldhauser asked if the sign code deals with aesthetic issues or if signage is only based
on allowing a certain amount. Grimes said there are no design standards for signs other
than in the 1-394 Mixed Use zoning district.
Kluchka asked the Commissioners for their opinion about how visible the rental trucks will
be to the rest of the neighborhood. Schmidgall said he is happy with Mr. Grimes'
recommendation for the location for the rental trucks.
Kluchka suggested that the applicant be required to submit a revised plan showing the
parking lot striping, designated truck rental spaces and the location of any signs. Grimes
agreed that would be a good idea.
MOVED by Schmidgall, seconded by Cera and motion carried unanimously to
recommend approval of an amended Conditional Use Permit at 9405 Medicine Lake
Road to allow the applicant to rent U-Haul trucks at his existing location in the
Commercial zoning district with the following conditions:
1. A new site plan updating the 9/1/95 site plan shall be submitted and be made a part
of this permit. The two equipment parking spaces shall be the two spaces south of
the store and closest to TH 169. There shall be a total of 9 parking spaces for
customers, employees and equipment display. The parking spaces on the property
shall be clearly designated and striped and the two spaces for the rental trucks shall
be clearly marked
2. The property may be used as a gas/convenience store with one automated car wash
bay. Also, up to two trucks or trailers may be displayed for rent on the site in the
location identified in the above Condition No.1.
3. All signage on the site will meet the requirements of the City's sign code by no later
than August 31,2009.
4. "No parking" signs shall be installed per the Fire Marshal along the west side of the
shared driveway adjacent to TH 169 by no later than August 31, 2009.
5. All other applicable local, state, and federal requirements shall be met.
6. Failure to comply with one or more of the above conditions shall be grounds for
revocation of the CUP.
--Short Recess--
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
June 22, 2009
Page 7
4. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City
Council, Board of Zoning Appeals and other Meetings
Kluchka reported on the District 281 Divestiture Committee meeting he attended where
they discussed options for what to do with seven school district properties.
Waldhauser reported on a 1,000 friends of MN meeting she attended where they
discussed landscaping and redeveloping old properties and what other communities have
done in regard to landscaping.
5. Other Business
McCarty asked about proposed new language regarding decks, porches, stoops, etc.
Grimes stated that staff is still working on the proposed language and will bring it to a
future Planning Commission meeting.
6. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 8: 15 pm.
Lester Eck, Secretary
Golden Valley Human Services Foundation (GVHSF) Meeting Minutes
August 10, 2009
Present: Dan Blumb, Hilmer Erickson, Elissa Heilicher, Brenda McGhie, Chris Monroe,
Diane Nimmer, Connie Sandler, and Toots Vodovoz. Also present Jeanne Fackler, Staff
Liaison.
Not Present: Gloria Johnson and Steve Schumacher.
Call to Order: Vice Chairman Sandler called the meeting to order at 6:34 p.m.
July 13 minutes: Erickson moved and Heilicher seconded the motion to approve the
minutes of July 13. The motion passed unanimously.
Luke Weisberg from the Golden Valley Community Events Committee gave an overview
of the committee. Items of discussion were:
The function of the GVHSF versus the Community Events Committee and Envision
Fundraising - who is asked, how is the organization presented, how funds are used
How does Envision fit with each group
Is there a way to work together
Where do we go from here
Blumb will contact Mayor Loomis and ask to meet with her. The group thanked Weisberg
for coming to the meeting.
New Business:
Golden Valley Golf Classic: After much discussion, it was decided to cancel the Golf
Classic. The sponsorships brought in $3,000 and @ $6,000 is needed to run the
tournament. Nimmer will compose a letter and contact the sponsors. Fackler will notify the
Golf Course, City Hall and Channel 12 of the cancelation. Sponsors will be offered four
tickets to the Taste to thank them for their sponsorship.
Taste of Golden Valley: A "save the date" card has been created to send to restaurants and
last year's attendees. Monroe will chair the event with Sandler lead for the restaurants,
Blumb lead for entertainment, Monroe lead for baskets and McGhie lead for publicity.
Nimmer asked for a timeline which Blumb will create. The goal is to have 10 restaurants by
the September meeting. Chipolte has given a verbal agreement. A tour of The Metropolitan
is being scheduled. Blumb has contacted several entertainers. Discussion centered on the
type of entertainment wanted at the event. McGhie reported the Perpich Center would like
to be involved.
Other Business:
The Allocation Packet is on the city's website. At this time two proposals have been
returned.
Adjournment: Heelicher moved to adjourn the meeting, McGhie seconded the motion. The
meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Golden Valley Human Services Foundation (GVHSF) Meeting Minutes
August 10, 2009
Present: Dan Blumb, Hilmer Erickson, Elissa Heilicher, Brenda McGhie, Chris Monroe,
Diane Nimmer, Connie Sandler, and Toots Vodovoz. Also present Jeanne Fackler, Staff
Liaison.
Not Present: Gloria Johnson and Steve Schumacher.
Call to Order: Vice Chairman Sandler called the meeting to order at 6:34 p.m.
July 13 minutes: Erickson moved and Heilicher seconded the motion to approve the
minutes of July 13. The motion passed unanimously.
Luke Weisberg from the Golden Valley Community Events Committee gave an overview
of the committee. Items of discussion were:
The function of the GVHSF versus the Community Events Committee and Envision
Fundraising - who is asked, how is the organization presented, how funds are used
How does Envision fit with each group
Is there a way to work together
Where do we go from here
Blumb will contact Mayor Loomis and ask to meet with her. The group thanked Weisberg
for coming to the meeting.
New Business:
Golden Valley Golf Classic: After much discussion, it was decided to cancel the Golf
Classic. The sponsorships brought in $3,000 and @ $6,000 is needed to run the
tournament. Nimmer will compose a letter and contact the sponsors. Fackler will notify the
Golf Course, City Hall and Channel 12 of the cancelation. Sponsors will be offered four
tickets to the Taste to thank them for their sponsorship.
Taste of Golden Valley: A "save the date" card has been created to send to restaurants and
last year's attendees. Monroe will chair the event with Sandler lead for the restaurants,
Blumb lead for entertainment, Monroe lead for baskets and McGhie lead for publicity.
Nimmer asked for a timeline which Blumb will create. The goal is to have 10 restaurants by
the September meeting. Chipolte has given a verbal agreement. A tour of The Metropolitan
is being scheduled. Blumb has contacted several entertainers. Discussion centered on the
type of entertainment wanted at the event. McGhie reported the Perpich Center would like
to be involved.
Other Business:
The Allocation Packet is on the city's website. At this time two proposals have been
returned.
Adjournment: Heelicher moved to adjourn the meeting, McGhie seconded the motion. The
meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jeanne Fackler
GVHSF Staff Liaison
Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the
Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
August 25,2009
A regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals was held on Tuesday,
August 25, 2009 at City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota. Chair
Segelbaum called the meeting to order at 7 pm.
Those present were Members Kisch, Nelson, Segelbaum, and Planning Commission
Representatives Eck and McCarty. Also present were City Planner Joe Hogeboom and
Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. Member Sell was absent.
I. Approval of Minutes - July 28, 2009
MOVED by Nelson, seconded by McCarty and motion carried unanimously to approve the
July 28, 2009 minutes as submitted.
Segelbaum requested that the order of the petitions be changed as follows: 525 Radisson
Road, 2500 Mendelssohn Ave. N., 316 Meadow Lane N.
II. The Petitions are:
525 Radisson Road (09-08-12)
Gregory and Lee Anne Schaefer, Applicants
Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd.11(A)(2) Rear Yard Setback
Requirements
. 11 ft. off the required 36 ft. to a distance of 25 ft. at its closest point
to the rear yard (east) property line.
Purpose: To allow for the construction of a deck.
Hogeboom stated that the applicants are requesting a variance from rear yard setback
requirements in order to replace their existing deck with a new deck located closer to the
rear yard property line. He stated that staff is recommending approval of this variance
request due to the grade of the lot, the placement of the home on the lot and the fact that
the depth of the lot is creating a fairly large rear yard setback requirement.
Eck referred to the survey and noted that the existing house is located in the rear yard
setback area. Hogeboom explained that the existing house was built prior to 1982 so it is
allowed to be within 10 feet of the rear yard property.
McCarty questioned why the rear yard setback line isn't parallel with the rear yard property
line. Hogeboom explained that the rear yard setback is determined by taking 20% of the
lot depth and the depth of this lot is different on each side.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
August25,2009
Page 2
Nelson questioned the size of a typical rear yard setback. Hogeboom said it varies and
added that a home is not typically placed as far back on the lot as this home was.
Eck referred to the application and noted that the adjacent neighbors located at 416
Turnpike did not sign the application. Hogeboom stated that they did receive a hearing
notice for this meeting.
Lee Anne Schaefer, Applicant, showed photos of their back yard and discussed how the
back yard is unusable. Greg Schaefer, Applicant, added that it is difficult to build a deck on
this lot because of its odd shape. Mrs. Schaefer stated that they can't build a deck on the
other (north) side of the property because of a drainage and utility easement. Mr. Schaefer
stated that the proposed deck won't affect any of the neighboring properties at all. He
referred to the neighbors at 416 Turnpike and stated that they were out of town but they
gave him their verbal approval.
Nelson asked about the free standing structure shown in the applicant's photos. Mrs.
Schaefer explained that there is a sandbox and a patio under the free standing structure.
She referred to the photos and noted where the proposed new deck would be located.
McCarty asked the applicants if they had considered raising the grade of the property or
building tiered decks in order to obtain more usable space. Mrs. Schaefer said they
thought about raising the grade but they would rather build a new deck. Mr. Schaefer said
that the entrance to the house is quite a bit higher so he doesn't think tiered decks would
work. Mrs. Schaefer reiterated that the proposed location of the deck is really the only
place on the lot they can build anything.
Segelbaum opened the public hearing. Hearing and seeing no one wishing to comment,
Segelbaum closed the public hearing.
Kisch said the lot itself constitutes a unique situation especially given the slope and the
fact that they can't build on the north side because of the easement. He said the visual
impact will be minimal, it is a reasonable request and there really isn't a lot of buildable
area on this lot.
Nelson agreed and added that the house was placed oddly on the lot. She said she is in
favor of granting the variance request especially since there will still be a large setback
area even after the deck is built.
Eck agreed that the impact on the neighborhood seems minimal and that the request is
reasonable.
MOVED by Kisch, seconded by Nelson and motion carried unanimously to approve the
variance request for 11 ft. off the required 36 ft. to a distance of 25 ft. at its closest point
to the rear yard (east) property line to allow for the construction of a deck.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
August25,2009
Page 3
2500 Mendelssohn Avenue North (09-08-14)
Marvin Frieman, Applicant
Request: Waiver from Section 11.30, Subd. 11 (6)(a) Front Yard Setback
Requirements
. 11.29 ft. off the required 35 ft. to a distance of 23.71 ft. at its closest
point to the front yard (west) property line along TH 169.
Purpose: To allow for the construction of an addition to the existing building
Request: Waiver from Section 11.30, Subd. 11 (6)(a) Front Yard Setback
Requirements
. 2.67 ft. off the required 35 ft. to a distance of 32.33 ft. at its closest
point to the front yard (south) property line along Mendelssohn Ave. N.
Purpose: To allow for the construction of an addition to the existing building
Hogeboom discussed the history of this property and stated that the applicant is proposing
to construct an addition onto the existing building which will be used as office space. He
stated that this property has been before the Board of Zoning Appeals in the past in order
to bring the existing building into conformance and added that it appears when TH 169
was constructed some property was taken in order to build the exit ramp. He stated that
staff is supporting this request due to the odd shape of the lot.
Eck asked if the building was in conformance when it was originally built. Hogeboom said
he was not sure what the requirements were when the building was originally built
however variances have been granted to bring the existing building into conformance.
Eck said the building appears to be unoccupied and asked if the proposed addition would
accommodate new tenants. Rod Mysliwiec, RNR Construction, Contractor for the
proposed addition, stated that if the variances are approved three tenants will be moving
in. He added that they are completely renovating the interior of the building.
McCarty asked if the addition could be modified so as not to require a variance along
Mendelssohn Ave. Mysliwiec said the plans could be modified.
Kisch asked about the rationale for the location of the proposed new addition. Mysliwiec
said the parking spaces are tight in the back of the building so they are proposing to move
it forward toward Mendelssohn Ave.
Segelbaum opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment,
Segelbaum closed the public hearing.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
August25,2009
Page 4
McCarty said he realizes that a taking for the TH 169 exit ramp has caused some hardship
on the west side of this property but he is having a hard time supporting the variance
request on the south side.
Kisch asked Hogeboom if this property has adequate parking. Hogeboom said yes.
Kisch said he thinks the lot is unique. He said he is less concerned about the west side
variance request because the proposed addition will be further away from that property
line than the existing building already is. He questioned if obtaining more leasable space is
really a hardship.
Eck said it would be difficult to establish a real hardship since the proposed addition could
be reduced slightly however the addition would intrude less than the existing building and
there are no neighbors impacted so he can't object to the proposal.
Nelson said she doesn't have an issue with the proposed addition because it is not
intruding any more into the setback than the existing building currently does.
Segelbaum stated that the proposed addition gives this building a strange shape. He said
he'd be curious to know if the Board would like to see the addition moved further to the
north and in turn giving a larger variance from the west side of the property instead of what
is being requested. Kisch said he would prefer that option if the applicant would be open to
the idea. McCarty said he doesn't want to give a larger variance to the west side of the
property and no matter what the applicant does the building is still going to be oddly
shaped. Mysliwiec said moving the addition to the north and lining the addition up with the
front of the existing building would be fine with him.
McCarty referred to a chimney/smokestack shown on the plans and asked the applicant if
he plans to remove it. Mysliwiec said yes.
Segelbaum asked the applicant if he would like to table this request to find alternate
designs that would shift the proposed addition to the north. Mysliwiec said he'd be willing
to wait until the next meeting in order to show the Board new plans that would make the
building flush on the south end.
Marvin Frieman, Applicant, stated that they intend to be in this building for a long time and
they want to enhance the neighborhood. He said as long as they can start remodeling the
interior of the existing building he would be ok tabling the variance request until the
September Board of Zoning Appeals meeting.
MOVED by Kisch, seconded by Nelson and motion carried unanimously to table the
applicant's request until the September 22, 2009 Board of Zoning Appeals meeting in
order to revise the plans to illustrate alternatives to moving the addition further north and
aligning the proposed addition with the existing building on the south.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
August25,2009
Page 5
316 Meadow Lane North (09-08-13)
Maaaie Bostrom/Leo Furcht, Applicants
Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 11 (A)(3)(c) Side Yard Setback
Requirements
. 8 ft. off the required 8 ft. to a distance of 0 ft. at its closest point to
the side yard (south) property line.
Purpose: To bring the recently constructed deck into conformance with zoning
code requirements.
Hogeboom referred to a survey of the property and stated that there was an error on the
agenda. The variance request should be for 8 feet off the required 8 feet to a distance of 0
feet at its closest point to the side yard (south) property line. The survey showed that the
southeast corner of the deck is located 0.1 feet away from the property and the southwest
corner of the deck is 0.2 feet over the property line. He explained that the Board of Zoning
Appeals cannot grant a variance to allow something to be built on another person's
property. He added that staff is recommending denial of this request because the deck is
too close to south property line that the deck was built earlier this year without a building
permit. He noted that the applicant could build a 25 square foot landing area with stairs in
the setback area without the need for a variance.
Segelbaum asked Hogeboom if this request would have even come to the Board of
Zoning Appeals had staff realized that the deck was built over the property line. He asked
about the City Attorney's opinion in this case. Hogeboom said if staff had realized that the
deck was built over the property line the City would have required that the deck be
removed and would not have given the applicant the option to come before the Board of
Zoning Appeals.
Maggie Bostrom, Applicant, apologized for not obtaining a building permit. She said she
was under the impression that if the deck was not attached to the home she wouldn't need
a permit.
Brian Dillon, Applicant's Attorney, explained that they realized after obtaining the survey
that the southwest corner of the deck encroaches 0.2 feet into the neighboring property to
the south. He referred to the survey and stated that he doesn't understand how it can be
accurate because the retaining wall located on the property is visually closer to the
property line than the deck. He showed the Board photos of the deck, the retaining wall
and the survey stake. He asked the Board if this item could be tabled to allow more time to
show that perhaps the retaining wall encroaches, but not the deck. Segelbaum asked how
close the deck would be to the property line if Mr. Dillon is correct about the survey being
inaccurate. Dillon said he thought the deck would still be within inches of the property line,
but he doesn't think the deck crosses over the property line.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
August 25, 2009
Page 6
McCarty asked who built the deck. Dillon said a contractor built the deck. McCarty said it is
clear on the survey that there is an encroachment over the property line. Dillon said he
would rather remove the retaining wall than the deck.
Segelbaum noted that one way the Board could handle this issue would be to vote on the
original request for 7.9 feet off of the required 8 feet to a distance of 0.1 feet then the
applicant would have to comply and remove the portion of the deck or retaining wall that is
encroaching on the neighboring property.
Dillon asked if the Board could conditionally grant approval for the deck and explained that
they have not been able to communicate with the neighbor to south to try and resolve the
issue. Segelbaum asked if the applicant has considered moving the retaining wall as a
gesture of good will. Dillon reiterated that they haven't been able to talk to the neighbor to
the south.
Nelson asked Hogeboom if retaining walls have the same setback requirements as decks.
Hogeboom said retaining walls can be built right up to a property line.
Segelbaum asked about the hardship in this case. Dillon stated that the lot is only 40 feet
wide with very narrow setbacks on both sides of the house so anything built on the south
side would encroach into the setback area because the existing house already does. He
stated that there is also a significant slope on this lot that creates a dangerous condition
and the previously existing concrete steps and retaining wall were deteriorating and
needed to be replaced. He noted that the south side of the house is a high traffic area and
is the entrance most used. He stated that the slope makes that area hard to traverse and
added that there is a safety issue without a deck that has platforms and there is also no
parking allowed on the street so cars have to park in the back and use this entrance.
Bostrom showed the Board some photos and explained that she cannot access the back
yard on the north side of her property because that neighbor installed a fence.
Segelbaum opened the public hearing.
Daria Heiden, 312 Meadow Lane North, said it is not true that the applicant couldn't get a
hold of her. She stated that had the applicant pulled a building permit she would have
known the rules. She said that because part of the deck is on her property it will affect the
value of her home and will be problem for her in the future if she tries to sell her house.
Laura Kisling, 303 Meadow Lane North, showed photos of Ms. Heiden's property and
pointed out how the deck encroaches on Ms. Heiden's property. She stated that allowing
the deck to encroach will cast a cloud on the deed of the property and could cause
problems when selling the property.
Segelbaum explained that the Board of Zoning Appeals and/or the City cannot allow
anyone to build something on someone else's property. The Board could only allow a
structure to be built right up to a property line. Hogeboom added that the City would not
Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
August 25, 2009
Page 7
stop a person from removing something from their property. He reiterated that if the Board
grants a variance for the applicant's deck it should be noted that any portion encroaching
on the neighboring property must be removed.
Kisch asked Ms. Heiden if she would object to the deck if it were built right up to the
property line and how she would feel about a fence along the property line. Heiden said if
a fence was located on the applicant's property she would not object to it but the deck is
too close to her house and she is concerned about the value of her property. She added
that no one is allowed to park on Meadow Lane so that should not be considered a
hardship for the applicant.
Rose, Neighborhood Letter Carrier, said that the applicant has turned her house around
and people comment to her how beautiful the house is and everyone in the neighborhood
is in favor of the deck. She added that that deck allows for better access to the back yard.
Linda Martineau, 315 Meadow Lane North, agreed that the applicant has made her house
much better. She said if she were to buy Ms. Heiden'sc house the deck in question is
something she'd like to look at. She said there have been issues between the neighbors in
the past before the applicant built this deck. She added that the neighboring house isn't as
well maintained as the applicant's and that the applicant has offered to buy property from
her neighbor in order to resolve the issue.
Son of the Applicant, stated that the deck is beautiful and great. It makes accessing the
house and yard easier and to have to tear it down over 0.2 feet sounds ridiculous. He said
it would hurt him to watch his mom have to tear the deck down because he sees it as an
improvement to the house and neighborhood.
Avis Veselka, 320 Meadow Lane North, said if there had been a permit obtained they
wouldn't have this problem. She stated that the applicant has to walk on her property
when she goes around the north side her house and this situation is unfair to Ms. Heiden.
She said she is not in favor of the deck.
Mary Ann Gilbert, 321 Sunnyridge Lane, said that most people in the neighborhood are in
favor of the deck and she knows the applicant is willing to come to some sort of
agreement with the neighbor to her south to resolve the issue.
Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Segelbaum closed the public
hearing.
Dillon stated that the opposition to this deck is based on personal animosity. He reiterated
that the applicant has tried to converse with Ms. Heiden and clearing up the title is exactly
what they are trying to do, they just need more time. He said he really doesn't think the
deck will negatively affect property values. He added that hardship is really the only
relevant factor in this case and the encroachment issue can be resolved.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
August25,2009
Page 8
Segelbaum explained that the Board has a few options. They could grant a variance for
7.9 feet off the required 8 feet with the condition that everything complies without seeing a
new survey, they could deny the variance request or they could table the request as the
applicant has asked.
Eck said that the deck is very attractive and enhances the property. He said he has
difficulty rationalizing the hardship based on the narrowness of the lot because there is a
way to build an access to the house and the yard without requiring a variance so the fact
that the applicant chose to build a deck instead does not constitute hardship. He said he
would have a hard time supporting this request.
Kisch said he understands there were alternate ways to build an access but if a 6-foot high
fence were built along the south property line it would create the same effect with less of a
landscaped area. He said he is in favor of granting a variance for 7.9 feet of the required 8
feet with the understanding that the entire structure must be located on the applicant's
property. He added that he believes the narrowness of the lot is the hardship in this case.
Eck said he doesn't understand the relevance of comparing a deck and a fence because
fences are allowed to be built in setback areas but decks are not. He questioned why the
City even has setback requirements if that is the case.
Hogeboom explained that if this variance request was approved staff would recommend
that the applicant obtain some sort of easement with the neighboring property because the
applicant would have to trespass on the neighbor's property in order to maintain the deck.
McCarty stated that a 25 square foot, conforming landing located a foot away from the
property line would still require the applicant to trespass on the neighbor's property to do
maintenance. Hogeboom reiterated that a 25 square foot land would however be allowed
by the Zoning Code.
McCarty said he is frustrated that there was no permit process or variance process before
the deck was built but even if the project went through the proper channels he would
support the deck being built right up to the property line because he does see a hardship
in this case. Eck noted that a landing with steps on both sides would provide the same
access as the deck. McCarty stated that the Board has given variances in the past for
structures that have already been built that have less of a hardship than this property and
he think this is a reasonable use.
Nelson questioned if the City knows whether or not the deck was built properly or is
structurally sound since no permits were obtained. Hogeboom stated that if this variance
request is granted that applicant would still have to apply for a building permit.
Segelbaum said he thinks the deck is a reasonable use but he doesn't think it is
reasonable to build something using the entire setback area. He said there are alternate
designs that could have been considered and there is an impact to surrounding property
owners. He said the deck may increase the value of this property but he is concerned
about it being built right up to the property line. He added that the deck seems fairly high
and would "look over" a 6-foot high fence. He stated that if a fence could be built that
Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
A~gust25,2009
P~ge 9
wlUld hide the deck from view he may be in favor of granting the variance request. Kisch
n ted that the proximity of what was the existing stoop puts a person at the same level as
a ence.
E$k said he still doesn't understand what the hardship is in this case. He agreed that the
lot is narrow and it was difficult to access the back yard, but there are alternatives that
dqn't require variances.
MbCarty reiterated that the shape and size of the lot to him are true hardships and the
applicant can't have a deck elsewhere. Eck questioned if not being able to have a deck is
a hardship. McCarty said this is one of the greatest hardships he has seen since he's
b~en on the Board.
,
i
Ki~ch stated that a stoop would create more of an issue with allowing a ladder or
maintenance because the access is better with the deck.
Segelbaum questioned if the allowed 25 square feet of landing area is not sufficient.
McCarty said a 25 square foot landing would leave a foot or two of setback space that
would not be usable and at least the deck is usable space. Segelbaum said he can't justify
the deck being right at the property line. Nelson said she is concerned that three staff
member, the City Attorney and the neighbor are against this proposal. Kisch reiterated that
to him the impact of a fence and this deck are the same.
Segelbaum asked if the Board could consider allowing a variance for a landing bigger than
25 square feet. Hogeboom stated that anything over 25 square feet in area would be
considered a deck.
MOVED by Kisch, seconded by McCarty to allow a variance for 7.9 ft. off the required 8
ft. at its closest point to the side yard (south) property line for the recently constructed
deck with the condition that the deck receives a building permit and a final inspection.
Ttne motion was denied 3 to 2. Members Segelbaum, Eck and Nelson voted no.
i
I
I
III. Other Business
I
,
i
N? other business was discussed.
IV. Adjournment
I
I
T~e meeting was adjourned at 9:42 pm.
i
i
I
chUCk Segelbaum, Chair
I
I
Joe Hogeboom, Staff Liaison
olden Valley
OPEN SPACE & RECREATION COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes
Brookview Community Center
Monday, July 27,2009
7:00 PM
I. CALL TO ORDER
Sandler called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL
Present: Roger Bergman, Ken Graves, Kelly Kuebelbeck, Bob Mattison, Emily
Piper, Jerry Sandler, Paula Pentel, City Council Member; Rick Jacobson,
Director of Parks and Recreation; Brian Erickson, Recreation Supervisor;
Jeanne Fackler, Senior Citizen Coordinator; Sheila Van Sloun, Parks and
Recreation Administrative Assistant; Chuck Sadoff, Resident; and Nora Tycast,
Resident.
Absent: Ann Saffert and Jim Vaughan.
III. AGENDA CHANGES OR ADDITIONS
None made.
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - April 27, 2009
MOTION: Moved by Bergman and seconded by Mattison to approve the June
22nd meeting minutes. Motion carried unanimously.
V. LIONS PARK - EVENT PARKING
Jacobson gave details on concerns over parking around Lions Park. He also
discussed current signage and parking laws in that area.
Tycast and Sadoff shared their concerns with the Commission.
Mattison shared team and schedule information for the Golden Valley Girls
Softball Association.
Discussion focused on possible solutions to the parking issues.
The Commission then recommended the following get passed along to the
Traffic Commission:
Minutes of the Golden Valley Open Space and Recreation Commission
July 27,2009
Page 2
Parking banned on one side of Kentucky Avenue.
Communication to league parents about parking areas and etiquette.
Distribute league schedules to neighbors.
VI. RECREATION REPORT - Jeanne Fackler
Fackler gave details on senior groups, classes and programs she coordinates
and is involved in. She said over 10,000 senior were served through her
program in 2008. She also said approximately 400 senior newsletters go out bi-
monthly.
Fackler also explained her role with the Golden Valley Human Services
Foundation. She talked about the upcomin~ Taste of Golden Valley, which will take
place at the Metropolitan on November 11t . She said the Golden Valley Golf
Classic scheduled for September 18th has been cancelled.
Fackler said she is looking for new speakers and asked the Commission to send
anyone her way.
VII. ATHLETIC FIELD GRANT PROGRAM
Mattison explained the grant program. He asked for volunteers to form a sub-
committee to discuss needs and take the information to the county. Mattison,
Piper, Sandler and Kuebelbeck volunteered.
MOTION: Moved by Mattison and seconded by Kuebelbeck to form a sub-
committee to research athletic facility needs as well as come up with
a process for prioritizing those needs and work with the associations
to apply for the Hennepin County Youth Sports Grants. Motion
carried unanimously.
VIII. OLD BUSINESS
Luce Line Trail
Jacobson said the trail is complete and open for use. He said a ribbon cutting
ceremony will take place on August 13th at Schaper Park at 4:00 p.m.
Dog Park
Jacobson said the Golden Valley Humane Society will be getting back to the City
after they discuss the possibility with their board.
IX. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Moved by Piper and seconded by Bergman to adjourn at 8:30 p.m.
Motion carried unanimously.
JOINT WATER COMMISSION MINUTES
Golden Valley - Crystal - New Hope
Meeting of June 10, 2009
The Golden Valley - Crystal - New Hope Joint Water Commission meeting was called to
order at 1 :30 pm, in the City of Golden Valley Council Conference Room.
Commissioners Present
Tom Burt, City Manager, Golden Valley
Anne Norris, City Manager, Crystal
Kirk McDonald, City Manager, New Hope
Staff Present
Randy Kloepper, Utility Maintenance Supervisor, Crystal
Guy Johnson, Director of Public Works, New Hope
Sue Virnig, Finance Director, Golden Valley
Bert Tracy, Public Works Maintenance Manager, Golden Valley
Dave Lemke, Utilities Maintenance Supervisor, Golden Valley
Other
Scott Harder, Environmental Financial Group (EFG)
Minutes of April 1. 2009
MOVED by Norris, seconded by McDonald and motion carried to approve the minutes of
the April 1, 2009 meeting.
Updates on Water Advisory Board
Harder updated the commission with the schedule of dates for the final two meetings. The
second meeting will be held on June 25, 2009 at the Columbia Heights Water Treatment
Plant between 4 and 6:30 pm with water treatment plant tours available at 3 pm for those
who are interested. At this meeting Minneapolis explain their conservation rates of a base
rate with higher rates during the summer. Also discussed will be the financial plans and the
review of the Minneapolis CIP.
The third meeting will be on July 23 with the location and time to be announced. The long
term financial plans with regarded to water treatment plants will be discussed.
At the meeting the Board will be able to review and give comments on the Minneapolis
Water Works 2010-2014 CIP. The Board will be given a list of projects from Shahin
Rezania and the reasons behind them.
After discussion the consensus was that only those projects that impact the cost for the
wholesale cities be included at the meeting.
Joint Water Commission
June 10, 2009
Page 2 of 2
Update on Crystal Reservoir Leak Repair Results
Kloepper reported that repairs have been completed and they are satisfied with the results.
Prior to repairs they were losing 125 gallons a minute and now the water loss is 14 gallons
a minute. Kloepper calculated that the repair costs will be paid back in two years.
Motor Starter Pump 3 (Golden Vallev Pump Station)
MOVED by Norris, seconded by McDonald and motion carried to approve the purchase of a
Motor Starter Pump 3 for the Golden Valley Pump Station from Detail Electric at a cost not
to exceed $11,675.
Discussion ensued about the possibility of a rebate for going with a soft start. Tracy will
look into the possibility of a rebate.
Update on Back-up Water Supplv Plan
On June 22, the TAC Committee will meet with Barr Engineering to review the backup
water plan and will report back to the Joint Water Commission at the July 1 meeting.
Other Business
Bid for Valuation of Capital Assets and Infrastructure for Joint Water Commission
Virnig presented a proposal from Hirons & Associates, Inc., to prepare a capital asset study
for GASB#34 and insurance purposes.
MOVED by Norris, seconded by McDonald and motion carried to approve the cost
associated with creating a capital asset and infrastructure report from Hirons & Associates,
Inc. at a cost not to exceed $6,700.
Sprint Lease
Johnson updated the committee on issues New Hope is having with Sprint and their
request for a Lease Optimization Program at 2801 Hillsboro Avenue North.
Next Meeting
The next meeting will be July 1, 2009.
Adiournment
The meeting was adjourned at 2 pm.
Thomas D. Burt, Chair
ATTEST:
Christine Columbus, Administrative Assistant
Envision Connection Project
Board of Directors Meeting Minutes
August 20, 2009
Present: Sharon Glover, Jim Heidelberg, Helene Johnson, Linda Loomis, Philip Lund,
Dean Penk, Marshall Tanick, Blair Tremere and Luke Weisberg (GVCEF Representative)
Staff: Jeanne Andre
The meeting began at 7:15 pm in the Council Conference Room.
Approval of Minutes
Tremere/Lund moved to approve the minutes of July 16, 2009 as presented. Motion
carried.
Proposed Community Foundation/Non-Profit
A revised Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) sheet with an Overview on the Proposed
Community Foundation was submitted by the committee and distributed in the agenda
packet. Board Members commented on the draft documents and recommended changes
to the committee. The remaining discussion focused on a plan to bring others into the
discussion. The plan discussed proposes: 1) revise the document and bring it for final
Board discussion at the September meeting; 2) have Linda Loomis share the discussion
to date with the Council at the September Council/Manager Meeting and get the Council
blessing to discuss the idea of a Community Foundation with other community members
and 3) based on community discussions refine the documents and make a formal
presentation to the City Council sometime between November and January.
Bridge Building Activities
Ice Cream Social- The Social had the highest turnout ever and was well received. The
Board discussed elements of the event and recommended keeping the date of the third
Monday in July, perhaps serving the ice cream during the band performance (if the band
is ok with this approach), continue use of lawn signs, consider having additional scooping
stations (with another table and more scoopers), promote organizations to attend and
share information about their activities with the community, consider having Envision
promotional fans to distribute (perhaps in cooperation with Lupient). Jeanne Andre will
prepare a summary of the event for the group to review at the next meeting.
Lilac Planting - Plans are in place for the event, scheduled on September 26. Blair
Tremere has secured food donations from Byerly's, General Mills, and Mansfield, Tanick
and Cohen. Spirit of Hope Church will provide a portable toilet. Blair is also seeking cash
donations to cover expenses for lunch and the rototiller. He asked Board Members to
consider donating. Belinda Jensen is willing to do a promotional pitch (smaller than last
year) and requested a press release a few weeks before the event.
Buckthorn Busting - Blair Tremere has worked on an event, but may delay scheduling a
date until next spring. The educator from Minnetonka charges $100 to make a
presentation. He will consider other resources from the DNA or Watershed District. He
has also consulted with Jan Olfe, who organized a Buckthorn Bust at Rice Lake.
Garden Club - Philip Lund reported that he attended the August 5 meeting of the new
evening unit of the Garden Club. There were about 12 people in attendance.
Envision Connection Project
Board of Directors Meeting Minutes
August 20, 2009 - Page 2
Fall Training - October 17 - Helene Johnson explained that she hopes to involve the
coaches in the training, but a number are unable to attend the event. Jeanne Andre and
Linda Loomis volunteered to be temporary coaches. A planning meeting for the event will
be held before the next Board Meeting on Thursday, September 17, at 5 pm at the
American Legion. Jeanne Andre will prepare a list of persons already registered for the
training and a list of prospective attendees who have expressed interest in Bridge
Builders at various recent events. She will distribute the list and Members will call on
individuals to see if they are interested in the training. Marshall Tanick has reserved
space for the event at the Golden Valley Country Club.
Future Meetings
The next meeting will be on September 17.
The meeting ended at 9:10 pm.
Jeanne Andre, Assistant City Manager
Bassett Creek Watersbed Management Commission
Minutes of the. Meeting of August 20, 2009
1. Call to Order
The Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission (BCWMC) was called to order at 11:45 a.m.,
Thursday, August 20,2009, at Golden Valley City Hall by Chair Welch. Ms. Herbert conducted roll call.
Roll Call
Crystal
Golden Valley
Medicine Lake
Minneapolis
Minnetonka
New Hope
Plymouth
Robbinsdale
St. Louis Park
Also present:
Commissioner Pauline Langsdorf, Secretary
Commissioner Linda Loomis, Treasurer
Alternate Commissioner Ted Hoshal
Commissioner Michael Welch, Chair
Not represented
Commissioner Daniel Stauner
Commissioner Ginny Black, Vice Chair
Commissioner Wayne Sicora
Not represented
Counsel
Engineer
Recorder
Charlie LeFevere
Karen Chandler
Amy Herbert
Laura Adler, BCWMC Technical Advisory Committee, City of St. Louis Park
Terrie Christian, Association of Medicine Lake Area Citizens
Dave Hanson, Alternate Commissioner, City of Golden Valley
Jeff Lee, Barr Engineering Company
Randy Lehr, Three Rivers Park District
Tom Mathisen, BCWMC Technical Advisory Committee, City of Crystal
Richard McCoy, BCWMC Technical Advisory Committee, City of Robbinsdale
Bob Moberg, BCWMC Technical Advisory Committee, City of Plymouth
Jeff Oliver, BCWMC Technical Advisory Committee, City of Golden Valley
Stu Stockhaus, Alternate Commissioner, City of Crystal
Liz Stout, BCWMC Technical Advisory Committee, City of Minnetonka
Liz Thornton, Alternate Commissioner, City of Plymouth
Sue Virnig, BCWMC Deputy Treasurer
2. Approval of Agenda and Consent Agenda
Ms. Langsdorf requested item 6E i- Grant Proposal for Teacher Focus Group - be removed from the
agenda and added to the October meeting agenda. Chair Welch requested the addition of item 4E - Mid-
year BCWMC Budget Review. Ms. Loomis moved to approve the agenda as amended. Ms. Black
seconded the agenda. The motion carried unanimously [Cities of Minnetonka and St. Louis Park absent
from the vote]. Ms. Black moved to approve the Consent Agenda. Ms. Loomis seconded the motion. The
motion carried unanimonsly [Cities of Minnetonka and St. Louis Park absent from the vote].
3. Citizen Input on Non-Agenda Items
No citizen input on non-agenda items.
4. Administration
A. Presentation of the July 16,2009, BCWMC meeting minutes. The minutes were approved as
part of the Consent Agenda.
B. Presentation of the Financial Statement. The August rmancial report was received and approved
as part of the Consent Agenda.
The general and construction account balances reported in the August 2009 Financial Report are
as follows:
Checking Account Balance
TOTAL GENERAL FUND BAlANCE
578,501.55
578,501.55
Construction Account Cash Balance
Investment due 10/18/2010
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION ACCOUNT BALANCE
-Less: Reserved for CIP projects
Construction cash! investments available for projects
2,632,457.84
533,957.50
3,166,415.34
3,680,069.05
(513,653.71)
C. Presentation of Invoices for Payment Approval.
Invoices:
i. Kennedy & Graven - Legal Services through June 30, 2009 - invoice for the
amount of $1,801.76.
ii. Barr Engineering Company - June Engineering Services - invoice for the
amount of $40,738.28.
iii. Barr Engineering Company - Sweeney Lake TMDL Phase 2 Services - invoice
for the amount of $2,468.50.
iv. Amy Herbert - July Recording Administrator Services - invoice for the
amount of $2,409.15.
v. SEH, Inc. - Sweeney Lake TMDL Phase 2 Work through June 30, 2009 -
invoice for the amount of $1,654.90.
vi. SEH, Inc. - Sweeney Lake TMDL Phase 2 Work through July 31, 2009-
invoice for the amount of $497.45.
Ms. Loomis moved to approve payment of all invoices. Ms. Black seconded the motion. The motion
carried unanimously. By call of roll, the motion carried unanimously [Cities of Minnetonka and St.
Louis Park absent from the vote].
D. Schedule BCWMC Liaisons for September, November, and January TAC Meetings. Mr.
Stauner volunteered to attend the September 3rd TAC meeting as the Commission's liaison, Ms.
Langsdorf volunteered to attend the November 5th TAC meeting, and Mr. Hoshal volunteered to
attend the January 5th TAC meeting.
E. BCWMC Mid- Year Budget Review. The Commission reviewed its August 2009 financial report
and discussed the year-to-date budget amounts. Deputy Treasurer Sue Virnig recommended the
BCWMC combine its two checking accounts into one account. Chair Welch moved to authorize Ms.
Virnig to commingle the two funds into one account. Ms. Black seconded the motion. The motion
carried unanimously [Cities of Minnetonka and St. Louis Park absent from the vote].
The Commission authorized Chair Welch to investigate what action the Commission needs to take to
assure collateralization of all of the Commission's funds. Ms. Loomis volunteered to assist Chair
2
#249384 vI
BCWMC August 20, 2009 Meeting Minutes
Welch.
5. New Business
No New Business.
6. Old Business
A. Feasibility Report for Plymouth Creek Restoration Project. Mr. Jeff Lee of Barr
Engineering presented the information from the feasibility reports of two BCWMC CIP Projects:
Channel restoration of Plymouth Creek from 26th A venue to Medicine Lake and Channel
restoration of Bassett Creek Reach 2.
Mr. Lee discussed the stream soil bioengineering structural-based and plant-based treatments that
would be used in the projects including: Riprap with live cuttings, rock vanes - cross vanes, VRSS
with riprap toe, live cuttings, VRSS, root wads, bio-Iogs, live stakes, and temporary erosion
control fabric.
Mr. Lee stated that the Plymouth Creek restoration will need an EA W completed for the project
and those costs are not currently included in the feasibility study. He said he is working on rmding
out whether the Bassett Creek restoration project will need an EA W or not. Chair Welch
commented that the BCWMC's Resource Management Plan should have laid the groundwork for
completing EA Ws.
Chair Welch stated that the Commission should continue this practice of having a presentation of
feasibility studies prior to the projects' public hearings.
Chair Welch requested that Mr. Lee's presentation be on-hand at the September public hearing
about the two projects in case citizens would like to see examples of the restoration techniques.
B. Feasibility Report for Bassett Creek Main Stem Restoration Project. See 6A - Feasibility
Report for Plymouth Creek Restoration Project.
C. Sweeney Lake TMDL Update. Chair Welch reported that the draft Sweeney Lake TMDL
report is available online and was discussed at the July BCWMC meeting. He reminded the
Commission that it asked for Commission and City comments on the draft report by August 7th
and asked that those comments be sent to the Commission Engineer and Mr. Leaf of SEH, Inc.
Chair Welch said comments were received from Mr. Dave Hanson, BCWMC alternate
commissioner from the City of Golden Valley, Mr. Jeff Oliver of the City of Golden Valley, and
Mr. Robert Laing, consultant for CLEAN-FLO International.
Chair Welch reminded the Commission that the draft TMDL report discusses a categorical
wasteload allocation and that at this meeting the Commission is planning to discuss the allocation
approach.
Ms. Chandler handed out excerpts from the draft report for the Commission's reference during
the discussion: one with the wasteload allocations and the other with the implementation table.
Ms. Black asked if the report details how much of the phosphorus is suspended and how much of
it is dissolved since the treatment methods differ depending on the type of phosphorus. Ms.
Chandler said the report didn't give those details.
#249384 vi
BCWMC August 20, 2009 Meeting Minutes
3
Mr. Hanson stated that he is continuing communications with Mr. Leaf to try to understand the
data and f"mdings of the report.
Mr. Mathisen said the information is not clear about why the water quality of Sweeney Lake is
better. He asked if the better water quality is attributed to the aerators being turned off. Chair
Welch said that based on reading the report his understanding is that the improved water quality
is due to both the very low flow of water into the lake during the sampling time and the aerators
being turned off, which meant stratification of the phosphorus. He commented that when water is
cleared up and phosphorus is reduced, there is more weed growth due to the ecology of lakes.
Mr. Hanson remarked that the weeds and algae in Sweeney Lake are thicker than ever before.
Chair Welch responded that another detail that he took away from the report is that there is a
large supply of phosphorus in the lake that needs to be addressed and that the algae is evidence of
that problem. He said that finalizing the TMDL doesn't f"1X the water quality in Sweeney Lake but
it is a significant step toward f"mding a solution. Chair Welch said he isn't comfortable going
forward with the TMDL offering a categorical wasteload allocation at this point. He said the TAC
hasn't offered a recommendation to the Commission about the allocation approach. Chair Welch
said the Commission sent a letter to the MPCA and asked for its response on what it means for the
Commission to take on the categorical approach. He said the Commission has not gotten a
response and he thinks it is because the MPCA doesn't have the answers at this time. Chair Welch
said he wants to get the response but he doesn't think the response will provide a clear direction
for the Commission.
Mr. Stauner commented that he would be reluctant to move ahead without the response from the
MPCA. He added that the response would also affect the Medicine Lake TMDL and the Wirth
Lake TMDL.
Chair Welch also commented that the Commission needs to keep in mind the Clean Water Legacy
funds. He said that the report should say that the Commission thinks Sweeney Lake is a very
important urban lake and the Commission needs Clean Water Legacy money to improve Sweeney
Lake's water quality.
Mr. Mathisen asked if the TMDL report speaks about the aerators and asked whose jurisdiction
the aerators fall under. Chair Welch responded that the aerators are under the jurisdiction of the
Department of Natural Resources. Ms. Chandler stated that the TMDL does address the aerators.
She said, however, that the data didn't point to a conclusion on whether turning the aerators off
contributed to the improved water quality. She explained that there were low water flows into
Sweeney Lake during the sampling seasons for the TMDL, which contributed to improved water
quality, but the data couldn't discern to what extent the low flows improved the water quality
versus another factor such as the aerators being turned off. She said the TMDL report requests
leaving the aerators off and collecting more water quality information to see if the effects could be
discerned.
Chair Welch commented that aerators do not make phosphorus go away. He said the aerators
may mask the phosphorus. Ms. Loomis said the aerators seem to keep the phosphorus in the
sediments. Chair Welch said the alum treatment and aerators mask the phosphorus problem and
that he has a hard time using taxpayer dollars for either alum treatment or aerators because it
doesn't address the phosphorus load.
Ms. Christian said she could send to the Commission her notes from a presentation on alum
treatments that she obtained through a University of Minnesota alum treatment conference from
three or four years ago. Chair Welch asked her to send it to Ms. Herbert for distribution.
#249384 vI
BCWMC August 20, 2009 Meeting Minutes
4
Ms. Black commented that she has some concerns about the alum treatment being a temporary fIx
in which the benefIts diminish over time and so that eventually it would not be meeting the TMDL
requirement. She also asked about who would run the alum treatment facility and who would
bear the cost of the ongoing maintenance and running of the facility.
Chair Welch asked Ms. Chandler if Barr Engineering would follow up in the next few days with
the MPCA on the letter the Commission sent to the MPCA with questions about the categorical
wasteload allocation and let the MPCA know that the Commission would like a response in time
for the Commission's discussion at the September BCWMC meeting. He also said he would like
Barr to have a conversation with the two principal funding entities, MPCA and BWSR, about
whether they have communicated that they don't want to fund particular BMPs as part of
TMDLs. Chair Welch asked the commissioners to review the report and especially the
implementation plan and the comments the Commission received and that are in the packet. He
said he would like the Commission to fInalize the report at the next meeting. Chair Welch said he
also has concerns about what MnJDOT will do about being assigned a load.
Mr. Stauner said he thought the MnlDOT perspective needs to be dealt with by the Commission
and that perhaps watersheds should coordinate a joint approach. Ms. Black asked why the MPCA
isn't working with MnlDOT.
Chair Welch asked the Commission if it wants to hold onto the TMDL report and integrate
information it receives in the next few weeks or send it to the MPCA. He said there were responses
from Mr. Leaf in the packet and the Commission should review those responses to make sure that
they are reflected in the report the way the Commission wants them to be. Mr. Sicora
recommended the Commission hold onto the report and obtain the responses to the information it
has requested and then hold the Commission to making a decision at the next meeting.
Chair Welch stated he understands the Commission saying it wants to hold onto the report, go
through the comments and responses to information requests, and fInalize the report next month.
D. Medicine Lake TMDL Update. Chair Welch reported that progress is being made in regards to
the model and data. He stated that there is a stakeholder meeting on Thursday, August 27th at 4:00
pm at French Regional Park. Mr. Lehr commented that there will end up being two models that
are good matches to observed data and there will be sound rationales for data that do not match
up.
Mr. Moberg added that one model is big picture and may need refInement in regards to
subwatersheds if they are in the implementation plan and that the other model is specifIc for
Plymouth Creek.
Mr. Lehr stated that there was a lot of technical discussion which was the result of a lack of
transparency. He said that in the spirit of future collaboration the groups should discuss methods
of standardizing models and data collection so the groups can all look at them and quickly
interpret them. Chair Welch said that could be a TAC item.
E. Education and Public Outreach Committee.
i. Grant Proposal for Teacher Focus Group. Deferred to October meeting.
F. CIP Closed Account Fund Balance. Ms. Chandler handed out the table ''BCWMC - Projected
Balances - Capital Improvement Projects - August 2009". She explained that the Commission
anticipates requesting that Hennepin County levy $1,000,000 for 2010. She explained the table
depicts a snapshot in time of the CIP closed account balance and at this time the balance is
#249384 vI
BCWMC August 20, 2009 Meeting Minutes
5
approximately $315,000. Ms. Chandler said the Commission could take action to reduce its levy
request by $85,000.
Ms. Loomis moved to reduce its levy request to Hennepin County to $915,000. Mr. Stauner
seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously [Cities of Minnetonka and St. Louis Park
were absent from the vote].
Chair Welch announced that the bids for the construction of the West Medicine Park Pond project
were approximately $114,000 lower than the estimated project cost.
7. Communications
A. Chair:
i. Chair Welch reported that the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources is holding its
second annual BWSR Academy November 2 - 4, 2009 at Cragun's Resort and Hotel on Gull
Lake in Brainerd, Minnesota and more information could be found online at
www.bwsr.state.mn.usIacademy.
ii. Chair Welch recommended that the Commission create a policy on aquatic invasive species.
He directed Ms. Chandler to look into finding a person to give a presentation on aquatic
invasive species at a future BCWMC meeting.
B. Commissioners:
i. Ms. Loomis announced that the MPCA is looking to form a task force to discuss what the
MPCA should do to involve its citizens in developing TMDL implementation plans. The
MPCA contact for the task force is Lynne Kolze at 651-757-2501 or Ivnne.kolze@state.mn.us.
ii. Mr. Hoshal announced that he had submitted in June comments on the Medicine Lake TMDL
report to LimnoTech, the MPCA, and the Commission but that he didn't get any response.
Chair Welch recommended that Mr. Hoshal contact Chris Zadak of the MPCA about the
comments and to attend the August 27th Medicine Lake stakeholder meeting and offer the
comments at the meeting.
ill. Mr. Hoshal asked if the Commission has a policy for collecting relevant articles that appear in
publications. Chair Welch said Mr. Hoshal can send links to relevant articles to the
Commission via the Commission's Recording Administrator.
C. Committees:
Education Committee
i. Ms. Langsdorf announced she passed around to the Commission copies of the article "Capture
the rain in barrels and you help the Earth" by Judy Argineteanu in the Crystal, Robbinsdale,
New Hope and Golden Valley Sun-Post. Ms. Langsdorf reminded the Commission that it had
hired Ms. Argineteanu to write three articles in 2009 that spotlight people taking steps to
improve water quality in the Bassett Creek Watershed.
ii. Ms. Thornton reported that two different watershed articles are in the works by the writer
hired by the Commission and that a total of three articles are planned for 2009. Ms. Thornton
requested that the Commission send her any contacts in the watershed of residents doing
watershed-friendly practices.
#249384 vI
BCWMC August 20, 2009 Meeting Minutes
6
iii. Ms. Langsdorf announced that the next Education Committee meeting is on Tuesday, July 21,
2009, at 9:00 a.m. at Plymouth City HaU.
Administrative Services Committee: Chair Welch stated that the Administrative Services
Committee would be scheduling a meeting.
D. Counsel: No Communications.
E. Engineer: Ms. Chandler announced that the Resource Management Plan has not yet been public
noticed by the Army Corps of Engineers but is expected to be noticed this week.
8. Adjournment
Ms. Loomis moved to adjourn the meeting. Ms. Black seconded the motion. The motion carried
unanimously [Cities of Minnetonka and St. Louis Park absent from the vote]. The meeting adjourned at
2:40 p.m.
Michael Welch, Chair
Date
Amy Herbert, Recorder
Date
Pauline Langsdorf, Secretary
Date
7
#249384 vI
BCWMC August 20, 2009 Meeting Minutes
To: Mayor and City Council of Golden Valley
From:
Christopher and Meriah Chamberlain
2400 Byrd Ave N
Golden Valley, MN 55422
(763) 331-0918
IEP ',0 ZO()~
To Whom It May Concern:
We are submitting this letter to formally appeal the decision to levy unpaid utility bills onto the property
taxes of Christopher and Meriah Chamberlain (2400 Byrd Ave N, Golden Valley, MN 55422). These
utility bills were incurred before our purchase of the property (12/12/08) by the then current (now
previous) owner.
We understand the function of MN State Statute Sect. 3.04 Sub. 8 is to ensure that city government has
an avenue for collecting unpaid utility bills from property owners. We do not question the importance
of a municipality's ability to collect outstanding balances from its debtors however; we sincerely doubt
that the intention of the city is to demand that one citizen be directly responsible for the debt of
another.
If someone drives away from a gas station without paying the bill, is the next customer responsible for
the unpaid fuel? If one fails to return a library book does the next person requesting a copy have to pay
to replace it? The answer to both theoretical situations is, of course, no. Therefore, why would the City
of Golden Valley choose to levy taxes onto one citizen to pay the bill of another? This seems so
obviously unjust.
We are aware that this governing body has the capacity to make exceptions to these tax levies. We ask
that you consider our circumstance before deciding to place this expense on our shoulders. The extra
expense of $415.04 would bea significant and misdirected financial burden on us. We have provided
contact information for the previous owner, Troy Gambucci, to both Norma Glagus and Sue Virnig at the
city office. Thank you very much for your time.
Sincerely,
~ CLiL--:-
Christopher Chamberlain
~aln
Enclosures
CLOSING BILL PAST DUE NOTICE
Please Return This Portion With Your Payment
Account Number
0010141208
Customer Number
00047090
Total Due
$385.04
Amount Enclosed
Due Date
Past Due
TROY GAMBUCCI
PLEASE FORWARD
2400 BYRD AVE N
GOLDEN VALLEY MN 55422-3817
DUPliCATE
Remit to: City of Golden Valley 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427
Keep This Portion For Your Records
Account Number
0010141208
Customer Number
00047090
Total Due
$385.04
Amount Enclosed
Due Date
Past Due
Billing Name: TROY GAMBUCCI
Service Address: 2400 BYRD AVE N
Remit to: City of Golden Valley
Utility Billing Dept.
7800 Golden Valley Road
Golden Valley, MN 55427
Our records indicate that your closing bill for your City of Golden V alley Water & Sewer Utility services is
past due. Please pay imn1e~ately. Automati? withdrawal is not available on final billings.
PAST DUE NOTICE
For further information or assistance, please contact 763-593-8016.
Payment drop box is located at the City Hall Main Entrance.
CERTIFICATION NOTICE
Please Return This Portion With Your Full Payment
Account Number
0010141208
Customer Number
00047090
Balance Due In Full
$415.04
Due Date
11/13/2009
Service Address: 2400 BYRD AVE N
PllD: 1702924220068
CHRIS CHAMBERLAIN
2400 BYRD AVE N
GOLDEN VALLEY MN 55422-3817
Remit to:
City of Golden Valley
7800 Golden Valley Rd
Golden Valley, MN 55427
Keep This Portion For Your Recoras .
Notice of Beann!! for 2009 Delinquent Utilitv Bills
The City of Golden Valley and Hennepin County Treasurer's records show you as an owner and/or
taxpayer of certain land(s) with respect to which the City of Golden Valley now proposes to order a levy
for delinquent utilities identified below. Notice is here by given to you that the City Council of Golden
Valley will meet at City Hall Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, on October 6.2009 at 7:00
P.M.. and will then and there consider and act on all assessments. Written objections need to be filed
with the city clerk prior to the assessment hearing or presented to the presiding officer at the hearing. An
owner may appeal to district court pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 429.081 by serving notice of the
appeal upon the mayor or clerk of the city within 30 days after the adoption of the assessment and filing
such notice with the district court within ten days after service upon the mayor or clerk. The proposed
assessment roll is on file for public inspection with the City Clerk and may be examined during office
hours of 8:00 A.M. to 4:30 P.M.
Above is the legal notice to advise you on the hearing that will allow the City to be paid in full by the
use of property taxes by approving the enclosed resolution. This hearing gives approval for the City to
apply the delinquent city utility bill to your property tax payment in 2010. If you do not want this to
appear on your city property tax for 2010, please pay in full by November 13, 2009. You do not have to
~ttend tbf' heaTing for this amollnt to be added to. YOllr prope.rt:y taxes...Ihe abo"t" amount includes the-
$30 certification fee to cover administrative costs.
Partial prepayment is not authorized by City ordinance. Make checks payable to the City of Golden
V alley and send the remittance portion with full payment.
Questions may be directed to the City of Golden Valley at (763) 593.8020.
PUD: 1702924220068
Service Address: 2400 BYRD AVE N
Delinquent Amount (with fee):
$415.04
Spread over 1 year unless paid in full by November 13, 2009
Interest Rate: 5%
You are receiving a copy of this bill because the fonner owner has not
paid their final utility bill. The fonner owner will receive a copy of this
bill too. If the fonner owner does not make payment, you as property
owner will be responsible.
The City of Golden Valley certifies outstanding balances on Utility
Accounts once a year to property taxes if not paid. This process allows
us to collect outstanding balances and not charge other users of the
system for non-payment~
We recommend that you contact the closer when you purchased this
home and infonn them of the situation. As property owner you are
responsible for this bill if the fonner owner does not make payment.
Below is a copy of the City Code that gives us the authority for this
process.
Section 3.04: Rules and Regulations Relating to Municipal Utilities
Subdivision 8: Municipal Utility Services and Charges a Lien
A. Payment for all municipal utility services and charges shall be the primary
responsibility of the owner of the premises served and shall be billed to the
owner unless otherwise contracted for and authorized in writing by the owner
and the tenant, as agent for the owner, and consented to by the City. The City
may collect all charges, penalties and surcharges in a civil action or as
otherwise provided in this subdivision.
B. Each utility account is hereby made a lien upon the premises served. All such
accounts which are more than forty-five days past due may, when authorized
by resolution of the Council, be certified by the City Clerk, to. the County
Auditor, and the City Clerk in so certifying shall specify the amount thereof,
the description of the premises served, and the name of the owner thereof.
The amount so certified shall be extended by the Auditor on the tax rolls
against such premises in the same manner as other taxes, and collected by the
County Treasurer, and paid to the City along with other taxes.
October 6, 2009
Member
introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION ADOPTING AND CONFIRMING ASSESSMENTS
FOR DELINQUENT UTILITY BILLING
1. The amount proper and necessary to be specially assessed at this time for various public
improvements:
Years
Interest Rate
First Year Le
Total Assessed
1
5%
2010
$303451.18
against every assessable lot, piece, or parcel of land affected thereby has been duly calculated upon the basis
of benefits, without regard to cash valuation, in accordance with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter
429, and notice has been duly published, as required by law that this Council would meet to hear, consider
and pass upon all objections, if any, and said proposed assessment has at all time since its filing been open
for public inspection and an opportunity has been given to all interested persons to present their ob'~~ons if
--ariy,lo such proposed asseSSments. -- -- -- - - -----
2. This Council, having heard and considered all objections so presented, finds that each f the lots,
pieces and parcels of land enumerated in the proposed assessment was and is specially benefited y the
construction of said improvement in not less than the amount of the assessment set opposite the d cription
of each such lot, piece and parcel of land respectively, and such amount so set out is hereby levied against
each of the respective lots, pieces and parcels of land therein described.
3. The proposed assessments are hereby adopted and confirmed as the proper assessm nts for
each of said lots, pieces and parcels of land respectively, and the assessment against each parcel, together
with interest at the rate of six (6) percent per annum accruing on the full amount thereof unpaid, sh II be a lien
concurrent with general taxes upon parcel and all thereof. The total amount of each such assessm nt not
prepaid shall be payable in equal annual principal installments extending over a period of years, as ndicated in
each case. The first of said installments, together with interest on the entire assessment for the pe 'od of
January 1, 2010 through December 31, 2010, will be payable with general taxes for the year of 200 ,
collectible in 2010.
4. Prior to certification of the assessment to the County Auditor, the owner of any lot, piece or parcel
of land assessed hereby may at any time pay the whole such assessment, with interest to the date of
payment. to the City Treasurer, but no interest shall be charged if such payment is made by Novem r 13,
2009.
5. The City Clerk shall, as soon as may be, prepare and transmit to the County Auditor a rtified
duplicate of the assessment roll, with each installment and interest on each unpaid assessment set forth
separately, to be-extended Upoil U I~ plUp~1 tax lists of Ule County and1he-COunty-AUOItOT snail thel' ifter--
collect said assessment in the manner provided by law.
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 thereat
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the Mayor and h r signature
attested by the City Clerk.
08/30/2008 10:54 FAX B51B04B748
NAT'L ARBITRATION
III 01/001
September 30, 2009
Mayor Linda Loomis
7800 Golden Valley Road
Golden Valley, MN 55427
Re: Ryan Chandlee resigrw.tionfrom the Golden Valley Environmental Commission
Dear Mayor Loomis:
I am writing to resign my seat as a Commissioner on the Golden Valley Environmental
Commission. I am relocating out of state for work, so I will be unable to continue to serve on
the Commission. I have enjoyed my time working with the other Commission members and
the City staff during these past few years. They are all very dedicated to the City and its
residents, and perform top-notch work. 'am sure the Commission will continue to
accomplish great things.
Ryan Chandlee
alley
Memorandum
Planning
763-593-8095 I 763-593-8109 (fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
October 6, 2009
Agenda Item
3. F. Approval of Plat - Ralph Addition
Prepared By
Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development
Summary
Peter Ralph, owner of the property located at 1425 Rhode Island Avenue North, has
requested a lot consolidation (minor subdivision) of his three separate lots (South 40 feet of
Lot 2 together with Lots 3 and 4, Block 6 Winnetka).
At the January 6,2009 City Council meeting, the City Council approved Mr. Ralph's request
for a preliminary plat for the Ralph Addition to allow the consolidation of the three lots. The
applicant asked for one extension in the six-month time allowed for bringing the final plat to
the City Council for approval. This six-month extension was granted by the City Council on
July 7, 2009.
A copy of the final plat is enclosed in your agenda packet. The information submitted to the
City is consistent with the approved Preliminary Plat.
Attachments
Resolution for Approval of Plat - Ralph Addition (1 page)
Plat for Ralph Addition (1 oversized page, loose in agenda packet)
Recommended Action
Motion to adopt Resolution for Approval of Plat - Ralph Addition.
Resolution 09-46
October 6,2009
Member
introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION FOR APPROVAL OF PLAT - RALPH ADDITION
WHEREAS, the City Council for the City of Golden Valley, pursuant to due notice,
has heretofore conducted a public hearing on the proposed plat to be known as Ralph
Addition covering the following described tracts of land:
Lots 3 and 5 and Lot 2, except the North 20 feet thereof, WINNETKA, Hennepin
County, Minnesota
WHEREAS, all persons present were given the opportunity to be heard;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council for the City of Golden
Valley, that said proposed plat be, and the same hereby is, accepted and approved, and
the proper officers of the City are hereby authorized and instructed to sign the original of
said plat and to do all other things necessary and proper in the premises.
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.
alley
e rand
Finance
763-593-8013 I 763-593-3969 (fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
October 6, 2009
Agenda Item
3. G. Approving Appointment of Election Judges for City Election
Prepared By
Sue Virnig, Finance Director
Edie Ernst, Accounts Receivable/Elections Assistant
Summary
As required in State Statute 2048.21, the Council needs to approve the appointment of the
Election Judges for the upcoming election. Attached is the list of judges and the precincts
they will be working at on Election Day.
Attachments
Resolution Approving the Appointment of Election Judges for the City Election to be Held on
November 3, 2009 (3 pages)
Recommended Action
Motion to adopt Resolution Approving the Appointment of Election Judges for the City
Election to be Held on November 3, 2009.
Resolution 09-47
October 6, 2009
Member
introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE APPOINTMENT OF ELECTION JUDGES
FOR THE CITY ELECTION TO BE HELD ON NOVEMBER 3, 2009
BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Golden Valley, that the persons
herein named are appointed judges and alternates for the City Election to be held on
November 3,2009. The judges appointed, precinct and voting places wherein they shall
serve and the hours are as follows: Polls shall be open from 7 am until 8 pm. Election
judges shall work from 6 am until votes are counted.
2009 CITY ELECTION JUDGES
Precinct #1 - N. E. Fire Station - 3700 Golden Vallev Road
Marie Tiffin, Captain
Andra Barnard
Roger Bergman
Karen Haan
Jane Pagenkopf
Janet Olfe
Precinct #2 - Vallev Presbyterian Church - 3100 North Lilac Drive
Janice Johnson, Captain
Betty Hill
Peter Palmquist
Christy Lueck
Patricia Tomko
Ruby VanHorn
Jacqueline Wells
Precinct #3 - Meadowbrook School - 5430 Glenwood Avenue
Cynthia Hasselbusch, Captain
Mary L. Anderson
Marilyn Kilner
Betty Vaughan
Marie Rossman
Precinct #4 - LOGIS - 5750 Duluth Street
Barbra Juliar, Co-Captain
Gerald Savage, Co-Captain
Arlene Dietz
Teresa George
Lucille Keltgen
Rusty Cowan
Resolution 09-47 - Continued
Precinct #5 - S.E. Fire Station - 400 Turners Crossroad South
Elizabeth Kamman, Captain
Eleanor Blatt
Joan Monson
James Murphy
LouAnn Bongard
Sylvia Thompson
Precinct #6 - Golden Valley City Hall - 7800 Golden Valley Road
Pat Moore, Captain
Ann Cole
Mary Ann Gavigan
Barbara Courey
Dwayne King
Donna Robinson
Delphine Sunderland
Precinct #7 - Christian Life Center - 8025 Medicine Lake Road
Gwendolyn Jorgens, Captain
Tracy Anderson
Jack Cole
Maria Johnson
Constance Hietala
Lois Palmquist
Mary Hill
Precinct #8 - Brookview Community Center - 200 Brookview Parkway
Shirley Jones, Captain
Marcie Schlaeger
Suzanne Herberg
Jerome Monson
Phillip Tenenbaum
Inez Weist
Alternates
Lloyd Fortman
James Kempfert
Barbara Krenn
Pat Magnuson
Kay Myers
MaryAnn Christenson
October 6, 2009
Resolution 09-47 - Continued
October 6, 2009
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.
alley
Men10randum
Finance
763-593-8013/763-593-8109 (fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
October 6, 2009
Agenda Item
3. H. Financing the 2010 Pavement Management Program and Establishing Compliance with
Reimbursement Bond Regulations
Prepared By
Susan Virnig, Finance Director
Summary
The following resolution will allow the City to be reimbursed for expenditures related to the
2010 City Pavement Management Program. This reimbursement agreement will allow the
City to make expenditures for this project and then be reimbursed by the bond proceeds
when issued. The set sale time will be after the construction bids are received for the project.
Attachments
Resolution Relating to the Financing of the City's 2010 Road Construction Program;
Establishing Compliance with Reimbursement Bond Regulations under the Internal Revenue
Code (3 pages)
Recommended Action
Motion to adopt Resolution Relating to the Financing of the City's 2010 Road Construction
Program; Establishing Compliance with Reimbursement Bond Regulations under the Internal
Revenue Code.
Resolution 09-48
October 6,2009
Member introduced the following agenda and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE FINANCING OF THE CITY'S 2010
ROAD CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM; ESTABLISHING COMPLIANCE WITH
REIMBURSEMENT BOND REGULATIONS UNDER THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Golden Valley, Minnesota (the
"City"), as follows:
1. Recitals.
(a) The Internal Revenue Service has issued Section 1.150-2 of the
Income Tax Regulations (the "Regulations") dealing with the issuance of bonds all or a
portion of the proceeds of which are to be used to reimburse the City for project
expenditures made by the City prior to the date of issuance.
(b) The Regulations generally require that the City make a declaration of
its official intent to reimburse itself for such prior expenditures out of the proceeds of a
subsequently issued series of bonds within 60 days after payment of the expenditures, that
the bonds be issued and the reimbursement allocation be made from the proceeds of such
bonds within the reimbursement period (as defined in the Regulations), and that the
expenditures reimbursed be capital expenditures or costs of issuance of the bonds.
(c) The City desires to comply with requirements of the Regulations with
respect to the projects hereinafter identified.
2. Official Intent Declaration.
(a) The City proposes to undertake a major road construction program in
2010, consisting of the construction and improvement of the City streets identified on
Exhibit A hereto (collectively, the "Project"), and to make original expenditures with respect
thereto prior to the issuance of reimbursement bonds, and reasonably expects to issue
reimbursement bonds for the Project, in one or more series, in an amount not to exceed
$5,544,000.
(b) Other than (i) de minimis amounts permitted to be reimbursed pursuant to
Section 1.150-2(f)(1) of the Regulations or (ii) expenditures constituting preliminary
expenditures as defined in Section 1.150-2(f)(2) of the Regulations, the City will not seek
reimbursement for any original expenditures with respect to the foregoing Project paid more
than 60 days prior to the date of adoption of this resolution. All original expenditures for
which reimbursement is sought will be capital expenditures or costs of issuance of the
reimbursement bonds.
Resolution 09-48 - Continued
October 6, 2009
3. Budaetarv Matters. As of the date hereof, there are no City funds reserved,
pledged, allocated on a long term basis or otherwise set aside (or reasonably expected to
be reserved, pledged, allocated on a long term basis or otherwise set aside) to provide
permanent financing for the original expenditures related to the Project, other than pursuant
to the issuance of the reimbursement bonds. Consequently, it is not expected that the
issuance of the reimbursement bonds will result in the creation of any replacement
proceeds.
4. Reimbursement Allocations. The City's Finance Director shall be responsible for
making the "reimbursement allocations" described in the Regulations, being generally the
transfer of the appropriate amount of proceeds of the reimbursement bonds to reimburse
the source of temporary financing used by the City to make payment of the original
expenditures relating to the Project. Each reimbursement allocation shall be made within 30
days of the date of issuance of the reimbursement bonds, shall be evidenced by an entry
on the official books and records of the City maintained for the reimbursement bonds and
shall specifically identify the original expenditures being reimbursed.
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.
Resolution 09-48 - Continued
October 6,2009
EXHIBIT A
2010 STREETS:
. Cutacross Road: Meander Road to Ski Hill Road
. Edgewood Avenue North: Glenwood Avenue to Westchester Circle
. Georgia Avenue North: Glenwood Avenue to Westchester Circle
. Harold Avenue: Idaho Avenue North to cul-de-sac
. Idaho Avenue North: cul-de-sac to Olson Memorial Frontage Road (south)
. Kingston Circle: Idaho Avenue North to cul-de-sac
. Meander Road: Glenwood Avenue to Cutacross Road (west)
. Olson Memorial Frontage Road (south): Douglas Drive to Glenwood Avenue
. Olson Memorial Frontage Road (south): cul-de-sac to 375 feet east of Schaper Drive
. Paisley Lane: Glenwood Avenue to Cutacross Road
. Pomander Walk: Paisley Lane to cul-de-sac
. Ski Hill Road: Paisley Lane to cul-de-sac
. Westchester Circle: Olson Memorial Frontage Road (east) to Olson Memorial
Frontage Road (west)
. Windy Draw: Ski Hill Road to cul-de-sac
.lley
morandum
Planning
763-593-8095 I 763-593-8109 (fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
October 6, 2009
Agenda Item
3. I. Approval of One Year Extension for Filing of Plat for 1017 Ravine Trail
Prepared By
Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development
Summary
Linda McCracken-Hunt, owner of the property located at 1017 Ravine Trail, has requested to
extend her final plat approval for the minor subdivision of her property to September 1, 2010.
Ms. McCracken-Hunt intends to sell her home, and subdivide her property at the time of sale.
To date, Ms. McCracken-Hunt's home remains unsold.
On April 1, 2008, the City Council approved the preliminary plat approval to split the lot
located at 1017 Ravine Trail. Per City Code, the final plat must be approved within 180 days
of preliminary plat approval. An extension to this timeframe would allow Ms. McCracken-Hunt
to complete the sale process of her home prior to lot subdivision.
On September 16, 2008, the City Council approved an extension for the filing of the Final Plat
until April 1 ,2009. On April 7, 2009, the City Council approved an extension for the filing of
the Final Plat until October 1, 2009. Ms. McCracken-Hunt's home remains unsold and she is
now asking for an extension until September 1, 2010.
Attachment
Location Map ( 1 page)
Letter from Linda McCracken-Hunt, dated September 22, 2009 (1 page)
Recommended Action
Motion to approve an extension until September 1, 2009 to submit the final plat for the
property located at 1017 Ravine Trail.
. J.1
,H ~ J )1~'~'1 ~;=~(
, , _ ,1--_ :=I_~
\ i. \ j J - '~'-__ 1 ~P;...
\ ~---1 I~;I m8'[;')-~'
\ ~\ t-1 ~l'iY~~ 'rrl'l7 ~ -!!
'~, A W\ L-- 1 -
CiA /-- ~ '
stfawtJerrvjPond , , I '
M,.{J_. J_O'~ j, /" \a
RSTATE 39'4 WB l394 TO SB HWY10Q S W8 13 L-J ' WjY.ZATA BLVD t
INTI! . . 94 'to /lie 1i1NY!OO$
394 HOV LN
1-
1-
SB HWY100 S TO ED 1394
NB HWV:tOO$TQ EB l394 INTERSTATE 394
\ I J'- V~,I' ... ... .. :~
_.'- _ .'I~L ~
g -- ~~~-Z:lrl\ ~'-
~- r-=:::r . e~fl:;;j,~'f"'\ ~~_I--- /~'-'h-\---'
~ r---.$: ~ ", V-~I- --, f- '-- iL-,..
~. ~=r---l:j r / 1"/IIh'S.~'i.r- '-_ I, /::: ~) ~~~ r--
~. fI1.~-l-g-"'-I"'""'1f{1'f.J': ~ ,v;, "'I..... 7.' ++--
< ~ r--- ~, '<"~ J 1 ''<If;,'-
~ !~bi'T '1"f'r (ill ~ S~Ty.m\'ll
.
(i)
"
(l
M$.ltt"~W,~YIJlccJ\1S,~;gt ~Cl :;,OOlSG1S:>>35
E&:l~1
~
~
~
J
lIJ
I
i
J-;
I
September 22, 2009
Mr. Mark Grimes
City of Golden Valley
7800 Golden Valley Road
Golden Valley, MN 55427
Re: Hunt Residence - Lot Split - 1017 Ravine Trail
Final Plat Approval
Dear Mr. Grimes,
On April I, 2008, The Golden Valley City Council approved a preliminary plat approval
of a lot split of our resilientiaI lot at 1017 Ravine Trail. Since that time, we have placed
our house at 1017 Ravine Trail up for sale, with the intent of completing the Final Plat
Approval process in conjunction with the sale of the house.
At this time, we do not have the sale of the house completed and it is still on the market.
In order to finalize the Final Plat Approval, we need to have a financial closing that
separates the house and the lot within the mortgage. Our intent was to do this as a part of
the closing process on the sale of our house, which has not occurred.
Weare requesting an extension to September 1, 2010 to complete the Final Plat process,
so that the separation of the lot and the sale of the house can be coordinated financially.
Thank you for your consideration. Please call to discuss if needed.
"
Linda McCracken-Hunt
612-801-2196 cell phone
Memorandum
City Administration/Council
763-593-8006/763-593-8109 (fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
October 6, 2009
Agenda Item
3. J. Set Date for Canvassing Board Meeting
Prepared By
Judy Nally, Administrative Assistant
Summary
As per State Statute, within seven days after the City general election, the Council must meet
as a canvassing board and declare the results of the election.
Recommended Action
Motion to set the Canvassing Board Meeting for Wednesday, November 4, 2009 at 6 pm.
alley
Memoran um
Planning
763-593-8095 /763-593-8109 (fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
October 6, 2009
Agenda Item
3. K. Authorization to Sign Agreement with Hennepin County for Reimbursement of Active
Living Related Staff Expenses
Prepared By
Joe Hogeboom, City. Planner
Summary
The Hennepin County Department of Human Services and Public Health has recently
received an extension of its federal grant through Blue Cross Blue Shield to continue its work
on its active living program. The City has been asked to continue its participation on the
Hennepin County Active Living Steering Committee.
This current contract allows Hennepin County to reimburse the City up to $5,067 for its work
with active living. The grant period is for fourteen months, retroactively beginning September
1, 2009 and ending December 31, 2010. Under this contract agreement, the City's level of
participation would involve Planning and Development Department staff attending monthly
planning meetings with the County, and promoting active living related events and initiatives.
The City's prior active living related contract with the County expired on August 31,2009.
Recommended Action
Motion to authorize the Mayor and City Manager sign the Personal/Professional Services
Agreement with the Hennepin County Human Services and Public Health Department that
expires December 31,2010.
alley
Memorandum
Finance
763-593-8013/763-593-8109 (fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
October 6, 2009
Agenda Item
4. A. Public Hearing - Special Assessments - Delinquent Utility Bills
Prepared By
Sue Virnig, Finance Director
Summary
The following resolution needs to be approved for the certification of special assessments for
delinquent utility bills.
Attachments
Resolution Adopting and Confirming Assessments For Delinquent Utility Billing (1 page)
Recommended Action
Motion to adopt Resolution Adopting and Confirming Assessments For Delinquent Utility
Billing.
Resolution 09-49
Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
October 6, 2009
RESOLUTION ADOPTING AND CONFIRMING ASSESSMENTS
FOR DELINQUENT UTILITY BILLING
1. The amount proper and necessary to be specially assessed at this time for various public
improvements:
Years
Interest Rate
First Year Lev
Total Assessed
1
5%
2010
$303,451.18
against every assessable lot, piece, or parcel of land affected thereby has been duly calculated
upon the basis of benefits, without regard to cash valuation, in accordance with the provisions of
Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, and notice has been duly published, as required by law that this
Council would meet to hear, consider and pass upon all objections, if any, and said proposed
assessment has at all time since its filing been open for public inspection and an opportunity has
been given to all interested persons to present their objections if any, to such proposed
assessments.
2. This Council, having heard and considered all objections so presented, finds that each of
the lots, pieces and parcels of land enumerated in the proposed assessment was and is specially
benefited by the construction of said improvement in not less than the amount of the assessment
set opposite the description of each such lot, piece and parcel of land respectively, and such
amount so set out is hereby levied against each of the respective lots, pieces and parcels of land
therein described.
3. The proposed assessments are hereby adopted and confirmed as the proper
assessments for each of said lots, pieces and parcels of land respectively, and the assessment
against each parcel, together with interest at the rate of five (5) percent per annum accruing on the
full amount thereof unpaid, shall be a lien concurrent with general taxes upon parcel and all thereof.
The total amount of each such assessment not prepaid shall be payable in equal annual principal
installments extending over a period of years, as indicated in each case. The first of said
installments, together with interest on the entire assessment for the period of January 1, 2010
through December 31, 2010, will be payable with general taxes collectible in 2010.
4. Prior to certification of the assessment to the County Auditor, the owner of any lot, piece
or parcel of land assessed hereby may at any time pay the whole such assessment , with interest
to the date of payment, to the City Treasurer, but no interest shall be charged if such payment is
made by November 13, 2009.
5. The City Clerk shall, as soon as may be, prepare and transmit to the County Auditor a
certified duplicate of the assessment roll, with each installment and interest on each unpaid
assessment set forth separately, to be extended upon the proper tax lists of the County and the
County Auditor shall thereafter collect said assessment in the manner provided by law.
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.
1
alley
Memorandum
Finance
763-593-8013 I 763-593-8109 (fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
October 6, 2009
Agenda Item
4. B. Public Hearing - Special Assessments - Miscellaneous Charges
Prepared By
Sue Virnig, Finance Director
Summary
The following resolution needs to be approved for the certification of special assessments for
miscellaneous charges.
Attachments
Resolution Adopting and Confirming Assessments For Miscellaneous Charges (1 page)
Recommended Action
Motion to adopt Resolution Adopting and Confirming Assessments For Miscellaneous
Charges.
Resolution 09-50
Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION ADOPTING AND CONFIRMING ASSESSMENTS
FOR MISCELLANEOUS CHARGES
(WEEDS, FALSE ALARMS, ADMINISTRATIVE CITATIONS, ETC)
October 6, 2009
1. The amount proper and necessary to be specially assessed at this time for various public
improvements:
Proiect Years I nterest Rate First Year Lew Total Assessed
2009
Miscellaneous 1 5% 2010 $24,552.93
Charges
against every assessable lot, piece, or parcel of land affected thereby has been duly calculated
upon the basis of benefits, without regard to cash valuation, in accordance with the provisions of
Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, and notice has been duly published, as required by law that this
Council would meet to hear, consider and pass upon all objections, if any, and said proposed
assessment has at all time since its filing been open for public inspection and an opportunity has
been given to all interested persons to present their objections if any, to such proposed
assessments.
2. This Council, having heard and considered all objections so presented, finds that each of
the lots, pieces and parcels of land enumerated in the proposed assessment was and is specially
benefited by the construction of said improvement in not less than the amount of the assessment
set opposite the description of each such lot, piece and parcel of land respectively, and such
amount so set out is hereby levied against each of the respective lots, pieces and parcels of land
therein described.
3. The proposed assessments are hereby adopted and confirmed as the proper
assessments for each of said lots, pieces and parcels of land respectively, and the assessment
against each parcel, together with interest at the rate of five (5) percent per annum accruing on the
full amount thereof unpaid, shall be a lien concurrent with general taxes upon parcel and all thereof.
The total amount of each such assessment not prepaid shall be payable in equal annual principal
installments extending over a period of years, as indicated in each case. The first of said
installments, together with interest on the entire assessment for the period of January 1, 2010
through December 31,2010, will be payable with general taxes collectible in 2010.
4. Prior to certification of the assessment to the County Auditor, the owner of any lot, piece
or parcel of land assessed hereby may at any time pay the whole such assessment, with interest
to the date of payment, to the City Treasurer, but no interest shall be charged if such payment is
made by November 13,2009.
5. The City Clerk shall, as soon as may be, prepare and transmit to the County Auditor a
certified duplicate of the assessment roll, with each installment and interest on each unpaid
assessment set forth separately, to be extended upon the proper tax lists of the County and the
County Auditor shall thereafter collect said assessment in the manner provided by law.
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.
Public ~H~y
Memorandum
Police Department
763-593-8079 I 763-593-8098 (fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
October 6, 2009
Agenda Item
5. A. Second Consideration - Ordinance #423 - Amending Section 10.30, Regarding
Registration of Dangerous Dogs
Prepared By
Stacy Altonen, Chief of Police
Summary
At its meeting of September 15, 2009 the City Council adopted on first consideration
Ordinance No. 423, requesting staff clarifying some language within the Section.
The attached underline/overstrike version of Section 10.30 and Ordinance No. 423 reflect
only the changes that were made since that meeting.
If adopted, dog owners whose dog meets the definition of "dangerous" according to the City
Code would be required to register the dog with the City and abide by requirements
prescribed by the Code.
In order to save publishing costs staff is requesting the Council approve publication of the
Summary Ordinance. This action requires a 4/5 vote.
Attachments
Underline/Overstrike version of Section 10.30, Animal Control (16 pages)
Ordinance No. 423, Amending Section 10.30, Regarding Registration of Dangerous Dogs
(16 pages)
Summary of Ordinance No. 423, Amending Section 10.30, Regarding Registration of
Dangerous Dogs (1 page)
Recommended Action
Motion to adopt on Second Consideration, Ordinance No. 423, Amending Section 10.30,
Regarding Registration of Dangerous Dogs.
Motion to approve publication of the Summary of Ordinance No. 423, Amending Section
10.30, Regarding Registration of Dangerous Dogs.
9 10.30
Section 10.30: Animal Control
Subdivision 1. Definitions
As used in this Chapter Section:
A. Animal Control: means an agency of the state, county, municipality, or
other governmental subdivision of the state which is responsible for animal
control operations in a jurisdiction.
B. At Large: means off the premises of the Owner and not under the control of
the Owner or other competent person, either by leash or otherwise.
C. Dangerous Dog,;, means any Dog that-;-
1. Has without provocation, inflicted Substantial Bodily Harm on a human
being on public or private property,;.
2. Has killed a domestic animal with provocation while off the Owner's
property: or
3. Has been found to be Potentially Dangerous, and after the Owner has
been noticed that the Dog is Potentially Dangerous, the Dog aggressively
bites, attacks, or endangers the safety of humans or domestic animals.
D. Dog: means both the male and female of the canine species, commonly
accepted as domesticated household pets.
E. Great Bodily Harm: means bodily injury which creates a high probability of
death, or which causes serious permanent disfigurement, or which causes a
permanent or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily
member or organ or other serious bodily harm.
F. Maintenance Costs: means the cost of maintaining an impounded animal
including but not limited to impounding fees, boarding fees and reasonable
charges for medical treatment for said animal. The amount of fees shall be
established by the City Council and adopted by ordinance.
G. Owner: means any person or persons, firm, corporation, organization,
department, or association owning, possessing, harboring, keeping, having
an interest in, or having care, custody or control of a Dog, except veterinary
hospitals owned and operated under the provisions of the Veterinary Practice
Act of the State of Minnesota and the Animal Humane Society of Hennepin
County .
H. Potentially Dangerous Dog,;, means any Dog that-;-
Golden Valley City Code
Page 1 of 16
9 10.30
1. When unprovoked, inflicts harm or bites on a human or domestic animal
on public or private property;
2. When unprovoked, chases or approaches a person, including a person on
a bicycle, upon the streets, sidewalks or any public or private property,
other than the Dog Owner's property, in an apparent attitude of attack; or
3. Has a known propensity, tendency, or disposition to attack unprovoked,
causing injury or otherwise threatening the safety of humans or domestic
animals.
I. Proper Enclosure: means securely confined indoors or in a securely
enclosed and locked pen or structure suitable to prevent the animal from
escaping and providing protection from the elements for the Dog. A proper
enclosure does not include a porch, patio, or any part of a house, garage, or
other structure that would allow the Dog to exit of its own volition, or any
house or structure in which windows are open or in which door or window
screens are the only obstacles that prevent the Dog from exiting. The
enclosure shall not allow the egress of the Dog in any manner without human
assistance. A pen or kennel shall meet the following minimum specifications:
1. A minimum overall floor size of thirty-two (32) square feet.
2. Sidewalls shall have a minimum height of five (5) feet and be constructed
of Il-gauge or heavier wire. Openings in the wire shall not exceed two
(2) inches, support posts. shall byg one and one-fourth inch (1%") or
larger steel pipe buried in the ground eighteen (18) inches or more. When
a concrete floor is not provided, the sidewalls shall be buried a minimum
of one (1) inch in the ground.
3. A cover over the pen or kennel shall be provided. The cover shall be
constructed of the same gauge wire or heavier as the sidewall and
openings in the wire shall not exceed two (2) inches.
4. An entrance/exit gate shall be provided and be constructed of the same
material as the sidewalls and openings in the wire shall not exceed two
(2) inches. The gate shall be self-closing and self-locking. The gate shall
be closed at all times when the Dog is in the pen or kennel.
J. Substantial Bodily Harm: means bodily injury which involves a temporary
but substantial disfigurement, or which causes a temporary but substantial
loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ, or which
causes a fracture of any bodily member.
K. Unprovoked: means the condition in which the Dog is not excited,
stimulated, agitated or disturbed into action.
Golden Valley City Code
Page 2 of 16
~ 10.30
Subdivision 2. City Veterinarian
The Council may appoint a qualified veterinarian, for such term as it shall
designate, as City Veterinarian. The City Veterinarian shall act as an advisor to the
Council, and City Staff ~nd City Health Officer on matters pertaining to animal and
human health relationships. It shall be the responsibility of said veterinarian to
ensure that qualified veterinary care is available at all times for any injured or
diseased animal apprehended by members of the Police Department.
Subdivision 3. Dog Licenses
A. License Required. It is unlawful to keep any Dog of more than one hundred-
fifty (150) days of age unless a license therefor has been first secured.
Licenses shall be issued by the Police Department. The license fee shall be
established set: by the City Council and adopted by ordinance. resolution
based upon the City's cost cxperience during the preceding t....c1ve (12)
months. Applicants shall certify that the Dog to be licensed has been
vaccinated against rabies, effective for the license year, by a qualified
veterinarian. Licenses shall expire on the 31st day of December next
following their issuance. For purposes of this Subdivision, a vaccination with
a killed rabies vaccine shall be deemed effective for twelve (12) months, and
a vaccination with a live rabies vaccine shall be deemed effective for twenty-
four (24) months.
B. Date of Payment. It shall be the duty of each O'vvner of ~ Dog Owner to pay
the license fee imposed hereunder to the Police Department during the
month of January in each year, or upon acquiring ownership or possession of
any unlicensed Dog or upon establishing residence in the City.
C. Receipts and Tags. Upon payment of the license fee, the Police Department
shall execute a receipt in duplicate. The original receipt, along with the tag,
shall be delivered to the applicant. The duplicate copy shall be retained by
the Police Department. License tags shall be different from year to year.
D. Affixing Tags. Upon purchase of a license the Owner shall cause said tag to
be affixed by a permanent metal fastening to the collar of the Dog so
licensed in such a manner that the tag may be easily seen by the officers of
the City. The Owner shall see that the tag is constantly worn by such Dog.
E. Duplicate Tags. In case any Dog tag is lost, a duplicate shall be issued by the
Police Department upon presentation of a receipt showing payment of the
license fee for the current year. The charge for each such duplicate tag shall
be established set ~nnu~lIy by the City Council resolution and adopted by
ordinance.
Subdivision 4. Dog and Cat Impounding
A. Impounding.
Golden Valley City Code
Page 3 of 16
~ 10.30
1. The Police Department shall take up and impound any Dogs found in the
City without the tag provided for in this Section, or found in the City at
large while injured or diseased, and at such other occasion as may be
necessary to enforce this Section. Said City personnel are empowered and
instructed to enter upon any private premises where they have
reasonable cause to believe there is an unlicensed Dog.
2. It is unlawful for the Owner of any cat more than six (6) months of age to
fail to have such cat vaccinated for rabies each twelve (12) months and to
have evidence of such vaccination permanently attached to a collar kept
around the neck of such cat. Any cat found off the Owner's premises
without such evidence of valid and current immunization shall be
impounded.
B. Notice of Impounding. Upon taking up and impounding any Dog or cat as
provided in this Section, the Police Department shall promptly prepare a
record describing said impounded Dog or cat and retain a copy of said record
during the period of impoundment and during a period of ninety (90) days
thereafter.
C. Redemption. Any Dog or cat may be redeemed from the Police Department
by the Owner within five (5) days of the impounding by the payment to the
Police Department of the license fee (for Dogs only) for the current year, and
additional fee if applicable, together with an impounding fcc, a boarding fee
Maintenance Costs for each day or portion thereof that the Dog or cat is
confinedh tlnd retlsontlble charges for medical treatment of said Dog or cat, if
required. The amount of the fees shall be established annually by Council
resolution based upon the City's cost experience during the preceding t'Nelve
(12) months.
D. Release. Upon proof of ownership and payment of all fees and charges as
provided herein to the Police Department, the Police Department shall
release to any Owner the Dog or cat claimed by such Owner. In any event,
all Owners who refuse the return of a Dog or cat, or whose Dog or cat shall
die during impoundment, shall be liable for all reasonable charges and fees
for the impoundment, care and treatment, board, and disposal of said Dog or
cat.
E. Unclaimed Dogs or Cats. Any Dog or cat which is not claimed as provided in
this Section, within five (5) days after impounding may be sold for not less
than total charge provided in this Section, to any desiring to purchase the
Dog or cat. Any Dog or catL which is not claimed by the Owner or soldL may
be disposed of. used for research or destroyed by the Police Department.
Golden Valley City Code
Page 4 of 16
9 10.30
Subdivision 5. Power to Contract
The Council may, from time to time, and upon such terms and conditions as it
deems proper, contract with any qualified person to act as its agent to effectuate
the purposes of this Section.
Subdivision 6. Confinement of Certain Dogs
Any female Dog in heat, and any Dog who annoys or threatens persons passing on
or using public streets, and any Dog which habitually chases automobiles shall be
confined or effectively restrained by its Owner. In addition to issuing a citation, the
Police Department may take up and impound any Dog found at large in violation of
this provision, and release it only upon order of the Police Department after
payment of the fees provided for herein.
Subdivision 7. Registration of Dangerous Dogs
A. Adoption by Reference. Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, the
regulatory and procedural provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Sections 347.51
through 347.515 (a part of the law commonly referred to as the "Dangerous
Dog Regulations") as amended through Laws 2001, are hereby incorporated
herein and adopted by reference, subject however to adoption by the City of
any administrative penalties related to violations of this City Code Section
10.30, subd. 7.
B. Declaration of Potentially Dangerous or Dangerous Dogs.
1. A Golden Valley police officer, police officer, community service officer, or
animal control officer may declare a Dog to be Potentially Dangerous or
Dangerous, when the officer has probable cause to believe that the Dog is
Potentially Dangerous or Dangerous as defined herein. The following
factors will be considered in determining a Dangerous or Potentially
Dangerous Dog:
a. Whether any injury or damage to a person by the Dog was caused
while the Dog was protecting or defending a person or the Dog's
offspring within immediate vicinity of the Dog from an unjustified
attack or assault;
b. The size and strength of the Dog, including jaw strength, and the
animal's propensity to bite humans or other domesticated animals;
c. Whether the Dog has wounds, scarring, is observed in a fight, or has
other indications that the Dog has been or will be used, trained or
encouraged to fight with another animal or whose Owner is in
possession of any training apparatus, paraphernalia or drugs used to
prepare such Dogs to fight with other animals.
Golden Valley City Code
Page 5 of 16
9 10.30
2. Beginning one hundred and eighty (180) days from the date a Dog is
declared Potentially Dangerous or Dangerous; the Owner may request
annually that the City review the designation. The Owner shall provide
clear and convincing evidence to the hearing officer that the Dog's
behavior has changed due to the Dog's age; neutering; environment;
completion of obedience training that includes modification of aggressive
behavior; or other factors rendering the Dog no longer Dangerous or
Potentially Dangerous. The hearing officer shall review the evidence
without hearing, and if the hearing officer finds sufficient evidence that
the Dog's behavior has changed, and the Dog is no longer Potentially
Dangerous or Dangerous, the hearing officer may rescind the Dangerous
Dog designation. For purposes of this ordinance, the hearing officer is the
Chief of Police, or his/her designee.
3. Exceptions.
a. The provisions of this Subdivision do not apply to Dogs used by law
enforcement.
b. Dogs may not be declared Dangerous or Potentially Dangerous if the
threat, injury or danger was sustained by a person who was:
1) Committing a willful trespass or other teft: wrongful act causing
injury upon the premises occupied by the Owner of the Dog; or
2) Provoking, tormenting, abusing or assaulting the Dog, or who can
be shown to have a history of repeatedly provoking, tormenting,
abusing or assaulting the Dog; or
3) Committing or attempting to commit a crime.
C. License Required. The Owner must annually license Dangerous and
Potentially Dangerous Dogs with the City and must license a newly declared
Dangerous or Potentially Dangerous Dog within fourteen (14) days after
notice that a Dog has been declared Dangerous or Potentially Dangerous.
Regardless of any appeal that may be requested, the Owner must comply
with the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Section 347.52(a) and (c)
regarding Proper Enclosures and notification to the City upon transfer or
death of the Dog, until and unless a hearing officer or court of law reverses
the declaration.
1. Process for Dangerous Dogs. The City will issue a license to the Owner of
a Dangerous Dog if the Owner presents clear and convincing evidence
that:
a. There is a Proper Enclosure, as defined herein;
Golden Valley City Code
Page 6 of 16
9 10.30
b. =Fttat: I~here is a surety bond by a surety company authorized to
conduct business in Minnesota in the sum of at least three hundred
thousand dollars ($300,000), payable to any person injured by a
Dangerous Dog, or receipt of a copy of a policy of liability insurance
issued by an insurance company authorized to do business in
Minnesota in the amount of at least three hundred thousand dollars
($300,000), insuring that Owner for any personal injuries inflicted by
the Dangerous Dog. Such surety bond or insurance policy shall provide
that no cancellation of the bond or policy will be made unless the City
is notified in writing by the surety company or the insurance company
at least ten (10) days prior to such cancellation and written proof shall
be submitted that shows that the Owner's insurance provider has been
notified, in writing, of the declaration of the Potentially Dangerous or
Dangerous Dog;
c. The Owner has paid the annual license fee;
d. The Owner has had a microchip identification implanted in the
Dangerous Dog. The name of the microchip manufacturer and
identification number of the microchip must be provided to the City. If
the microchip is not implanted by the Owner at the Owner's expense,
it may be implanted by the City at the Owner's expense; and
e. The Owner provides proof that the Dog has been sterilized. If the
Owner does not sterilize the Dog within thirty (30) days, the City shall
seize the Dog and sterilize it at the Owner's expense.
2. Process for Potentially Dangerous Dogs. The City will issue a license to the
Owner of a Potentially Dangerous Dog if the Owner presents clear and
convincing evidence that:
a. There is a Proper Enclosure, as defined herein;
b. The Owner has paid the annual license fee; and
c. The Owner has had a microchip identification implanted in the
Dangerous Dog. The name of the microchip manufacturer and
identification number of the microchip must be provided to the City. If
the microchip is not implanted by the Owner at the Owner's expense,
it may be implanted by the City at the Owner's expense.
3. Inspection. A pre-license inspection of the premises to ensure compliance
with the City Code is required. If the City issues a license to the Owner of
a Dangerous or Potentially Dangerous Dog, the City shall be allowed at
any reasonable time to inspect the Dog, the Proper Enclosure and all
places where the animal is kept.
Golden Valley City Code
Page 7 of 16
~ 10.30
4. Warning Symbol. The Owner of a Dangerous Dog licensed under this
Subdivision must post a sign with the uniform dangerous dog warning
symbol on the property, at a prominent location, clearly visible from any
adjoining street. sidewalk or any public right-of-way, in order to inform
children that there is a Dangerous Dog on the property. The sign will be
provided upon issuance of the license.
5. Tags. A Dangerous Dog licensed under this Subdivision must wear a
standardized, easily identifiable tag at all times that contains the uniform
dangerous dog symbol, indentifying the Dog as Dangerous. The tag shall
be provided by the City upon issuance of the license.
6. License Fee. The City will charge the Owner an annual license fee for a
Dangerous or Potentially Dangerous Dog, such fee to be established by
the City Council and adopted by ordinance.
D. Properly Restrained in Proper Enclosure or Outside of Proper Enclosure. While
on the Owner's property, an Owner of a Dangerous or Potentially Dangerous
Dog must keep it in a Proper Enclosure. Inside a residential home, there
must be a secured area maintained where the Dog will stay when persons
other than family members are present. If the Dog is outside the Proper
Enclosure, the Dog must be muzzled and restrained by a substantial chain or
leash no longer than six (6) feet and under~ physical restraint by an adult.
The muzzle must be made in a manner that will prevent the Dog from biting
any person or animal but that will not cause injury to the Dog or interfere
with its vision or respiration.
E. Notification Requirements to City.
1. Relocation or Death. The Owner of the Dog that has been declared
Dangerous or Potentially Dangerous must notify the City Clerk in writing if
the Dog is to be relocated from its current address or if the Dog has died.
The notification must be given in writing within thirty (30) days of the
relocation or death. The notification must include the current Owner's
name and address, and the new Owner's name and the relocation
address. If the relocation address is outside the City, the City may notify
the local law enforcement agency of the transfer of the Dog into its
jurisdiction.
2. Renter's Obligations. A person who owns or possesses a Dangerous or
Potentially Dangerous Dog and who will rent property from another where
the Dog will reside must disclose to the property owner prior to entering
the lease agreement and at the time of any lease renewal periods that the
person owns or possesses a Dangerous or Potentially Dangerous Dog that
will reside at the property. A Dog Owner, who is currently renting
property, must notify the property owner within fourteen (14) days of City
notification if the owned Dog is newly declared as Dangerous or
Golden Valley City Code
Page 8 of 16
~ 10.30
Potentially Dangerous and that the Dog Owner keeps the Dog on the
property.
3. Transfer of Ownership into the City. No Dog that has been previously
determined to be Dangerous or Potentially Dangerous by another
jurisdiction shall be kept, owned or harbored in the City unless the Dog's
Owner complies with the requirements of this Subdivision prior to bringing
the Dog into the City. Dogs in violation of this subsection are subject to
impoundment and destruction.
F. Seizure. Animal control may immediately seize any Dangerous or Potentially
Dangerous Dog if:
1. AAef Fourteen (14) days after the Owner has notice that the Dog is
declared Dangerous or Potentially Dangerous, the Dog is not validly
licensed and no appeal has been filed;
2. AAef Fourteen (14) days after the Owner has notice that the Dog is
Dangerous, the Owner Gees has not secureg the proper liability insurance
or surety coverage as required or such required insurance is cancelled;
3. The Dog is not maintained in a Proper Enclosure;
4. The Dog is outside the Proper Enclosure and not under proper restraint,
as required by City Code Section 10.30, subd. 7(D);
5. AAefThirty (30) days after the Owner has notice that the Dog is
Dangerous, the Dog is not sterilized, as required by City Code Section
10.30, subd. 7(C)(1)(e); or
6. The Dog's microchip has been removed.
G. Reclamation. A Dog seized under Subdivision 7(F) above, may be reclaimed
by the Owner of the Dog upon payment of Maintenance Costs, and
presenting proof to animal control that the requirements of this Subdivision
have been met. A Dog not reclaimed under this sSubdivision within seven (7)
days may be disposed of, used for research, or destroyed and the Owner will
be liable to the City for Maintenance Costs. A person claiming an interest in a
seized Dog may present disposition of the Dog by posting a security in an
amount sufficient to provide for the Dog's Maintenance Costs. The security
must be posted with the City within seven (7) days of the seizure". inclusive
of the date seized. .
H. Subsequent Offenses; Seizure, If a person has been convicted of violating a
provision of this Subdivision, and the person is charged with a subsequent
violation relating to the same Dog, the Dog must be seized. If the Owner is
convicted of the crime for which the Dog was seized, the court may order
Golden Valley City Code
Page 9 of 16
~ 10.30
that the Dog be destroyed in a proper and humane manner and the Owner
pay the Maintenance Costs. If the Owner is not convicted and the Dog is not
reclaimed by the Owner within seven (7) days after the Owner has been
notified that the Dog may be reclaimed, the Dog may be disposed of, used
for researcheEf., or destroyed.
I. Notice, Hearings.
1. Notice. After a Dog has been declared Dangerous or Potentially Dangerous
or has been seized for destruction, the City shall give notice by delivering
or mailing the notice to the Owner of the Dog, or by posting a copy of the
notice at the place where the Dog is kept, or by delivering it to a some
person of suitable age and discretion residing on the property. The officer
shall provide a copy of the notice served upon the Dog Owner, along with
an affidavit of service, to the City Clerk.
2. Content of Notice. The notice described above must include:
a. A description of the seized Dog, the authority for and purpose of the
declaration afl6 or seizure; the time, place, and circumstances under
which the Dog was declared or seized; and the telephone number and
contact person where the Dog is kept;
b. A statement that the Owner of the Dog may request a hearing
concerning the declaration or seizure and that failure to do so within
fourteen (14) days of the date of the notice will terminate the Owner's
right to a hearing;
c. A statement that if an appeal request is made within fourteen (14)
days of the notice, the Owner must immediately comply with the
requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Section 347.52, paragraphs (a)
and (c) regarding Proper Enclosures and notification to the City upon
transfer or death of the Dog, until such time a~t the hearing officer
issues an opinion;
d. A statement that if the hearing officer affirms the Dangerous Dog
declaration, the Owner will have fourteen (14) days from receipt of
that decision to comply with all other requirements of Minnesota
Statutes, Sections 347.51, 347.515 and 347.52;
e. A form to request a hearing; and
f. A statement that if the Dog has been seized, all Maintenance Costs of
the care, keeping, and disposition of the Dog pending the outcome of
the hearing are the responsibility of the Owner, unless a court or
hearing officer finds that the seizure or impoundment was not
substantially justified by law.
Golden Valley City Code
Page 10 of 16
9 10.30
3. Hearing.
a. After a Dog has been declared Dangerous, Potentially Dangerous or
has been seized for destruction, the Owner may appeal in writing to
the City within fourteen (14) days after notice of the declaration or
seizure. Failure to do so within fourteen (14) days of the date of the
notice will terminate the Owner's right to a hearing. The Owner must
pay a one hundred dollar ($100) fee for an appeal hearing as
established by the City Council and adopted by ordinance.
b. The appeal hearing will be held within fourteen (14) days of the
request. The hearing officer must be an impartial employee of the City
or an impartial person retained by the City to conduct the hearing. The
appeal hearing shall be in an informal manner, and the Minnesota
Rules of Civil Procedure and Rules of Evidence shall not be strictly
applied. The hearing need not be transcribed, but may be transcribed
at the sole expense of the party who requests the transcription.
c. If the declaration or destruction is upheld by the hearing officer, actual
expenses of the hearing up to a maximum of one thous<Jnd doll<Jrs
($1,000), as well as all Maintenance Costs, will be the responsibility of
the Dog's Owner. The hearing officer shall issue a decision on the
matter within ten (10) days after the hearing. The decision shall be
delivered to the Dog's Owner by hand delivery or registered mail as
soon as practical and a copy shall be provided to the City. The decision
of the hearing officer is final.
d. An Owner's right to appeal or otherwise contest a Potentially
Dangerous or Dangerous Dog declaration shall be deemed waived if
the Owner fails to serve a written request for appeal, as required
herein, or fails to appear at the scheduled appeal hearing date.
J. Destruction of Certain Dogs. The Police Chief and/or hearing officer are
authorized to order the destruction or other disposition of any Dog, after
proper notice is given pursuant to Subdivision 7(1) and upon finding that:
1. The Dog has habitually destroyed property or habitually trespassed in a
damaging manner on property of persons other than the Owner;
2. The Dog has been declared Dangerous, the Owner's right to appeal
hereunder has been exhausted or expired, and the Owner has failed to
comply with the provisions of this Subdivision;
3. It is determined that the Dog is infected with rabies;
Golden Valley City Code
Page 11 of 16
~ 10.30
4. The Dog inflicted Substantial or Great Bodily Harm on a human on public
or private property without provocation;
5. The Dog inflicted multiple bites on a human on public or private property
without provocation;
6. The Dog bit multiple human victims on public or private property in the
same attack without provocation;
7. The Dog bit a human on public or private property without provocation in
an attack where more than one (1) Dog participated in the attack; or
8. The Dog poses a danger to the public's health, safety or welfare. In
determining whether the Dog poses a danger to the public's health, safety
or welfare, the following factors may be considered:
a. The Dog weighs more than twenty (20) pounds;
b. The strength of the Dog, including as strength;
c. The Dog's tolerance for pain;
d. The Dog's tendency to refuse to terminate an attack;
e. The Dog's propensity to bite humans or other domestic animals;
f. The Dog's potential for unpredictable behavior;
g. The Dog's aggressiveness;
h. The likelihood that a bite by the Dog will result in serious injury.
K. Concealing of Dogs. Any person that may harbor, hide or conceal a Dog that
the City has the authority to seize or that has been ordered into custody for
destruction or other proper disposition shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
L. Dog Ownership Prohibited.
1. Except as provided below, a person shall not own a Dog if the person has
been:
a. Convicted of a 3rd or subsequent violation of City Code Section 10.30,
Subd. 7(D), (E) or (F) or Minnesota Statutes Sections 347.51, 347.515
or 347.52;
Golden Valley City Code
Page 12 of 16
9 10.30
b. Convicted of 2nd degree manslaughter due to negligent 00 or
intentional use of a Dog under Minnesota Statutes Sections
609.205(4); or
c. Convicted of Gross Misdemeanor harm caused by a Dog under
Minnesota Statutes Section 609.226, Subd. 1.
M. Dog Ownership Prohibition Review. Beginning three ill years after a
conviction under City Code Section 10.30, Subd. 7(L)(1) that prohibits a
person from owning a Dog, and annually thereafter, the person may request
in writing to the Police Chief that any limitations imposed by the City be
reviewed the prohibition. The City may consider such facts as the seriousness
of the violation or violations that led to the prohibition, any criminal
convictions, or other facts that the City deems appropriate. The City may
rescind the prohibition entirely or rescind it with limitations. The City also
may establish conditions a person must meet before the prohibition is
rescinded, including, but not limited to, successfully completing dog training
or dog handling courses. If the City rescinds a person's prohibition and the
person subsequently fails to comply with any limitations imposed by the City
or the person is convicted of any animal violation including.t. unprovoked bites
or Dog ~tt~cks, Dog attacks or unprovoked bites by a Dog owned or under
his or her control, the City may permanently prohibit the person from owning
a Dog in this state.
N. Penalties. Unless stated otherwise, any person who violates a provision of
this Subdivision is guilty of a misdemeanor or alternatively, any
administrative penalties related to violations of this City Code Section 10.30,
Subd. 7
Subdivision 8. Dogs or Cats Disturbing the Peace
It is unlawful for any person to keep or harbor a Dog or cat which barks, cries,
squeals, howls or meows, excessively, continuously or in an untimely manner. The
phrase "barks, cries, squeals, howls or meows, excessively, continuously or in an
untimely manner" includes, but is not limited to, the creation of any noise by any
Dog or cat which can be heard by any person, including a law enforcement officer
or animal control officer, from a location outside of the building or premises where
the Dog or cat is being kept, and which noise occurs repeatedly over at least a five
(5) minute period of time, with a thirty (30) second or less lapse of time between
each animal noise during the five (5) minute period.
Subdivision 9. Interference With Officers
It is unlawful for any person to take or attempt to take from any person authorized
under the terms of this Section, any Dog or cat taken up in compliance with this
Section or in any manner to interfere with or hinder such person in the discharge of
his or her duties under this Section.
Golden Valley City Code
Page 13 of 16
9 10.30
Subdivision 10. Offenses; Tags
It is unlawful to counterfeit, attempt to counterfeit or alter the tags provided for in
this Section or to give false information concerning vaccination requirements under
this Section, or take from any Dog a tag legally placed upon it by its Owner with the
intent to place it upon another Dog, or to place such tag upon another Dog.
Subdivision 11. Quarantine of Dogs and Cats
A. Whenever any person owning, harboring or maintaining a Dog or cat learns
that such animal has bitten any human being, such person shall immediately
impound said animal at such person's expense in a licensed veterinary
hospital of such person's choice and shall also immediately notify the Police
Department. If, however, such person submits unequivocal proof to the
Police Department that said animal was effectively vaccinated in accord with
this Section or approved veterinary practice at the time of said bite, the
animal shall be securely quarantined at the residence of the Owner or in such
other manner as the Police Department, in its discretion, may direct.
B. The Police Department when informed that a Dog or cat has bitten any
human being shall ascertain the identity of such animal and the person
owning, controlling, or harboring it and shall immediately direct such person
to immediately quarantine such animal in the manner set forth above. In the
case of stray animals, or in the case of animals whose ownership is not
known, such quarantine shall be at a shelter designated by the Police
Department.
C. Any Dog or cat which has bitten a human being shall be securely quarantined
continuously for ten (10) days in the manner described above and shall not
be released from such quarantine except by written permission of the Police
Department. The Owner or person harboring such animal during confinement
shall immediately notify the Police Department of any evidence of sickness or
disease in the animal during its period of confinement.
D. Upon demand made by the Police Department as contemplated above, the
Owner or person harboring said Dog or cat shall immediately comply with
any such demand. Said animal may be reclaimed or released from quarantine
to the Owner or possessor of the animal if it is adjudged free of rabies by a
licensed veterinarian, and upon payment of the license fee authorized by this
Section, and compliance with all other stated requirements.
Subdivision 12. Muzzling of Dogs
Whenever the prevalence of rabies renders such action necessary to protect the
public health and safety, the Mayor shall issue a proclamation ordering every
person owning or keeping a Dog to confine it securely on the premises of such
person unless it is muzzled so that it cannot bite. No person shall violate such
proclamation, and any unmuzzled Dog running at large during the time fixed in the
Golden Valley City Code
Page 14 of 16
9 10.30
proclamation shall be destroyed by the police either with or without notice to the
Owner, such notice to be at the discretion of the police.
Subdivision 13. Leashing
No person having the custody or control of any Dog or animal of the Dog kind shall
at any time permit the same to be on or in other than land owned, leased, or
occupied by the person having the custody or control of such Dog or animal of the
Dog kind, without being effectively restrained by leash or command control as
herein set forth, from going beyond such unfenced area or lot; nor shall any person
having the custody or control of any Dog or animal of the Dog kind permit the same
at any time to be on any street or public place without being effectively restrained
by chain or leash not exceeding six (6) feet in length, unless accompanied by and
under the control and direction of the person having control or custody so as to be
as effectively restrained by command as by a leash.
Subdivision 14. Running at Large
The Police Department shall take up and impound any Dog or cat or animal of the
Dog kind running at large in violation of this Section.
Subdivision 15. Limit on Number of Dogs and Cats
Not more than three (3) Dogs and three (3) cats are to be maintained on any lot or
in any residence except that one (1) litter of pups or kittens in excess of the above
number may be kept up to an age of ninety (90) days.
Subdivision 16. Kennels
A. Defined. For the purpose of this Subdivision, the term "kennels" means any
place, building, tract of land, abode or vehicle, wherein or whereon three (3)
or more Dogs or cats, over ninety (90) days of age, are kept, kept for sale,
or boarded.
B License Required. It is unlawful for any person to operate or maintain a
kennel without a license therefor from the City.
C. License Fee. The annual fee for a kennel license is ten doll~rs ($10.00) shall
be established by the City Council and adopted by ordinance.
D. Exception. Hospitals and clinics operated by licensed veterinarians exclusively
for the care and treatment of animals and the Hennepin County Animal
Humane Society are exempt from the provisions of this Subdivision.
Subdivision 17. Humane Treatment of Dogs and Cats
Every person shall provide any Dog or cat of which such person has control suf-
ficient and proper food, water, shelter and veterinarian care. No person shall
poison, overwork or mistreat or in any way further any act Off cruelty to any Dog or
cat whether belonging to such person or another. No person shall abandon any Dog
or cat of which such person has control. Any umi/i:mted Dogs or c~ts may be given
Golden Valley City Code
Page 15 of 16
9 10.30
to the Police Department which sh~1I humanely de~1 with s~id Dog or cat; provided
th~t such giving of a Dog or cat shall not affect the li~bility of the O'Nner for any
impoundment ~nd charges and fees incurred prior to such giving, as provided for in
this Section. (In addition, ~~innesota Statutes Chapters 346 ~nd 347 are hereby
adopted by refcrence in their entirety.)
Subdivision 18. Mediation
In addition to, but not to the exclusion, of,t. any criminal prosecution by reason of
violations of this Section, either party involved in an alleged violation may request a
mediation meeting with all other affected parties and a representative of the Police
Department. Such a request shall be addressed to, and said meeting shall be
arranged by, the Police Department.
Subdivision 19. Restrictions on Dogs and Cats
No Owner shall permit such Owner's Dog or cat to damage or foul any lawn, garden
or other property.
Subdivision 20. Enforcement
Licensed pcace police officers, reserve officers, and community service officers,
employed by the Police Department are authorized to issue citations for the
violation of this Section.
Golden Valley City Code
Page 16 of 16
ORDINANCE NO. 423, 2ND SERIES
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE
Amending Section 10.30, Regarding Registration of Dangerous Dogs
The City Council for the City of Golden Valley hereby ordains:
Section 1. City Code Section 10.30 is hereby amended by deleting the
existing language and replacing in its entirety with a new Section 10.30. Animal
Control.
Section 10.30: Animal Control
Subdivision 1. Definitions
As used in this Section:
A. Animal Control: means an agency of the state, county, municipality, or
other governmental subdivision of the state which is responsible for animal
control operations in a jurisdiction.
B. At Large: means off the premises of the Owner and not under the control of
the Owner or other competent person, either by leash or otherwise.
C. Dangerous Dog: means any Dog that
1. Has without provocation, inflicted Substantial Bodily Harm on a human
being on public or private property;
2. Has killed a domestic animal with provocation while off the Owner's
property; or
3. Has been found to be Potentially Dangerous, and after the Owner has
been noticed that the Dog is Potentially Dangerous, the Dog aggressively
bites, attacks, or endangers the safety of humans or domestic animals.
D. Dog: means both the male and female of the canine species, commonly
accepted as domesticated household pets.
E. Great Bodily Harm: means bodily injury which creates a high probability of
death, or which causes serious permanent disfigurement, or which causes a
permanent or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily
member or organ or other serious bodily harm.
F. Maintenance Costs: means the cost of maintaining an impounded animal
including but not limited to impounding fees, boarding fees and reasonable
charges for medical treatment for said animal. The amount of fees shall be
established by the City Council and adopted by ordinance.
G. Owner: means any person or persons, firm, corporation, organization,
department, or association owning, possessing, harboring, keeping, having
an interest in, or having care, custody or control of a Dog, except veterinary
hospitals owned and operated under the provisions of the Veterinary Practice
Act of the State of Minnesota and the Animal Humane Society.
H. Potentially Dangerous Dog: means any Dog that
1. When unprovoked, inflicts harm or bites on a human or domestic animal
on public or private property;
2. When unprovoked, chases or approaches a person, including a person on
a bicycle, upon the streets, sidewalks or any public or private property,
other than the Dog Owner's property, in an apparent attitude of attack; or
3. Has a known propensity, tendency, or disposition to attack unprovoked,
causing injury or otherwise threatening the safety of humans or domestic
animals.
I. Proper Enclosure: means securely confined indoors or in a securely
enclosed and locked pen or structure suitable to prevent the animal from
escaping and providing protection from the elements for the Dog. A proper
enclosure does not include a porch, patio, or any part of a house, garage, or
other structure that would allow the Dog to exit of its own volition, or any
house or structure in which windows are open or in which door or window
screens are the only obstacles that prevent the Dog from exiting. The
enclosure shall not allow the egress of the Dog in any manner without human
assistance. A pen shall meet the following minimum specifications:
1. A minimum overall floor size of thirty-two (32) square feet.
2. Sidewalls shall have a minimum height of five (5) feet and be constructed
of 11-gauge or heavier wire. Openings in the wire shall not exceed two
(2) inches, support posts shall be one and one-fourth inch (11/4") or larger
steel pipe buried in the ground eighteen (18) inches or more. When a
concrete floor is not provided, the sidewalls shall be buried a minimum of
one (1) inch in the ground.
3. A cover over the pen or kennel shall be provided. The cover shall be
constructed of the same gauge wire or heavier as the sidewall and
openings in the wire shall not exceed two (2) inches.
4. An entrance/exit gate shall be provided and be constructed of the same
material as the sidewalls and openings in the wire shall not exceed two
(2) inches. The gate shall be self-closing and self-locking. The gate shall
be closed at all times when the Dog is in the pen.
J. Substantial Bodily Harm: means bodily injury which involves a temporary
but substantial disfigurement, or which causes a temporary but substantial
loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ, or which
causes a fracture of any bodily member.
K. Unprovoked: means the condition in which the Dog is not excited,
stimulated, agitated or disturbed into action.
Subdivision 2. City Veterinarian
The Council may appoint a qualified veterinarian, for such term as it shall
designate, as City Veterinarian. The City Veterinarian shall act as an advisor to the
Council, and City Staff on matters pertaining to animal and human health
relationships. It shall be the responsibility of said veterinarian to ensure that
qualified veterinary care is available at all times for any injured or diseased animal
apprehended by members of the Police Department.
Subdivision 3. Dog Licenses
A. License Required. It is unlawful to keep any Dog of more than one hundred-
fifty (150) days of age unless a license therefor has been first secured.
Licenses shall be issued by the Police Department. The license fee shall be
established by the City Council and adopted by ordinance. Applicants shall
certify that the Dog to be licensed has been vaccinated against rabies,
effective for the license year, by a qualified veterinarian. Licenses shall expire
on the 31st day of December next following their issuance. For purposes of
this Subdivision, a vaccination with a killed rabies vaccine shall be deemed
effective for twelve (12) months, and a vaccination with a live rabies vaccine
shall be deemed effective for twenty-four (24) months.
B. Date of Payment. It shall be the duty of each Dog Owner to pay the license
fee imposed hereunder to the Police Department during the month of January
in each year, or upon acquiring ownership or possession of any unlicensed
Dog or upon establishing residence in the City.
C. Receipts and Tags. Upon payment of the license fee, the Police Department
shall execute a receipt in duplicate. The original receipt, along with the tag,
shall be delivered to the applicant. The duplicate copy shall be retained by
the Police Department. License tags shall be different from year to year.
D. Affixing Tags. Upon purchase of a license the Owner shall cause said tag to
be affixed by a permanent metal fastening to the collar of the Dog so
licensed in such a manner that the tag may be easily seen by the officers of
the City. The Owner shall see that the tag is constantly worn by such Dog.
E. Duplicate Tags. In case any Dog tag is lost, a duplicate shall be issued by the
Police Department upon presentation of a receipt showing payment of the
license fee for the current year. The charge for each such duplicate tag shall
be established by the City Council and adopted by ordinance.
Subdivision 4. Dog and Cat Impounding
A. Impounding.
1. The Police Department shall take up and impound any Dogs found in the
City without the tag provided for in this Section, or found in the City at
large while injured or diseased, and at such other occasion as may be
necessary to enforce this Section. Said City personnel are empowered and
instructed to enter upon any private premises where they have
reasonable cause to believe there is an unlicensed Dog.
2. It is unlawful for the Owner of any cat more than six (6) months of age to
fail to have such cat vaccinated for rabies each twelve (12) months and to
have evidence of such vaccination permanently attached to a collar kept
around the neck of such cat. Any cat found off the Owner's premises
without such evidence of valid and current immunization shall be
impounded.
B. Notice of Impounding. Upon taking up and impounding any Dog or cat as
provided in this Section, the Police Department shall promptly prepare a
record describing said impounded Dog or cat and retain a copy of said record
during the period of impoundment and during a period of ninety (90) days
thereafter.
C. Redemption. Any Dog or cat may be redeemed from the Police Department
by the Owner within five (5) days of the impounding by the payment to the
Police Department of the license fee (for Dogs only) for the current year, and
additional fee if applicable, together with Maintenance Costs for each day or
portion thereof that the Dog or cat is confined.
D. Release. Upon proof of ownership and payment of all fees and charges as
provided herein to the Police Department, the Police Department shall
release to any Owner the Dog or cat claimed by such Owner. In any event,
all Owners who refuse the return of a Dog or cat, or whose Dog or cat shall
die during impoundment, shall be liable for all reasonable charges and fees
for the impoundment, care and treatment, board, and disposal of said Dog or
cat.
E. Unclaimed Dogs or Cats. Any Dog or cat which is not claimed as provided in
this Section, within five (5) days after impounding may be sold for not less
than total charge provided in this Section, to any desiring to purchase the
Dog or cat. Any Dog or cat, which is not claimed by the Owner or sold, may
be disposed of, used for research or destroyed by the Police Department.
Subdivision 5. Power to Contract
The Council may, from time to time, and upon such terms and conditions as it
deems proper, contract with any qualified person to act as its agent to effectuate
the purposes of this Section.
Subdivision 6. Confinement of Certain Dogs
Any female Dog in heat, and any Dog who annoys or threatens persons passing on
or using public streets, and any Dog which habitually chases automobiles shall be
confined or effectively restrained by its Owner. In addition to issuing a citation, the
Police Department may take up and impound any Dog found at large in violation of
this provision, and release it only upon order of the Police Department after
payment of the fees provided for herein.
Subdivision 7. Registration of Dangerous Dogs
A. Adoption by Reference. Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, the
regulatory and procedural provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Sections 347.51
through 347.515 (a part of the law commonly referred to as the "Dangerous
Dog Regulations") as amended through Laws 2001, are hereby incorporated
herein and adopted by reference, subject however to adoption by the City of
any administrative penalties related to violations of this City Code Section
10.30, subd. 7.
B. Declaration of Potentially Dangerous or Dangerous Dogs.
1. A Golden Valley police officer, police officer, community service officer, or
animal control officer may declare a Dog to be Potentially Dangerous or
Dangerous, when the officer has probable cause to believe that the Dog is
Potentially Dangerous or Dangerous as defined herein. The following
factors will be considered in determining a Dangerous or Potentially
Dangerous Dog:
a. Whether any injury or damage to a person by the Dog was caused
while the Dog was protecting or defending a person or the Dog's
offspring within immediate vicinity of the Dog from an unjustified
attack or assault;
b. The size and strength of the Dog, including jaw strength, and the
animal's propensity to bite humans or other domesticated animals;
c. Whether the Dog has wounds, scarring, is observed in a fight, or has
other indications that the Dog has been or will be used, trained or
encouraged to fight with another animal or whose Owner is in
possession of any training apparatus, paraphernalia or drugs used to
prepare such Dogs to fight with other animals.
2. Beginning one hundred and eighty (180) days from the date a Dog is
declared Potentially Dangerous or Dangerous; the Owner may request
annually that the City review the designation. The Owner shall provide
clear and convincing evidence to the hearing officer that the Dog's
behavior has changed due to the Dog's age; neutering; environment;
completion of obedience training that includes modification of aggressive
behavior; or other factors rendering the Dog no longer Dangerous or
Potentially Dangerous. The hearing officer shall review the evidence
without hearing, and if the hearing officer finds sufficient evidence that
the Dog's behavior has changed, and the Dog is no longer Potentially
Dangerous or Dangerous, the hearing officer may rescind the Dangerous
Dog designation. For purposes of this ordinance, the hearing officer is the
Chief of Police, or his/her designee.
3. Exceptions.
a. The provisions of this Subdivision do not apply to Dogs used by law
enforcement.
b. Dogs may not be declared Dangerous or Potentially Dangerous if the
threat, injury or danger was sustained by a person who was:
1) Committing a willful trespass or other wrongful act causing injury
upon the premises occupied by the Owner of the Dog; or
2) Provoking, tormenting, abusing or assaulting the Dog, or who can
be shown to have a history of repeatedly provoking, tormenting,
abusing or assaulting the Dog; or
3) Committing or attempting to commit a crime.
C. License Required. The Owner must annually license Dangerous and
Potentially Dangerous Dogs with the City and must license a newly declared
Dangerous or Potentially Dangerous Dog within fourteen (14) days after
notice that a Dog has been declared Dangerous or Potentially Dangerous.
Regardless of any appeal that may be requested, the Owner must comply
with the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Section 347.52(a) and (c)
regarding Proper Enclosures and notification to the City upon transfer or
death of the Dog, until and unless a hearing officer or court of law reverses
the declaration.
1. Process for Dangerous Dogs. The City will issue a license to the Owner of
a Dangerous Dog if the Owner presents clear and convincing evidence
that:
a. There is a Proper Enclosure, as defined herein;
b. There is a surety bond by a surety company authorized to conduct
business in Minnesota in the sum of at least three hundred thousand
dollars ($300,000), payable to any person injured by a Dangerous
Dog, or receipt of a copy of a policy of liability insurance issued by an
insurance company authorized to do business in Minnesota in the
amount of at least three hundred thousand dollars ($300,000),
insuring that Owner for any personal injuries inflicted by the
Dangerous Dog. Such surety bond or insurance policy shall provide
that no cancellation of the bond or policy will be made unless the City
is notified in writing by the surety company or the insurance company
at least ten (10) days prior to such cancellation and written proof shall
be submitted that shows that the Owner's insurance provider has been
notified, in writing, of the declaration of the Potentially Dangerous or
Dangerous Dog;
c. The Owner has paid the annual license fee;
d. The Owner has had a microchip identification implanted in the
Dangerous Dog. The name of the microchip manufacturer and
identification number of the microchip must be provided to the City. If
the microchip is not implanted by the Owner at the Owner's expense,
it may be implanted by the City at the Owner's expense; and
e. The Owner provides proof that the Dog has been sterilized. If the
Owner does not sterilize the Dog within thirty (30) days, the City shall
seize the Dog and sterilize it at the Owner's expense.
2. Process for Potentially Dangerous Dogs. The City will issue a license to the
Owner of a Potentially Dangerous Dog if the Owner presents clear and
convincing evidence that:
a. There is a Proper Enclosure, as defined herein;
b. The Owner has paid the annual license fee; and
c. The Owner has had a microchip identification implanted in the
Dangerous Dog. The name of the microchip manufacturer and
identification number of the microchip must be provided to the City. If
the microchip is not implanted by the Owner at the Owner's expense,
it may be implanted by the City at the Owner's expense.
3. Inspection. A pre-license inspection of the premises to ensure compliance
with the City Code is required. If the City issues a license to the Owner of
a Dangerous or Potentially Dangerous Dog, the City shall be allowed at
any reasonable time to inspect the Dog, the Proper Enclosure and all
places where the animal is kept.
4. Warning Symbol. The Owner of a Dangerous Dog licensed under this
Subdivision must post a sign with the uniform dangerous dog warning
symbol on the property, at a prominent location, clearly visible from any
adjoining street, sidewalk or any public right-of-way, in order to inform
children that there is a Dangerous Dog on the property. The sign will be
provided upon issuance of the license.
5. Tags. A Dangerous Dog licensed under this Subdivision must wear a
standardized, easily identifiable tag at all times that contains the uniform
dangerous dog symbol, indentifying the Dog as Dangerous. The tag shall
be provided by the City upon issuance of the license.
6. License Fee. The City will charge the Owner an annual license fee for a
Dangerous or Potentially Dangerous Dog, such fee to be established by
the City Council and adopted by ordinance.
D. Properly Restrained in Proper Enclosure or Outside of Proper Enclosure. While
on the Owner's property, an Owner of a Dangerous or Potentially Dangerous
Dog must keep it in a Proper Enclosure. Inside a residential home, there
must be a secured area maintained where the Dog will stay when persons
other than family members are present. If the Dog is outside the Proper
Enclosure, the Dog must be muzzled and restrained by a substantial chain or
leash no longer than six (6) feet and under physical restraint by an adult.
The muzzle must be made in a manner that will prevent the Dog from biting
any person or animal but that will not cause injury to the Dog or interfere
with its vision or respiration.
E. Notification Requirements to City.
1. Relocation or Death. The Owner of the Dog that has been declared
Dangerous or Potentially Dangerous must notify the City Clerk in writing if
the Dog is to be relocated from its current address or if the Dog has died.
The notification must be given in writing within thirty (30) days of the
relocation or death. The notification must include the current Owner's
name and address, and the new Owner's name and the relocation
address. If the relocation address is outside the City, the City may notify
the local law enforcement agency of the transfer of the Dog into its
jurisdiction.
2. Renter's Obligations. A person who owns or possesses a Dangerous or
Potentially Dangerous Dog and who will rent property from another where
the Dog will reside must disclose to the property owner prior to entering
the lease agreement and at the time of any lease renewal periods that the
person owns or possesses a Dangerous or Potentially Dangerous Dog that
will reside at the property. A Dog Owner, who is currently renting
property, must notify the property owner within fourteen (14) days of City
notification if the owned Dog is newly declared as Dangerous or
Potentially Dangerous and that the Dog Owner keeps the Dog on the
property.
3. Transfer of Ownership into the City. No Dog that has been previously
determined to be Dangerous or Potentially Dangerous by another
jurisdiction shall be kept, owned or harbored in the City unless the Dog's
Owner complies with the requirements of this Subdivision prior to bringing
the Dog into the City. Dogs in violation of this subsection are subject to
impoundment and destruction.
F. Seizure. Animal control may immediately seize any Dangerous or Potentially
Dangerous Dog if:
1. Fourteen (14) days after the Owner has notice that the Dog is declared
Dangerous or Potentially Dangerous, the Dog is not validly licensed and
no appeal has been filed;
2. Fourteen (14) days after the Owner has notice that the Dog is Dangerous,
the Owner has not secured the proper liability insurance or surety
coverage as required or such required insurance is cancelled;
3. The Dog is not maintained in a Proper Enclosure;
4. The Dog is outside the Proper Enclosure and not under proper restraint,
as required by City Code Section 10.30, subd. 7(D);
S. Thirty (30) days after the Owner has notice that the Dog is Dangerous,
the Dog is not sterilized, as required by City Code Section 10.30, subd.
7(C)(1)(e); or
6. The Dog's microchip has been removed.
G. Reclamation. A Dog seized under Subdivision 7(F) above, may be reclaimed
by the Owner of the Dog upon payment of Maintenance Costs, and
presenting proof to animal control that the requirements of this Subdivision
have been met. A Dog not reclaimed under this Subdivision within seven (7)
days may be disposed of, used for research, or destroyed and the Owner will
be liable to the City for Maintenance Costs. A person claiming an interest in a
seized Dog may present disposition of the Dog by posting a security in an
amount sufficient to provide for the Dog's Maintenance Costs. The security
must be posted with the City within seven (7) days of the seizure, inclusive
of the date seized.
H. Subsequent Offenses; Seizure. If a person has been convicted of violating a
provision of this Subdivision, and the person is charged with a subsequent
violation relating to the same Dog, the Dog must be seized. If the Owner is
convicted of the crime for which the Dog was seized, the court may order
that the Dog be destroyed in a proper and humane manner and the Owner
pay the Maintenance Costs. If the Owner is not convicted and the Dog is not
reclaimed by the Owner within seven (7) days after the Owner has been
notified that the Dog may be reclaimed, the Dog may be disposed of, used
for research, or destroyed.
1. Notice, Hearings.
1. Notice. After a Dog has been declared Dangerous or Potentially Dangerous
or has been seized for destruction, the City shall give notice by delivering
or mailing the notice to the Owner of the Dog, or by posting a copy of the
notice at the place where the Dog is kept, or by delivering it to some
person of suitable age and discretion residing on the property. The officer
shall provide a copy of the notice served upon the Dog Owner, along with
an affidavit of service, to the City Clerk.
2. Content of Notice. The notice described above must include:
a. a description of the Dog, the authority for and purpose of the
declaration or seizure; the time, place, and circumstances under which
the Dog was declared or seized; and the telephone number and
contact person where the Dog is kept;
b. a statement that the Owner of the Dog may request a hearing
concerning the declaration or seizure and that failure to do so within
fourteen (14) days of the date of the notice will terminate the Owner's
right to a hearing;
c. a statement that if an appeal request is made within fourteen (14)
days of the notice, the Owner must immediately comply with the
requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Section 347.52, paragraphs (a)
and (c) regarding Proper Enclosures and notification to the City upon
transfer or death of the Dog, until such time as the hearing officer
issues an opinion;
d. a statement that if the hearing officer affirms the Dangerous Dog
declaration, the Owner will have fourteen (14) days from receipt of
that decision to comply with all other requirements of Minnesota
Statutes, Sections 347.51, 347.515 and 347.52;
e. a form to request a hearing; and
f. a statement that if the Dog has been seized, all Maintenance Costs of
the care, keeping, and disposition of the Dog pending the outcome of
the hearing are the responsibility of the Owner, unless a court or
hearing officer finds that the seizure or impoundment was not
substantially justified by law.
3. Hearing.
a. After a Dog has been declared Dangerous, Potentially Dangerous or
has been seized for destruction, the Owner may appeal in writing to
the City within fourteen (14) days after notice of the declaration or
seizure. Failure to do so within fourteen (14) days of the date of the
notice will terminate the Owner's right to a hearing. The Owner must
pay a fee for an appeal hearing as established by the City Council and
adopted by ordinance.
b. The appeal hearing will be held within fourteen (14) days of the
request. The hearing officer must be an impartial employee of the City
or an impartial person retained by the City to conduct the hearing. The
appeal hearing shall be in an informal manner, and the Minnesota
Rules of Civil Procedure and Rules of Evidence shall not be strictly
applied. The hearing need not be transcribed, but may be transcribed
at the sole expense of the party who requests the transcription.
c. If the declaration or destruction is upheld by the hearing officer, actual
expenses of the hearing, as well as all Maintenance Costs, will be the
responsibility of the Dog's Owner. The hearing officer shall issue a
decision on the matter within ten (10) days after the hearing. The
decision shall be delivered to the Dog's Owner by hand delivery or
registered mail as soon as practical and a copy shall be provided to the
City. The decision of the hearing officer is final.
d. An Owner's right to appeal or otherwise contest a Potentially
Dangerous or Dangerous Dog declaration shall be deemed waived if
the Owner fails to serve a written request for appeal, as required
herein, or fails to appear at the scheduled appeal hearing date.
J. Destruction of Certain Dogs. The Police Chief and/or hearing officer are
authorized to order the destruction or other disposition of any Dog, after
proper notice is given pursuant to Subdivision 7(1) and upon finding that:
1. The Dog has habitually destroyed property or habitually trespassed in a
damaging manner on property of persons other than the Owner;
2. The Dog has been declared Dangerous, the Owner's right to appeal
hereunder has been exhausted or expired, and the Owner has failed to
comply with the provisions of this Subdivision;
3. It is determined that the Dog is infected with rabies;
4. The Dog inflicted Substantial or Great Bodily Harm on a human on public
or private property without provocation;
5. The Dog inflicted multiple bites on a human on public or private property
without provocation;
6. The Dog bit multiple human victims on public or private property in the
same attack without provocation;
7. The Dog bit a human on public or private property without provocation in
an attack where more than one (1) Dog participated in the attack; or
8. The Dog poses a danger to the public's health, safety or welfare. In
determining whether the Dog poses a danger to the public's health, safety
or welfare, the following factors may be considered:
a. The Dog weighs more than twenty (20) pounds;
b. The strength of the Dog;
c. The Dog's tolerance for pain;
d. The Dog's tendency to refuse to terminate an attack;
e. The Dog's propensity to bite humans or other domestic animals;
f. The Dog's potential for unpredictable behavior;
g. The Dog's aggressiveness;
h. The likelihood that a bite by the Dog will result in serious injury.
K. Concealing of Dogs. Any person that may harbor, hide or conceal a Dog that
the City has the authority to seize or that has been ordered into custody for
destruction or other proper disposition shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
L. Dog Ownership Prohibited.
1. Except as provided below, a person shall not own a Dog if the person has
been:
a. Convicted of a 3rd or subsequent violation of City Code Section 10.30,
Subd. 7(D), (E) or (F) or Minnesota Statutes Sections 347.51, 347.515
or 347.52;
b. Convicted of 2nd degree manslaughter due to negligent or intentional
use of a Dog under Minnesota Statutes Sections 609.205(4); or
c. Convicted of Gross Misdemeanor harm caused by a Dog under
Minnesota Statutes Section 609.226, Subd. 1.
M. Dog Ownership Prohibition Review. Beginning three (3) years after a
conviction under City Code Section 10.30, Subd. 7(L)(1) that prohibits a
person from owning a Dog, and annually thereafter, the person may request
in writing to the Police Chief that any limitations imposed by the City be
reviewed. The City may consider such facts as the seriousness of the
violation or violations that led to the prohibition, any criminal convictions, or
other facts that the City deems appropriate. The City may rescind the
prohibition entirely or rescind it with limitations. The City also may establish
conditions a person must meet before the prohibition is rescinded, including,
but not limited to, successfully completing dog training or dog handling
courses. If the City rescinds a person's prohibition and the person
subsequently fails to comply with any limitations imposed by the City or the
person is convicted of any animal violation including, Dog attacks or
unprovoked bites by a Dog owned or under his or her control, the City may
permanently prohibit the person from owning a Dog in this state.
N. Penalties. Unless stated otherwise, any person who violates a provision of
this Subdivision is guilty of a misdemeanor or alternatively, any
administrative penalties related to violations of this City Code Section 10.30,
Subd. 7
Subdivision 8. Dogs or Cats Disturbing the Peace
It is unlawful for any person to keep or harbor a Dog or cat which barks, cries,
squeals, howls or meows, excessively, continuously or in an untimely manner. The
phrase "barks, cries, squeals, howls or meows, excessively, continuously or in an
untimely manner" includes, but is not limited to, the creation of any noise by any
Dog or cat which can be heard by any person, including a law enforcement officer
or animal control officer, from a location outside of the building or premises where
the Dog or cat is being kept, and which noise occurs repeatedly over at least a five
(5) minute period of time, with a thirty (30) second or less lapse of time between
each animal noise during the five (5) minute period.
Subdivision 9. Interference With Officers
It is unlawful for any person to take or attempt to take from any person authorized
under the terms of this Section, any Dog or cat taken up in compliance with this
Section or in any manner to interfere with or hinder such person in the discharge of
his or her duties under this Section.
Subdivision 10. Offenses; Tags
It is unlawful to counterfeit, attempt to counterfeit or alter the tags provided for in
this Section or to give false information concerning vaccination requirements under
this Section, or take from any Dog a tag legally placed upon it by its Owner with the
intent to place it upon another Dog, or to place such tag upon another Dog.
Subdivision 11. Quarantine of Dogs and Cats
A. Whenever any person owning, harboring or maintaining a Dog or cat learns
that such animal has bitten any human being, such person shall immediately
impound said animal at such person's expense in a licensed veterinary
hospital of such person's choice and shall also immediately notify the Police
Department. If, however, such person submits unequivocal proof to the
Police Department that said animal was effectively vaccinated in accord with
this Section or approved veterinary practice at the time of said bite, the
animal shall be securely quarantined at the residence of the Owner or in such
other manner as the Police Department, in its discretion, may direct.
B. The Police Department when informed that a Dog or cat has bitten any
human being shall ascertain the identity of such animal and the person
owning, controlling, or harboring it and shall immediately direct such person
to immediately quarantine such animal in the manner set forth above. In the
case of stray animals, or in the case of animals whose ownership is not
known, such quarantine shall be at a shelter designated by the Police
Department.
C. Any Dog or cat which has bitten a human being shall be securely quarantined
continuously for ten (10) days in the manner described above and shall not
be released from such quarantine except by written permission of the Police
Department. The Owner or person harboring such animal during confinement
shall immediately notify the Police Department of any evidence of sickness or
disease in the animal during its period of confinement.
D. Upon demand made by the Police Department as contemplated above, the
Owner or person harboring said Dog or cat shall immediately comply with
any such demand. Said animal may be reclaimed or released from quarantine
to the Owner or possessor of the animal if it is adjudged free of rabies by a
licensed veterinarian, and upon payment of the license fee authorized by this
Section, and compliance with all other stated requirements.
Subdivision 12. Muzzling of Dogs
Whenever the prevalence of rabies renders such action necessary to protect the
public health and safety, the Mayor shall issue a proclamation ordering every
person owning or keeping a Dog to confine it securely on the premises of such
person unless it is muzzled so that it cannot bite. No person shall violate such
proclamation, and any unmuzzled Dog running at large during the time fixed in the
proclamation shall be destroyed by the police either with or without notice to the
Owner, such notice to be at the discretion of the police.
Subdivision 13. Leashing
No person having the custody or control of any Dog or animal of the Dog kind shall
at any time permit the same to be on or in other than land owned, leased, or
occupied by the person having the custody or control of such Dog or animal of the
Dog kind, without being effectively restrained by leash or command control as
herein set forth, from going beyond such unfenced area or lot; nor shall any person
having the custody or control of any Dog or animal of the Dog kind permit the same
at any time to be on any street or public place without being effectively restrained
by chain or leash not exceeding six (6) feet in length, unless accompanied by and
under the control and direction of the person having control or custody so as to be
as effectively restrained by command as by a leash.
Subdivision 14. Running at Large
The Police Department shall take up and impound any Dog or cat or animal of the
Dog kind running at large in violation of this Section.
Subdivision 15. Limit on Number of Dogs and Cats
Not more than three (3) Dogs and three (3) cats are to be maintained on any lot or
in any residence except that one (1) litter of pups or kittens in excess of the above
number may be kept up to an age of ninety (90) days.
Subdivision 16. Kennels
A. Defined. For the purpose of this Subdivision, the term "kennels" means any
place, building, tract of land, abode or vehicle, wherein or whereon three (3)
or more Dogs or cats, over ninety (90) days of age, are kept, kept for sale,
or boarded.
B License Required. It is unlawful for any person to operate or maintain a
kennel without a license therefor from the City.
C. License Fee. The annual fee for a kennel license shall be established by the
City Council and adopted by ordinance.
D. Exception. Hospitals and clinics operated by licensed veterinarians exclusively
for the care and treatment of animals and the Animal Humane Society are
exempt from the provisions of this Subdivision.
Subdivision 17. Humane Treatment of Dogs and Cats
Every person shall provide any Dog or cat of which such person has control suf-
ficient and proper food, water, shelter and veterinarian care. No person shall
poison, overwork or mistreat or in any way further any act of cruelty to any Dog or
cat whether belonging to such person or another. No person shall abandon any Dog
or cat of which such person has control
Subdivision 18. Mediation
In addition to, but not to the exclusion of, any criminal prosecution by reason of
violations of this Section, either party involved in an alleged violation may request a
mediation meeting with all other affected parties and a representative of the Police
Department. Such a request shall be addressed to, and said meeting shall be
arranged by, the Police Department.
Subdivision 19. Restrictions on Dogs and Cats
No Owner shall permit such Owner's Dog or cat to damage or foul any lawn, garden
or other property.
Subdivision 20. Enforcement
Licensed police officers, reserve officers, and community service officers, employed
by the Police Department are authorized to issue citations for the violation of this
Section.
Section 2. City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions and Definitions
Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" is hereby adopted
in its entirety, by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein.
Section 3. This ordinance shall take effect from and after its passage and
publication as required by law.
Adopted by the City Council this 6th day of October, 2009.
IslLinda R. Loomis
Linda R. Loomis, Mayor
ATTEST:
IslSusan M. Virnig
Susan M. Virnig, City Clerk
SUMMARY OF
ORDINANCE NO. 423, 2ND SERIES
AN ORDINANCE TO THE CITY CODE
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE
Amending Section 10.30, Regarding Registration of Dangerous Dogs
The City Council for the City of Goiden Valley herby ordains as follows:
Section 1. Chapter 10, Section 10.30 of the City Code was amended by:
1) Replacing Subdivision 7, Vicious Dogs, with a new subdivision on
Registration of Dangerous Dogs, which adopts by reference Minnesota
Statutes, Sections 347.51 through 347.515 as amended through Laws
2001 regarding dangerous dogs and establishes the process for the
City to declare a dog dangerous and procedures for handling dogs
declared dangerous including: special licensing that provides for
proper restraint, warnings to the public about dangerous dogs, notice
and hearings to declare a dog dangerous, limitations on ownership of
dangerous dogs and provides for the destruction of dangerous dogs in
certain cases.
2) Repealing and adopting a new definition of Owner in Subdivision 1 and
adding new definitions for Animal Control, At Large, Dangerous Dog,
Dog, Great Bodily Harm, Maintenance Costs, Substantially Dangerous
Dog, Proper Enclosure, Substantial Bodily Harm and Unprovoked.
3) Deleting the last two sentences of Subdivision 17 on the Humane
Treatment of Dogs and Cats.
4) Throughout the Section replacing Department of Public Safety with
Police Department. replacing Hennepin County Humane Society with
Animal Humane Society and establishing that all fees are fixed by the
City Council and adopted by ordinance.
Section 2. The City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions and
Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation"
and Section 10.99 entitled "Violation of a Misdemeanor or Petty
Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety, by reference, as though
repeated verbatim.
Section 3. This ordinance shall take effect from and after its passage
and publications required by law.
Adopted by the City Council this 6th day of October, 2009.
Is/Linda R. Loomis
Linda R. Loomis, Mayor
ATTEST:
Is/Susan M. Virnig
Susan M. Virnig, City Clerk
alley
ernoran urn
Public Works
763-593-8030 I 763-593-3988 (fax)
Executive Summary For Action
Golden Valley City Council Meeting
October 6, 2009
Agenda Item
6. A. Authorize Agreement with Metropolitan Council for 2009 Asphalt Overlay Project, City
Improvement Project No. 09-11
Prepared By
Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works
Ron Nims, Public Works Project Coordinator
Summary
At their August 5, 2009 meeting, the City Council authorized an agreement with the
Metropolitan Council (Met Council) for rehabilitation of their Park and Ride facility on the 1-394
south frontage road just east of General Mills Boulevard in conjunction with the City's 2009
Asphalt Overlay Project. However, after the City Council authorized the agreement, which
had been provided by the Met Council, Met Council legal staff requested revisions to the
agreement. The new agreement is attached for Council consideration. Requested revisions to
the document include:
1. Appointment of the City for obtaining bids for the work and awarding contracts on the
Met Council's behalf for work on their facilities.
2. Designating the authorized personnel from each agency for coordination of the project.
3. More clearly establishing the cost participation and reimbursement procedure.
4. Limits for extra work without Met Council pre-approval.
5. Responsibilities are established for each agency for work on the project.
6. Language was added to establish ownership of the completed projects.
7. Establishing liability for each agency.
8. General provisions for administering the contract for the work.
In accordance with the agreement, the City will be reimbursed for all costs expended for work
related to the Park and Ride facility by the Met Council including costs for design and
construction administration.
Attachments
Location map ( 1 page)
Joint Powers Agreement Relating to the Allocation of Costs for the Park and Ride Facility
(12 pages)
Recommended Action
Motion to rescind agreement with the Metropolitan Council authorized at the August 5, 2009
Council meeting to rehabilitate the Park and Ride facilities just east of General Mills
Boulevard on the south frontage road of 1-394.
Motion to authorize entering into a revised Joint Powers Agreement with the Metropolitan
Council for rehabilitating the existing Park and Ride facilities just east of General Mills
Boulevard on the south frontage road of 1-394.
~-- ~-
, . ~'7.
;rABLVD ---' l--
J
r
~~m~
-
-
......
[
-
WAY'ZATA BLVD
.,
..........-~
.JI'
.~
e[j[jDR
~ DOUGLAS A~
TYROL CFtEST
rrl~
~
n.
~
~
I
IfJ
I~
~
2009 ASPHALT OVERLAY
1-394 South Frontage Road (West) from General Mills Blvd to Texas Ave
1-394 South Frontage Road (East) from CIty Umlts to. TH 100 East Frontage Road &
TH 100 East Frontage Road/l-194 South Frontage Road from Douglas Ave to France Ave South.
PrInt Dare: 1/20/09
Sources:
Hennepin Cormty SUn1eyors 0fJIr:e /Dr
Property Unes (ZOOS}.
t
Met Council 091039
JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT RELATING TO THE CONSTRUCTION AND
ALLOCATION OF COSTSFOR PARK-AND-RIDE FACILITY
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this day of ,
2009, by and between the Metropolitan Council, a public corporation and political
subdivision of the State of Minnesota, 506 Sixth Avenue North, Minneapolis, Minnesota
("Met Council"), and the City of Golden Valley, a political subdivision of the State of
Minnesota, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota 55427 ("City").
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the City and Met Council have deemed it beneficial to both parties to
enter into a joint powers agreement for the construction of certain improvements along a
portion of the south frontage road of Interstate Highway 394, located in the City of
Golden Valley, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota ("Joint Powers Agreement"),
which improvements include the following: rehabilitation of the existing roadway within
Golden Valley from approximately General Mills Boulevard to the east City limits at
France Avenue South and rehabilitation of a park-and-ride facility consisting of two
separate parking lots (hereinafter collectively "Improvements");
WHEREAS, the City has prepared certain plans and specifications to construct
the Improvements, which plans are referred to as City Project 09-11 ;
WHEREAS, the plans and specifications for Golden Valley City Project No. 09-11
include the mill and overlay rehabilitation of a park-and-ride facility located near the
intersection of the frontage road and General Mills Boulevard;
WHEREAS, the City has authorized its consultant to evaluate the need for a
pedestrian signal system on the frontage road at the park-and-ride facility's crosswalk
for an estimated cost of Four thousand three hundred forty six dollars and seventy cents
($4,346.70);
WHEREAS, the Joint Powers Agreement provides that the parties thereto would
allocate the costs of the Improvements to the appropriate party;
WHEREAS, the Met Council and the City have entered into this joint powers
agreement for the purpose setting forth the responsibilities of the parties with respect to
construction of the lrT!provements and of allocation of certain costs incurred by the City
relating to the Improvements; and
WHEREAS, Minn. Stat. ~ 471.59 authorizes political subdivisions of the State of
Minnesota to enter into joint powers agreements for the joint exercise of powers
common to each.
NOW, THEREFORE, for valuable consideration the sufficiency and receipt of
which is hereby acknowledged, the parties mutually agree as follows:
I.
PURPOSE OF AGREEMENT
1. The City and Met Council have executed this Agreement for the purpose
of delineating each party's responsibility with regard to the construction, ownership and
cost of the Improvements. The Council hereby appoints the City as its agent to obtain
bids and to construct the Improvements in accordance with the construction documents
for the Improvements as provided below in this Agreement.
2. For purposes of this Agreement, the Improvements are as follows:
a. Rehabilitation of the existing roadway within Golden Valley from
approximately General Mills Boulevard to the east City limits at France Avenue
South; and
b. Rehabilitation of a park and ride facility consisting of two separate
parking lots.
3. The location of the Improvements is shown on Exhibit A attached hereto
and made a part hereof.
II.
CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS
1. As of August 24, 2009, the City has prepared the necessary detailed
construction documents for the Improvements herein referred to as "Documents". The
Documents contain plans and specifications for construction of the Council Project. City
has prepared a construction cost estimate for the Improvements, which construction
cost estimate is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
2. The Documents prepared by the City have been reviewed by the Council
and, found acceptable.
III.
EASEMENTS AND PERMITS
1. Any federal, state or local permits necessary for construction of the
Improvements will be acquired by the City, or the City's Contractor.
IV.
ACCEPTANCE OF BIDS
1. Met Council, in connection with the construction of the Improvements, has
appointed the City as its agent to advertise for bids for the work and construction of the
2
Improvements, receive and open bids, pursuant to said advertisement and enter into a
contract with a successful bidder for the Improvements.
2. As of August 24, 2009 The City has advertised, received and opened bids for
the work and construction of the aforesaid City Road Project, including the Council
Project. The City shall enter into a contract with the successful bidder at the unit prices
specified in the bid of such bidder, in accordance with applicable law. If the City decides
not to award the construction contract, this contract shall become null and void.
3. The construction contract entered into by the City for the city road project
will include the Documents prepared and submitted to the City by Met Council and
approved by the City in accordance with Section II of this Agreement, and provide that
Improvements shall be constructed according to the Documents.
V.
CONSTRUCTION AND CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION
1. The City will administer the aforesaid contract and provide construction
staking of the contract work included in the Improvements. The Met Council will
periodically inspect the construction of the contract work included in the Improvements
The Met Council, through the Council's Authorized Representative "CAR", will notify the
City immediately of the contractor's failure to comply with the Documents during the
performance of the Improvements work. Upon completion of the Improvements, Met
Council will inform the City in writing either that the Improvements have been
constructed and conform to the Documents and are fully operational, or that
Improvements have not been constructed in accordance with the Documents and are
not operational.
2. Met Council will further inform the City of the specific reasons for non-
conformance to the Documents and what steps, in the opinion of Met Council, must be
taken by the City to make Improvements conform to the Documents. The City will take
necessary steps to insure that the construction is in accordance with the Documents
and that Improvements become fully operational. The final decision on conformance of
Improvements to the Documents will be made by adherence to the current version of
the Minnesota Department of Transportation's Standard Specifications for Construction.
3. Not less than one (1) days prior to commencement of Improvements on
Met Council property by the City, the City will give written notice to Met Council of its
intention to commence construction, said notice be directed as follows:
VI.
MODIFICATIONS TO CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS
1. City will submit any amendments to or material changes in the Documents
provided by the City to Met Council for review and approval that exceed a cost of
$10,000, which approval will not be unreasonably withheld. Such amendments or
3
material changes to the approved final Documents must be submitted to the CAR at
least seven (7) days prior to the implementation of such change. City agrees that it will
not proceed with amendment to or changes in the approved final Documents of the
Improvements until Met Council has consented to such change in accordance with its
procedures and has approved such change in writing as evidenced by letter to City from
the CAR.
2. Through written request, Met Council may require the City to make
changes to or modifications in the scope of the Improvements and the City hereby
agrees to have its contractor construct the required modifications or changes, provided,
however, that the cost of such changes or modifications shall be borne by Met Council.
VII.
ENTRY ONTO EASEMENTS
The City hereby grants to Met Council the right to enter onto its property and any
easements and right-of-way that it may have obtained for construction of the
Improvements for the purpose of Met Council fulfilling its obligations under this
Agreement. Met Council hereby grants to City the right to enter onto its property for the
purpose of the City fulfilling its obligations under this Agreement.
VIII.
COST PARTICIPATION
1. Council shall reimburse the City for construction of the Improvements. An
estimated itemization of reimbursement of the construction costs is set forth in Exhibit B
attached hereto and, as more fully provided below:
A. Construction Improvements:
1. The cost of removal of the existing crosswalk and construction of
proposed new crosswalk improvements shall be deemed the responsibility of Met
Council in accordance with Exhibit B, the 1-394 Mill & Overlay Preliminary Cost
Estimate.
2. The cost of all rehabilitation of the Park & Ride Facility listed under
Alternate Bid #1 (MTC Park and Ride) of Exhibit B shall also be deemed the
responsibility of Met Council.
3. All other costs, with the exception of those deemed the
responsibility of the Minnesota Department of Transportation in accordance with
Exhibit B, shall be considered the responsibility of the City.
4
B. Indirect Costs:
1. The Met Council shall pay to the City, eighteen percent (18%) of
the actual construction costs of the improvements, deemed the responsibility of
the Met Council as described above, for indirect costs including, but not limited to,
project design, construction observation, legal fees and contract administration
(the "Indirect Costs").
2. The Met Council shall also pay to the City the costs, estimated at
$4,346.70, for the evaluation of the need for a pedestrian signal system at the
park-and-ride facility crosswalk.
IX.
PAYMENT
Upon award of a contract by the City, Exhibit 8 will be modified using the bid
prices received to reflect the new estimated construction cost. The City will invoice the
Met Council for 95% of the estimated construction cost. Within 30 days after receipt of
the invoice from the City, the Met Council shall pay the City ninety-five percent (95%) of
the estimated construction cost. UpoOn completion of the Improvements and after
receipt of a written statement documenting the actual cost of construction of the
Improvements, the Met Council shall pay to the City the difference between the actual
construction cost and the estimated construction cost. If Met Council fails to timely pay
for such invoice, it shall be responsible for all of the City's cost of collection and
attorneys' fees.
X.
DISBURSEMENT OF FUNDS
All funds disbursed by any of the parties to this Agreement shall be disbursed by
each party pursuant to the method provided by law.
XI.
CONTRACTS AND PURCHASES
All contracts let and purchases made pursuant to this Agreement shall be made
in conformance to state laws.
XII.
OWNERSHIP OF THE IMPROVEMENTS
1. Upon completion of the construction of the Improvements in accordance
with the terms of this Agreement, Met Council shall become the owner of the
Improvements located on the Met Council's property and shall have the responsibility for
operation and maintenance of the Improvements located on the Met Council's property.
5
City shall transfer all contractor warranties and guarantees for the Improvements on Met
Council's property to Met Council.
2. Upon completion of construction of the Improvements located on.the Met
Council's property in accordance with the terms of this Agreement, Met Council shall
have the responsibiUty to obtain any permits or licenses for operation and maintenance
of the Improvements on Met Council's property.
XIII.
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION
In accordance with the City and the Met Council's Affirmative Action policies, no
person shall illegally be excluded from full-time employment, income or be denied the
benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination in the program which is the
subject of this Agreement on the basis of race, creed, color, sex, marital status, public
assistance status, age, disability or national origin.
XIV.
LIABILITY
1. Each party agrees that it will be responsible for its own acts and the
results thereof to the extent authorized by law, and shall not be responsible for the acts
of the other party and the results thereof. The City's and Met Council's liability is
governed by the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 466.
2. The City and Met Council each warrant that they are able to comply with
the aforementioned indemnity requirements through an insurance or self-insurance
program and have at least minimum coverage consistent with the liability limits
contained in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 466. 3. The City further agrees that any
contract let by the City for the performance of Met Council's Improvements as provided
herein shall include clauses that will: 1) Require the Contractor to defend, indemnify,
and save harmless Met Council, its officers, agents and employees from claims, suits,
demands, damages, judgments, costs, interest, expenses (including, without limitation,
reasonable attorneys' fees, witness fees and disbursements incurred in the defense
thereof) arising out of or by reason of the negligence of the said Contractor, its officers,
employees, agents or subcontractors; 2) Require the Contractor to provide and
maintain insurance as provided on Exhibit C naming Met Council as additional insured;
and 3) Require the Contractor to be an independent contractor for the purposes of
completing the work provided for in this Agreement.
XV.
GENERAL PROVISIONS
1. All records kept by the City and Met Council with respect to the
Improvements shall be subject to examination by the representatives of each party
hereto. All data collected, created, received, maintained or disseminated for any
6
purpose by the activities of the City and Met Council pursuant to this Agreement shall
be governed by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, as amended, and the Minnesota Rules
implementing such Act now in force or hereafter adopted.
2. Applicable provisions of Minnesota State law, federal law and of any
applicable local ordinances shall be considered a part of this Agreement as though fully
set forth herein. Specifically, the City agrees to comply with all federal, state and local
applicable laws and ordinances relating to nondiscrimination, affirmative action, public
purchases, contracting, employment, including workers' compensation and surety
deposits required for construction contracts. The City agrees to request payment of
state labor wage information from its contractor and provide such information to Met
Council, if requested by Met Council. The provisions of Minnesota Statutes 181.59 and
of any applicable local ordinance relating to civil rights and discrimination and the
Affirmative Action Policy statement of the City shall be considered a part of this
Agreement as though fully set forth herein.
3. Any and all employees of each of the respective parties hereto, and all
other persons engaged by each respective party in the performance of any work or
services required or provided herein to be performed by the respective party shall not
be considered employees of any of the other parties hereto, and that any and all claims
that mayor might arise under the Worker's Compensation Act or the Minnesota
Economic Security Law of the State of Minnesota on behalf of said employees while so
engaged, and any and all claims made by any third parties as a consequence of any act
or omission of the part of said employees while so engaged , on any work or services
provided to be rendered herein, shall in no way be the obligation or responsibility of
other respective party hereto.
5. In order to coordinate the services of the City with the activities of Met
Council so as to accomplish the purposes of this Agreement, the City's Director of
Public Works, or a designated representative, shall manage this Agreement on behalf of
the City and serve as liaison between the City and Met Council.
6. In order to coordinate the services of Met Council with the activities of the
City so as to accomplish the purposes of this Agreement, CAR shall manage this
Agreement on behalf of Met Council and serve as liaison between Met Council and the
City.
7. It is understood and agreed that the entire Agreement between the parties
is contained herein and that this Agreement supersedes all oral agreements and
negotiations between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof. All items referred
to in this Agreement are incorporated or attached and are deemed to be part of this
Agreement.
8. The Background Recitals are incorporated herein and are hereby made a
part of this Agreement.
7
9. The provisions of this Agreement shall be deemed severable. If any part
of this Agreement is rendered void, invalid, or unenforceable, such rendering shall not
affect the validity and enforceability of the remainder of this Agreement unless the part
or parts which are void, invalid or otherwise unenforceable shall substantially impair the
value of the entire Agreement with respect to the parties. One or more waivers by said
party of any provision, term, condition or covenant shall not be construed by the other
p~rty as a waiver of a subsequ~nt breach of the same by the other party.
10, Any alterations, variations, modifications or waivers of provisions of this
Agreement shall only be valid when they have been reduced to writing as an
amendment to this Agreement signeq by the Parties hereto.
11. The covenants of this Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the
benefit of the parties hereto, their successors and assigns.
12. This contract is entered into in and under the laws of the State of
Minnesota and shall be interpreted in accordance therewith.
13. Any notice or demand, which mayor must be given or made by a party
hereto, under the terms of this Agreement or any statute or ordinance, shall be in writing
and shall be sent certified mail or delivered in person to the other party addressed as
follows:
Metro Transit
c/o Brian Lamb, General Manager
560 Sixth Avenue North
Minneapolis, MN 55411-4398
City of Golden Valley
c/o Thomas D. Burt, City Manager
7800 Golden Valley Road
Golden Valley, MN 55427
8
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be
executed by their duly authorized officers as of the day and year first above written:
In witness whereof, the parties hereto have set their hands on the dates indicated.
CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY
By:
Thomas D. Burt, City Manager
:~~~N[Z:L
Thomas Weaver, Regional Administrator
Dated:
Dated: "1-~ -~,.
Dated:
~a-rt6r~:
~.P(.~
,?T~j~~
By:
Linda Loomis, Mayor
ATTEST
ATTEST
By:
By:
Its:
Its:
Dated:
Dated:
9
CONVENTIONAL SIGNS
SHIDNO.l
SHID NO. 2
SHEET NO. 3-8
lJIlDEX ~
mLE SHID
E5TIllA1EllOUAHTl11ES
PI.AN SHEETS
CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY
2009 CONSTRUCTION PLAN FOR
ROADWAY CONCRETE CURB ANO GUTTER REPLACEMENT, BITUMINOUS MIWNG, PAVING AND STRIPING
INCLUDING ALTIERNATE BID ITEMS FOR METROPOUTAN TRANSIT PARKING LOT MIWNG, PAVING AND STRIPING
PROPOSED 2009 OVERLAY CONSTRUCTION AREA
m
..
i
"
'"
EXHIBIT A
LOCA TION
OF IMPROVEMENTS
.....:.:~::~:~.:~=:=-::::=-=::::::::::::::~ .
CROSS SECTION HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL
GRAPIIIC SCALE
(tlfn::tr)
,_ _'-,,, If , f tp
jE
6
~
~
~
e
~
~
e
PLAN " PROFILE HORIZONTAL GRAPHIC SCALE
(Pfn::.T)
':' 'lp Ip "P If' ~ If'
PROFILE VERTICAL GRAPHIC SCALE
ALTERNATE BlD IlEM FOR ROADWAY
REHABlUTA noN IlE1WEEN FRANCE "
INTERSECTION - SoP. 2789-134
(Dtn:llr)
t ,__'" f , 'f , ,
ALTERNAlE BlD FOR liTe PARI<ING LOT
RDIAB1l1TATION
DATE_
NnDOT IW4lN1ENANa; CPERAllONS AND ENGlNEERINO SERW:ES
1-394 SOII1H FRONTAGE ROAD (EAST)
(WAYlATA BlVD)
=~~~my~~~;;8f~iTY~1~~~~~
NOTE:
IS
SHALL
GOPHeR
1i1~No.
1-394 SOUtH FRONTAGE ROAD (\\ail)
(WAYlATA BlVD)
AU. APPLICABLE FEDERAL. STAlE AND LOCAL lAWS AND ORDINANCES 1iU.L
BE COMPLIED wmI, IN THE COHSTRUC11ON OF lNIS PROJECT.
I HEREBY c:ERTlFY THAT tHIS Pl.AN WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER NY
DIRECT 5UP'ERWDON AND THAT I AM A DUlY RaJSTERED PROFESSIONAl
ENGINEER LINDER THE LAWS CF' '!HE STAlE OF NNICESOTA.
- GOI/ERNlNG SPEGIFICA TIONS -
THE 2DOS mJnct.l Of THE MINNESOTA DEPARtMENT OF tRANSPQRTAllON
"STANDARD SPEClFtCAlIONS Fm CCNS1Rl.IC1tOJr SHAU. CDWRN.
STANDARD UTD.I1liS SPECIFlCA1taN FOR WAlERMAlN AND SEIWICE LINE
INSTALLAllON AND SANITARY AND S"TCRW SEWER 1NSTAl.LA1It:N BY a1Y
ENCJNEERS ASSOaA'tION OF MINNESOTA (1999 EDI11ON)
ALL lRAFFlC CONTROl.. DEvICES AND SIGNING SHALL CONFORM
TO ll-lE MMlJtaJ. INa.uD1N9 FIELD MANUAL. FOR 1EUPORARY
TRAFFIC CONTROl. ZONE LAYOUTS. APRD.. 1995.
~OLNER.~Al.lLY~ NO. 23110
CITY OF GOLDEN VALlEY. MINNESOTA PLAN NO.
SHEET 1
General MUIs Blvd. to Texas Ave. & DougJes Ave to France Ave.lncludlng TH100 IJIl<lEltjl9SS to CJty 1JmIls
CJty of Gokleo Valley
Given:
Overlay Thickness (In.). 2
Conllngency(%). 15
indirect Cost (%). 26
ArroNI Ell!!
LS
LB
LF
SY
LF
SY
TON
GAr
EACH
EACH
SY
EACH
i:i'
SY
EACH
EACH
LF
LF
LF
SOFT
SOYD
LUMP SUM
CL Length (LF). SEE SECT DATA
Avg Wldllt (LF)- SEE SeCT DATA
,908
131
265
&1Q.
754
1.148
2ii
10
23
I
,908
64
T
1
~
~
89
888
1.819
'1
1
84
255
11,427
1~
572
10
5"
jM4,
64
T
1
~
4,877
89
540
750
0.50
L:
[B
LF 340
LF 40
SY 5.488
TON 857
GAL 274
LF 340
LF 2,762
SY 194
Traffic Ccnlrol LS 1
SUBTOTAL ESTIMATED ALTERNATE BID CONSTRUCTION COST:
o
:NSI,
1'"
'1
213
129
1d!l!!
170
71
129
3ii3
SO'
12
T
1664
11.513
~
578
10
5"
1;554
3.910
869
0.49
NOTE: .. Crack seallng Win be done by City staff (not Included In bkls) efter mlIIIng.end before placement of the asphalt weatlng course. Cost to be detennlne on a TaM baalS.
NOTE: - Indlrect cost fer Me! CouncB estimated at 18% plus $4,348.70 estimated cost of signal evaluaUon
57
23
"4
525.415.,
-
-
--'619)0
128
$4 605.70
$4,165.00 0.01
$137,477.69
1
326
340
40
5,466
857
274
340
~
194
T
f'tA12.00
000.00
:16.60
65.00
$3.627.60
i9.00
1
213
129
~
170
71
129
303
s0-
n
1.
".t-.
~-'
!~;.
)1.
Ii
.
.
J
,
.,
.
"
it
;)
~
t,
It
II
;;;;};
Exhibit C
~ lID CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE OP ID LO I DATE (MMIDDJY't'tY)
MmWES2 .' OS/10/09
PRODUtlER THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS AMATTER OF INFORMATION
R.121 'h1ftDftn Company ONL YANe CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE
HOLDER. THIS CERTiFICATE DOES NOT AMEND, EXTEND OR
7555 Marke't Place D.r;i,ve ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POUClES BELOW.
Eden :P:J:airie :MN 55344
P~e:952-947-9700 Fax: 952-947-9793 INSURERS AFFORDING COVERAGE NAlC#
INSURED IN~A: Cha:r:1:er Oak F;i..re Co. 25,615
INSURER Jl: 'J!:I:aVa1en :tmIBmnitr Cc:IIm:>zmv 25658
Midwest. ~haJ.t. Corp. lNSURERC: Navl.1l\Ll:aJ:s Xbsursncle ~
P.O. Box 77 INSURER D: C1l:lt:Iimmti ~.... CclmpaJ>.y 10677
,BOPIdiiS MN 55343 INSURER E:
COVERAGES
'IliE.POUCIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BElOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE 1JIIillJREt) NAMED/U!OVE FOR THE POUCYPERlOD INDICATED. N01WITHSTANDINa
ANYREQlJ1REMENr. TERMORCONElrrioN OF ANY CON1'RAcTOR OTHER OOCl.lMENtWlTH RESPECTTO WHICH THIS CER11FItiATE MAY BE ISSUED OR
MAY PE'R.TAIN. THE INsiJAANcEM'FORDED BYM POUCIES DEBCRIBED fIEREIN IS SUllJEC:TTO ALL THE 'lERMS, EXClUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH
POUCIElI. AGGREGATE I.IMItS llIiOWN MAY HAVE ileEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS.
LTRlNsRi TYPe bJ: INSIJRANCE POLICY NuMBER DATE ~~ LIMItS
GE:NERAl.1.IABn.nY EACH occtlRRENce $1,000,000
."".
A ~ OOIALGENERAL LIAIlIUTV D~07126L010COF09 04/01/09 04/01/10 PREMISES/Sa _I .300.000
I- ClAIMS MAllE [!J OCCUR MED EXi> (AnyOne p-i .10,000
X PD Ded: $5,000 BLIG:' AJ: JiiNDi' PERSONAL &NJV INJURY .1,000_000
X B2:d fo:an p:t'DJI d.an,. CGD246 OB/05 GENERALAGGREGATE .2,000.000
n~=nSP~ PRODUCTS-caMP/O? AGG $2 000 000
P01,ICY:X; JEClT . LOC JilmI:) Ben. 1,000.000
~OBILE LIABILITY COMBINED SINGLE! LIMIT $1,000,000
A ~ ~ AUTO DTB107126L010COF09 04/01/09 04/01/10 lEa eccklenI)
B ALL OWNED AUTOB .
- BODILY Il\lJuRY $
SCHEDUlED AI1I'OS BA7126L0100SCNS 04/01/09 04/01/10 (per pSl'lltlllI .,
--"-
..;. HIRED AUTOS BODILY INJURY
(Per et:cklenl) $
~ NON-<lWNEIJ AI1I'OS
PROPER1'Y DAMAGE $
(per et:ckleIlI)
GARAGE IJABII..ITY AUTO ONLY -EAACCIDENt' $
==!'Atrf AI1I'O OTHER THAN EA ACe $
AUTO ONLY: AGG .
EXCESS I UMlIREU.A LIAIlILlTY EACH OCCURRl!NGE $ 5,000,000
C ~ OCCUR 0 ctAlMSMADE CB09EXC41476SNV 04/01/09 04/01/10 AG~TE $5.000 000
,
=i DEDUCTIBI..E ,
~I,lN $ .
WUI KERB COMPI!NllATlON X ITORY UMJT8 I IUdR-
B riiii~ Y/N D!mOB7126L01009 04/01/09 04/01/10 E.1.. eACH ACCmENT $10000.00
~ E.1..DISEASE.EA $.:I,OOOQOO
= c1es<:ri1lQUilder E.L DISEASE; - POUCY LIMIT 81000000 .
. IALPRQVISIONSbekrR
OTHER
D Excess tJiDb.rella XS115206~ 04/01/09 04/01/10 L.imi't 10,000,000
B Pollut.ion Li.ab. QCDSSOOS19 ~ $2S,DDD 1lEI). 04/01/09 04/01/10 A t.e 10 000 000
.DIlBCRlPTJON OF OPERATIONS I LocA1lDNS I VEHICLES I EXCLUSIONS ADDED BY ENDORSEMENT I SPEClALPROVISlONS
MAC JOB 19631 2009 Asphalt. Overlay Projec't C;i,t.y projec't 09-11. City of
Golden Valley, :MN Dept of i':J:ai1SpOration & Me't:ro !l':rans;i, t. Comm;i.ssion as .
add:l.t:ionaJ. insured. on a p:J:imaxy Don/cont..ribui;ory basis wit.h :respect.s '1:0
~ l:i.ab:il.it.y for t.hEirefe:renced project.. *10 day notice of
cancellation foz: non-paymen't of p:rem:ium.
CER.'l1FiCATE HOLDER
CANCELLATION .
SHOllLD ANY OPTHE /U!OVE DesCRIBED POUCJes BE CANCI!LI.I!D BEFORe THE EXPIRA:
C:rnSOL DATE THEREOF, THEISSUlHG INSURER WILL ENDEAVOR TO MAlL 30 * DAYSWRriTEN
NOTlCI!TO THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER NAME!P TO THE U!PT. BUT FAI1.UIlE TO DO so SHALL
IMPOSE NO OBUGATlON OR UABIUTY OF ANY KIND UPON THE INSURER, rrsAGENTs OR
REPREllENTATIIIES.
A R
C1 t.y of Golden Valley, :MN Dept
of 'lranspo:r:t:a1::i.on & Mauo
Transi't Commission
7BOO Golden Valley Road
Golden Valley MN 55427
ACORD 25 (2009101)