02-11-20 Council/Manager Agenda Packet
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
Pages
1. Medley Park Off-Leash Pet Exercise Area and Community Garden Proposal 2-83
2. Control of Animal Ordinance Discussion 84-86
3. MnDOT Highway 55 Trail Project – Winnetka Avenue North to Glenwood Avenue 87-89
4. Census Enumerator Access to Multi-Family Buildings 90-92
5. Amendment to the Proclamation, Resolution and Letter of Support Policy 93-97
6. Council Review of Future Draft Agendas: City Council February 18, City Council March 4,
and Council/Manager March 10, 2020
98-101
Council/Manager meetings have an informal, discussion-style format and are designed for the
Council to obtain background information, consider policy alternatives, and provide general
directions to staff. No formal actions are taken at these meetings. The public is invited to attend
Council/Manager meetings and listen to the discussion; public participation is allowed by
invitation of the City Council.
February 11, 2020 – 6:30 pm
Council Conference Room
Golden Valley City Hall
7800 Golden Valley Road
Golden Valley Council/Manager Meeting
February 11, 2020
Agenda Item
1.Medley Park Off-Leash Pet Exercise Area and Community Garden Proposal
Prepared By
Al Lundstrom, Parks Supervisor
Rick Birno, Parks & Recreation Director
Summary
The 2016 community survey results included two recreation amenity requests as a priority for
residents to be included in park planning. The two amenities that topped the request list were a
community garden and an off-leash pet exercise area. Staff positioned funding in the 2019 and 2020
Park CIP budget to potentially add both amenities to the park system. Staff, working with the Open
Space & Recreation Commission (OSRC), determined both amenities should be considered for Medley
Park to potentially replace the failed west softball field and the failed tennis courts.
Staff developed initial designs and after review with the OSRC, scheduled a neighborhood input
meeting to present the new amenity options to residents on April 2, 2019. Comments, both hard copy
and electronically, as well as emails were organized for presentation to the OSRC at the October 28,
2019, regularly scheduled meeting.
Initial comments and input from residents regarding the proposals were reviewed at the October 28,
2019, OSRC meeting. Staff also presented amenity design adjustments based on resident input from
the April 2, 2019, meeting. At the conclusion of the review, OSRC members requested a citywide
survey be developed and available electronically on the City’s website for all residents to provide input.
At the November 25, 2019, regularly scheduled OSRC meeting, a public input session was held
regarding the proposed amenities. Resident comments from the meeting are outlined in the November
25, 2019, OSRC meeting minutes. The electronic survey for citywide input was open to the public
beginning the evening of November 25th, 2019.
At the December 16, 2019, OSRC meeting, members discussed the proposed amenities, reviewed
partial citywide survey data, including resident comments to make a recommendation on the proposed
projects. The recommendation was unanimous and is as follows:
The OSRC recommendation is to not add an off-leash pet exercise area to Medley Park and maintain
the area as open space. Commission would like to work with GV Engineering staff and the Bassett
Creek Watershed District on the conceptual plan for the west softball field park area. Their hope is the
Council/Manager Regular Meeting Executive Summary
City of Golden Valley
February 11, 2020
2
future plan would accommodate the storm water management needs as well as preserve and enhance
the open space, improve internal park trails and provide connectivity to the current park access points.
The feasibility study for the Medley Park storm water quality project begins in 2020 with funding
provided by the Bassett Creek Watershed Distrct for the project in 2022 and 2023.
Commission also recommended that tennis courts not be reconstructed at Medley Park due to the
extremely poor soil conditions and the expense to keep them safe for regular play. The tennis courts
should be kept open for an additional two seasons, 2020 and 2021, then shift the use of the space for a
new community garden area to be constructed in 2022. OSRC also recommended that tennis courts
should have general maintenance over the next two seasons however no capital reinvestment.
The Medley Park proposal, amenity concept designs, communication plan and all resident input has
been summarized in the Medley Park Community Input Report attached in supporting documents.
Staff supports the OSRC recommendation.
Financial Or Budget Considerations
Not applicable at this time.
Recommended Action
Staff is requesting direction from the City Council to support the recommendation of the Open Space
and Recreation Commission.
Supporting Documents
Medley Park Community Input Report (80 pages)
1
MEDLEY PARK
COMMUNITY INPUT REPORT
Medley Park Community Input Report 2
Contents
Overview…..…………………………………………………………… .……….. 3
Open Houses………………………………………………………………..……. 4
Email Comments…..……………………………………………………….……. 6
Online Comment Form……….…………………...…………………………….. 12
Social Media Outreach…………………………………………..………………. 25
Park Amenity Changes Survey………………………………………………….
Additional Information…......……………………………………………..………
26
30
Appendix A: Social Media Reach And Engagement.……………………….. 31
Appendix B: Parks Redesigned: Medley Park Proposal…………………….. 36
Appendix C: Updated Medley Park Proposal………………………………… 43
Appendix D: Survey Results………………….………………………………… 45
Medley Park Community Input Report 3
Overview
Soliciting public input was a major component of the Golden Valley City Council’s consideration of
proposed amenity changes to Medley Park.
Staff solicited input from the community through a community open house, an online comment form,
and email regarding two proposals:
replacing the tennis courts with a community garden
replacing the west softball field with an off-leash pet exercise area
The City provided residents
with information about the
proposed changes,
underlying issues, and how
to give input on the City
website. The City published
news reports on the City
website news feed and
mailed postcards to 750
residents in the
neighborhoods near the
park.
The City further promoted
the open house and input
solicitation process through
social media posts on
Facebook and Twitter.
Medley Park Community Input Report 4
City Open House
The City hosted an open house at 6 pm April 2, 2019 so community members could learn more about
the proposed changes and offer input. Representatives from the City were on hand to provide
information and answer questions. Seventeen people submitted written comments.
Open House Written Comments
400 in entire city of 21,000 residents surveyed in 2016 is not enough data to make these types of bad decisions for our
neighborhood. Lived in GV for 22 years and am disappointed in direction away from public land use for all that promote
active lifestyles – not for dogs and gardens that most of the city could already have if they wanted to. Will no longer
recommend our neighborhood to new families.
I’m not against removal of the tennis courts maintenance costs seem too high. A community garden seems like a good
idea. I’m concerned about the dog park, the noise, waste, congestion & bisecting the open green space with a tall fence…
Susan Walto, 8930 Medley Ln
Thank you for the opportunity to give feedback. The dog park is wonderful idea and there is a big demand for them. (I’m
not a dog owner!) I’m not in favor of tearing out the tennis courts which receive much use. My experience with
community gardens is that they are an eye-sore…
Ron Lundquist, 2125 Aquila Ave. N
We live right next to the Medley Park tennis courts. We see them get plenty of use by a variety of people-ethnicities and
ages. This is not a sunny location for a garden. Please just resurface. Most houses in area can already have a garden,
seems very unnecessary to add a garden at Medley. Not interested in Dog Park.
Could tennis courts be relocated to another part of Medley Park? Community gardens seems an odd choice as there are
houses around it that already have gardens. Dog Park in Plymouth at 55 Hwy & Revere Lane seems close by. We would
like to keep tennis courts.
No to Dog Park so close to residential areas!!! There is a dog park in Plymouth on 36th & 169. Why dog parks so close to
each other? Why dogs more important than tennis players? Why is it save for dogs, but not to people?
I would like tennis courts resurfaced & maintained or moved to dry area! I would like a smaller dog area-very small. I like
the chipping green area too! Costs & options would be appreciated. Water shed area planned info was great! Please notify
us of work session in August or September.
Please keep the bike trail through the park – thank you.
PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE TENNIS COURTS! We would rather see hockey rink made into community garden! Many more
people use tennis courts than hockey rink!
There is a dog park in Plymouth on 36th & 169. It doesn’t make sense to put Dog Park so close by. Pick more central GV
location that doesn’t have any other cities dog parks nearby. Would like to see loop trail in park. Need to test soil for
asbestos ahead of time before taking out tennis courts for gardens.
It feels like more poor area of GV parks is chosen for Dog Park-do not want large dog park. Would like an option to
relocate tennis courts to a different, higher area in the park-to the East side with just 2 courts. Community gardens, why
put them with poor soil & shady area. Residents/houses around Medley mostly have ability for gardens at their places.
Would like more central GV location for gardens.
No to dog park – noise concern would take up too much of the park land. Do we have a say in what happens to Medley
Park? Sounds like it is already a done deal. No to removing any more trees!
I never heard of the 2016 survey. We do not need a huge dog park! Do not make me pay for changes for only people who
have dogs. We need trails thru the park, outside the dog parks and benches.
I am very supportive of the dog park and community gardens as depicted in the plan. I think we should listen to the
resident survey’s findings. For the community garden, please consider some raised beds for ADA needs. I’m not worried
about the loss of the tennis courts. They are lightly used.
Medley Park Community Input Report 5
To you both ~ thank you. What a surly group. Ha! Ha! I really appreciate the opportunity to be part of the discussion. The
community garden location is questionable to me since we don’t know the soil conditions. What is the price of the dog
park? That boundary area was much larger than necessary. Would love to help-please consider my offer.
Paula Kamman
Community garden not good where tennis courts exist. Soil, no sun, trees, neighborhood
Keep the dog park by the southeast corner of the park to make it closer to parking for those of us with limited mobility.
The middle of the park is too far.
Open Space & Recreation Commission Open
House
The City’s Open Space & Recreation Commission hosted an open house at 6 pm Nov 25, 2019 so
community members could learn more about the proposed changes and offer input. Representatives
from the City made brief presentations about each proposal. Six people submitted written comments.
Open House Written Comments
Is this a check the box process and nod politely and then do what you please? Or do out votes count and you do what we
vote on? I vote NO on the garden and the dog park. I suggest a year round hockey rink which would support roller blading
and roller hockey. The tennis courts should also support pickle ball. Please respond!
Tim and Mary Grupa - 2205 Cavell Ave. N.
Will there be any park benches added? Will you be considering all the comments submitted? The majority do not want a
dog park or expensive garden from what I read.
Elizabeth Gross (no address)
We enjoy the park/land as it is. We do see a drainage issue – that wish could be addressed. We think a paved trail around
the entire park would be nice for walking our dogs! We have 2 large dogs and so see why people enjoy a dog park. We
also LOVE to play tennis! We sure would like to see the courts stay as they are.
Karna and Brent Markson – 8805 Elgin Place
Adults will literally laugh out loud when they see out 10 pound Yorkshire Terrier Poodle mix who is “all ears”. Some
children are terrified even of her. A dog park next to a playground could be a traumatic experience for those children.
Kathy Longar (no address)
More nature. Less development. It’s no dog park.
Craig Greening – 9010 Medley Lane
Please consider adding a question to the next follow up survey to ask which park/a location recommendation with
alternatives to Medley Park (eg. Brookview, Wesley, etc.)
Andrew Lenz and Alex Gillach – 2430 Mendelssohn Lane
Medley Park Community Input Report 6
Email
The City received 18 comments via emails addressed to City staff and Council members.
Email Comments
Hi, I'd like to get some information on the proposed Medley park changes. How much would it cost to remove tennis
courts, recycle all the materials and create community garden in it's place? Assuming, the cost would include removing
some trees around the area since it's very shady right now. Thanks.
Tatiana (no address)
Thank you for sending me that information! The dog park opportunity at Medley Park is what I'm most interested in. It's a
nice huge space, and with a little "water management", I think it could be incredibly convenient and useful to the
residents in the area. There is a large town house community as well as some apartment complexes (I believe next to Kings
Valley) that would benefit greatly from such a space. The other houses in the area and apartments as well would greatly
benefit from an open space in that park. Thousands of people would be close in proximity and since the space is so large
and surrounded by many trees and land, I think the noise would be well managed.
I’m all for the dog park there. If there’s anything I can do to support it anymore, please let me know. Thank you for your
time,
Justin Zollar (no address)
Your website you were accepting feedback until 4/19 for the proposed Medley Park plans and it is still 4/19 so please
review.
Regarding the proposed dog park and garden plans, it doesn’t appear that the plans have been thoroughly evaluated:
1) Tennis courts – get steady usage from late spring to late fall, benefiting hundreds of residents vs. community garden
which would benefit 20 people.
2) Community garden benefit or lack thereof– in our neighborhoods surrounding Medley, there is ample backyard space
for people to plant their own gardens. To reiterate, the usage of this land would only benefit 20 people from late May –
September,
3) Community garden location – because the location experiences quite a bit of shade, the adjacent trees would have to
be thinned, thereby diminishing an amenity for the surrounding homes/townhouses and diminishing a key element of
Golden Valley’s attribute – The City of Trees.
4) Dog park – noise, disruption to residents that are adjacent in multiple homes and townhouses. Medley Park is a lovely
sanctuary and has drawn families for 50+ years.
5) Diminished real estate values for homes in proximity to the dog park – it may be a positive amenity for visitors but an
absolute negative for homes that are impacted by the noise of the barking dogs and their owners, the smell of feces, the
lights, etc.
6) Environmental impact – that area regularly floods – wouldn’t there be a concern that feces would seep into the water
system?
7) Lack of adequate parking – for the entire park – playground, ball field, proposed dog park and garden would not have
nearly enough parking to support.
8) Location – we are at the northwest corner of Golden Valley, so the park is much more accessible and would most likely
be used even more frequently by residents of New Hope, Medicine Lake and Plymouth than Golden Valley residents and
yet residents of Golden Valley would foot the bill.
9) Cost – if the money ran out for the lights at Wesley, where is the funding coming for these changes? Plus, our property
taxes keep increasing year over year and now we would be paying for changes we don’t even want.
10) Alternate locations in Golden Valley are available that would be less disruptive to the number of residents and those
should be given more consideration.
We adamantly do not want this plan and we want our voices to be heard and respected.
Mary Cushen (no address)
Can golden valley add a dog park or two? Thanks,
Justin Zollar (no address)
Medley Park Community Input Report 7
Mr Harris,
I was just at the community open house discussing proposed redevelopment of medley park. I wondering if there is a way
to save tennis courts at Medley park. I understand that the soil is not great there, but the courts been there for over 20
years and are being utilized often. I played there, now my kids play there. Please let me know what you think and if
anything can be done, Thanks,
Anya B. (no address)
Hello,
I just wanted to weigh in on the proposed dog park at Medley Park. I am against this plan. I don't see a need for it as there
are many dog parks near by (Plymouth, Bassett Creek to name a few). There is also the GM Nature preserve right there. I
feel that parking will be an issue. When there were softball games in the park, parking was always crazy, and people would
walk right through my yard to get to the park, which I'm sure would happen with the dog park. I also feel it will be noisy
for myself and surrounding neighbors. And have potential for odor. I also think dog parks are dangerous, to other dogs and
to people trying to break up fights. And lastly, having dogs constantly traipsing by my back yard will cause my dog stress
and constant barking. I hope that you will consider my opinion. Thanks,
Dana Nordin – 2401 Ensign Ave. N.
Hello ,
First off thank you for informing the Medley Hills Neighborhood of the changes proposed to Medley Park. Like many of us
at the Medley Hill Neighborhood I understand change can be a difficult path. At first I didn't like the idea of the community
garden in place of our tennis courts. As you explained the costs of maintaining the tennis court I feel the garden would be
a great idea and asset to the community.
I would like to propose a different path instead of a dog park. My idea is to restore the area west of the east ball field back
to its natural state of a wetland. We could put in low maintenance trails with an interpretive center at the warming house.
A self guided interpretive walk could add to the trails and eventually extend into the General Mills trail system.
Thank you for your consideration,
Doug Hubred – 8930 Medley Lane
I am responding to the postcard notification of proposed changes to the amenities at Medley Park. The proposal includes
replacing the tennis courts with a community garden and replacing the west ballfield with an off-leash pet exercise area.
I would like to weigh in on this proposal. I am a 23-year resident and homeowner in the Kings Valley townhome
neighborhood. My property butts up to the tennis court side of the park, across the little stream. One of the big selling
points for the properties in this neighborhood are the tennis courts, used for tennis and pickle ball. These courts are busy
most of the summer (and seasonal) months. I would NOT like to see them removed, although I like the idea of a
community garden and would like to suggest replacing the hockey rink/seasonal dog park enclosure with the garden
instead. I am in favor of replacing the west ballfield with an off-leash pet exercise area. There may be room for a hockey
rink/skating rink in the area between the two ball fields, but the hockey rink is used much less than the tennis courts.
Please don't remove the tennis courts.
Thank you.
Peggy Keefe – 2214 Kings Valley Road E.
I received the postcard regarding the Golden Valley Meeting about the Reformation of the Medley Park. I was really
disappointed to hear that you want to eliminate the tennis courts. Unlike renting a large ballpark area, the tennis courts
were often available for a singles game in the spring and summer. They often seemed poorly maintained, had cracks in
them and were full of leaves but we played for years there.
I don’t think the income offsets the luxury of maintaining some tennis courts for free play during the warmer
weather. Brookview Tennis Courts are often full with lessons. I find that the other outside courts available, close to our
neighborhood are in New Hope along Boone Ave.
I do like the idea of adding some gardens to that park, but two ball parks are really disappointing. I will plan to attend the
meeting on April 2. I hope you have some optional designs for the park. The courts are behind (west) of the rink. I’m sure
the flooding of the rink doesn’t help either. I don’t know what more I can say, but I’ll be about on the 2nd. Making a poop
center for pets sounds disgusting.
Margaret Peterson – 2205 Wisconsin Ave. N.
Medley Park Community Input Report 8
Hi,
I am reaching out to you today regarding the post card I received in the mail about the changes coming to Medley Park. I
currently live right across the street from Medley Park and can see the park through my large kitchen window. I also work
from home, so I have great insight into the usage of this park. This park is highly utilized and utilized by all. Changes have
been made over the 7 years I’ve lived here, including using the hockey rink as a dog park and the park being updated. I
have thoughts about the changes the city would like to make.
Removing the tennis court and replacing it with a community garden, please don’t do this. The tennis courts are very
highly utilized (please review the city website and look at how often it is checked-out). It would be a shame and a waste of
tax dollars to tear them out (especially considering they just re-did it not that many years ago) and replace it with a
community garden. The one thing I love about this neighborhood is the size of people’s yards, a community garden
wouldn’t enhance this neighborhood. All it would do is bring the folks who live across Medicine Lake road to this area,
which would cause more harm than good. A community garden isn’t something folks in the actual neighborhood would
want and why change something that is working? The tennis courts are highly highly utilized! Please don’t replace them!
In regard to the off leash dog park. I am also questioning this. We just transitioned the hockey rink into a dog area a few
years back. This has been sufficient. Adding additional space to encourage dog owners to not leash their dog nor pick up
after their dogs isn’t needed/wanted. I currently have a hard time as it is now taking my dog out because so many people
DO NOT leash their dogs when they come to this park. We’ve had cars screeching to a halt because dogs are not on
leashes. I am not against looking at other options for the west ballfield, even thought that is used frequently as well, but
encouraging folks to not leash nor pick up after their dogs isn’t going to add to this great community.
I appreciate Golden Valley and have enjoyed living here. The city takes great pride in taking care of their parks, hence the
reason I stay. I would strongly discourage both changes to this park. The folks that live in this area pay a ton for taxes to
live here, these changes would not benefit us they will benefit the folks from New Hope. Please do not make these
changes.
Breena Lehan, 9035 23rd Ave. N.
Medley Park. Provide more water control. Take out the tennis courts. No community gardens. Small dog park. Use all this
area for water control. MORE WATER CONTROL.
David Grote (no address)
Hello,
I hope people who have intelligence attend the meeting the 25th of Nov. Our Medley Park has been wonderful for our
children to use for Little League, hockey, tennis, playing for little people, etc. A garden? NO! Almost everyone on our block
has their own garden or more and we share with abundance. I am a Guide, at the oldest frame house, the Ard Godfrey
House built in 1849, off 3rd Ave. bridge in down town Mpls. It is owned by the Mpls. Park board and our Mpls. Womans’
Club owns the authentic furniture and we, trained guides,give tours. My one point is this. A few years ago, we grew roses,
rhubarb, etc. We found that transients were urinating on our gardens next to the house. We were not able to use the
rhubarb and other items we were growing. There are million dollar apartments in the area and yet we had problems.
People can walk and clean up after their dogs as I did for 34 years. The suburb needs to provide playing fields for Little
League, Pickle Ball, Tennis, picnic and especially kids hockey. Our son lived there winter days playing hockey. All three
played tennis. All three helped with our gardens. Anyone can plant a tomato plant, parsley, onions,cucumbers, et. in a nice
pot and set it in the sun, water and grow exactly what they need somewhere in their yard. It will also be a teaching tool for
your children.
Former Dist. 281 teacher Lucy Hackbart (no address)
Hello!
My name is Karna Markson, and I live in the Medley Park neighborhood. I am a tennis player- since childhood- as is my
husband. We have 3 young children, so it sometimes is difficult to get in a good match. We also have 2 large dogs- and I
am very opposed to the proposed change at Medley Park!
My husband and I weren't able to attend the spring meeting pertaining to the change, but many of our neighbors were.
They shared with me that there were MANY people who voiced their concerns for the proposed changes at Medley. I
don't understand why this project seems to be continuing! Did I mention that we have 2 dogs- and I would not use this
dog park! Please know that many people in OUR MEDLEY PARK neighborhood want the courts to stay!
Sincerely,
Karna Markson – 8805 Elgin Place
Medley Park Community Input Report 9
Good Morning Mayor Harris,
I am writing to share my concerns about the Proposed Changes at Medley Park.
First I would like to acknowledge the construction that has taken place for the last 3 months to our streets. These streets
surround Medley Park. I know that the workers are doing their very best, as we have had a very wet summer. We usually
park one block away and carry an extra pair of shoes to get to our car. We also have noted that our mail person is at times
unable to reach our home because of the barriers and mud.
Because our home mergers with the park property we have a unique view of all that is going on around us. We are
especially distraught about the proposed dog park. As you can see in the photo above part of the dog park would be
within this wet area. For years this area floods with heavy rainfall. Even since everything has been updated such as new
drainage pipes, there is still standing water.
I attended both Open Space and Recreation Commission meetings regarding the proposed dog park. My husband did a
wonderful job in sharing our concerns with the Commission.
It saddens me that many of our neighbors are giving up stating, "it is a done deal by the time it gets to the City Council. A
decision has already been made". We and several other neighbors will not be "giving up". The committee will be reviewing
the community input report at the next OSRC meeting. The report is on the GV website. I am requesting that you and the
City Council review.
We have lived in our home since 1991 and I am very proud to live in Golden Valley. I don't ever remember a time of
tension in the neighborhood with the streets and proposed dog park.
Please consider our rights, especially with the fact that we pay high taxes and expect to be heard. The proposed area is
within a residential area. This would greatly affect our quality of life in regards to the noise, cleanliness, property
value....The parking lot is right next to a playground. It scares me to think that dogs will be walking by that area, as dogs
are not always predictable. Who would be responsible for any injuries? I shudder to think of such a situation.
I see that you have offered to walk our neighborhood to experience the decreased size of our new streets. Please also
walk around the park. Again, our home merges with the park, so you will see our concerns as shown in the attached
photo.
Thank you, (Maureen Greening – 9010 Medley Lane)
Regarding the Medley Park changes the City of Golden Valley is proposing:
Have you seen the Millennium Garden in Plymouth? This type of perennial garden idea would be perfect for Medley Park!
Here is a link: https://www.plymouthmn.gov/departments/parks-recreation-/plymouth-creek-center/millennium-garden
I propose this option instead of an off-leash dog park and 20-plot community garden.
The Millennium Garden option could contain several ponds and walkways and it would work with the issues of Medley
Park being on a floodplain. All people who live in nearby townhouses and apartment complexes would be able to enjoy
this option as well as everyone in single family houses living in the area. It could be used by everyone in the community
and provide a place of peace and tranquility.
To maintain the garden, the city could partner with the Golden Valley Women’s Club, Boy Scout and Girl Scout troops, or
create a Golden Valley Gardening Club to rotate the upkeep of the garden. This would bring people together in the
community, bonding with one another in a fun activity (like Pickle ball has done in other Golden Valley parks).
The perennial garden option would resolve the following issues:
Dog parks fence off a large area of the park
Dog parks will not be used by people who don’t have dogs
20-plot community garden fences off a large area of the park
20-plot community garden only benefits 20 individuals
I ask that you fully review a perennial garden with ponds and walkways as a viable option for Medley Park.
I feel that the townhouse associations and landlords of apartment complexes should provide contained community
gardens for their residents rather than the city providing this.
Carol Kuelbs (no address)
Medley Park Community Input Report 10
Proposed dog park in Medley Park.
I am a long term resident of Golden Valley. I have lived in my current home at 2425 Decatur for 20 years and I grew up in
GV as a kid.
I live in the Medley Hills neighborhood and a couple of things that have been weighing on my mind lately.
I am a dog owner however I am not in favor of the park for the following reasons.
1. We have wonderful walking trails in General Mills 3 blocks away.
2. The area is very wet and stinks due to waterfowl and drainage issues. I’m not going to risk my dog getting ill by
drinking from contaminated puddles.
3. I am concerned about constant dog barking as that area is simply too close to homes. The park may set off neighbor
dogs as well.
4. Who are we supposed to call if there is a problem I.e. aggressive dogs, non-social dogs, owner arguments? I have
used the 3 River dog parks for years and there are always issues.
5. I can guarantee that not everyone will clean up pet waste. I see it now in the General Mills trails and in the 3 Rivers
parks.
Thank you for listening.
Jon Schlumpberger - 2425 Decatur Ave. N.
Hi Rick, thanks.
My wife Carol send in a suggestion to investigate community interest in a Millenium Garden concept. I would add that
paths, ponds and pollinator friendly plants be added. Perhaps a Garden Club can be approached to adopt the park, in part,
and offer gardening classes to the community and demonstration areas to encourage residents to plant a variety of plants
to benefit the environment and pollinators. And, clinics could be held on growing food plants, including tomatoes, etc.
Duck houses could be added to create a nice environment
This concept would not require extensive Parks and Rec maintenance and investment once it is built, and could rely on
volunteers to run the seminars, demonstrations, etc.
Thanks,
Tom Kuelbs
Thanks for your reply. We’re reaching out as individuals, though many concerns were relayed to us in my prior capacity
with the Association.
Since the original reasons behind the selection of Medley Park for the pet exercise area are unknown, we would
appreciate follow-up as this location is less than a mile away from an existing dog park in Plymouth (4 Paws at 36th and
Kilmer), meaning it wouldn’t fill an unmet need. Looking at the map on the last page of the proposal, it’s apparent that a
location further southeast such as Brookview would address concerns around equitable access to underserved
neighborhoods in the community without this amenity. The brochure is available online here:
http://www.goldenvalleymn.gov/parks/medley/medley-park-proposal.pdf
If for some reason the amenity mix for Medley Park has to remain as proposed, switching the location of the proposed
garden to the middle of the park where plantings would receive more sun while moving the pet exercise area further away
from the condos and townhomes (to the location of the current tennis courts and hockey rink) should also be considered.
Feel free to share with City staff as you see fit.
Thanks again, Andrew & Alex
Message: Mayor Harris,
As past President of the Pheasant Glen Homeowners Association, a development of 24 townhomes perched on the west
end of Medley Park, and an active member in our community, I wanted to reach out to you along with my husband
regarding an issue that is important to our neighborhood as your campaign wraps up.
Late this summer, there was a proposal presented at a community forum that would convert a large portion of Medley
Park into a dog park, removing tennis courts and a ballfield. While the proposal cited results from a survey indicating a
need for a new dog park somewhere in the community, this is the wrong place for it, and removing the frequently utilized
existing amenities was widely panned at the forum as there's already a shortage of tennis courts in the community and
these are the only public tennis courts for a mile around.
Medley Park Community Input Report 11
This proposal is a waste of our property tax dollars – especially considering the fact that the existing amenities are well-
used and maintaining them would be far cheaper than ripping them out and replacing them with something unwanted.
The proposal only provides one new element – a community garden, which would be better situated on the site of the
western ballfield where it wouldn’t be displacing an entirely unique amenity (the tennis courts slated for demolition) as
the eastern ballfield could remain in the proposal.
Further, there’s already a fenced-in off-leash pet exercise area (dog park) located to the east of the present site of the
tennis courts that doubles as a hockey rink in the winter. If Medley Park is to continue to have a dog park, this site is much
more suitable to remain as a pet exercise area due to the fencing already in place and recessed ground. The current site on
the southeast side of the park also has a street and parking separating it from homes, in contrast to the current proposal
which would place the greatly-expanded dog park right in our backyard and the backyards of residents in the Medley Hills
Condominiums as well. Right now, we hear ducks, geese, and kids playing ball in the summer – all pleasant sounds; barking
dogs would be just the opposite.
Further, putting this so close to our homes, with all of the families with children around would invite injuries, and,
according to the League of Minnesota Cities, increase municipal exposure to liability – especially if the City fails to
adequately provide for enforcement of its own rules and regulations (e.g. leashes to/from park, paid admission, pet waste
pickup). We’re thinking of having kids ourselves, and couldn’t imagine the City would want to create a hazard by
encouraging off-leash dogs our own back yard.
The proposal to put a dog park in the middle of the green space in Medley Park would also have a significant negative
impact on all properties with a view of the park, reducing property values for homes, townhomes and condominiums in
the sightline of it. Inadequate funding of additional infrastructure for irrigation and drainage of an area with high pet
waste would also harm nearby water quality and further exacerbate losses in property value. According to Greenfield
Advisors, a real estate research company, a property with an unobstructed view of an open space or park is worth 5-10%
more than an identical property without this feature. Constructing a fenced-in dog park here would directly hurt dozens of
homeowners' property values with views of this park, particularly those who are facing special assessments as part of the
2019 pavement management program.
While we understand that the wider Golden Valley community may wish to have another dog park, there is already a dog
park less than a mile away from this location (4 Paws Dog Park at 36th and Kilmer Lane). Creating another dog park in the
open spaces at Wesley Park, Lakeview Park, Golden Oaks Park, Hampshire Park, Wildwood Park, or Issacson Park would
more evenly space a new dog park between existing ones and be in a location more accessible to a greater number of
Golden Valley residents, without displacing amenities, all at a lower price for taxpayers as destruction of existing
infrastructure wouldn't be necessary. Finally, maintaining the status quo – actively used ballfields, uniquely positioned
tennis courts, and a hockey rink that already doubles as an off-leash pet exercise area, keeps residents with more options
and saves significant property tax dollars that would otherwise be wasted on a development that’s detrimental to the
neighborhood.
Please let us know your thoughts on this issue so that we know how to engage our neighbors and direct our votes next
Tuesday.
Thanks,
Andrew Lenz & Alex Gillach - 2430 Mendelssohn Ln
Medley Park Community Input Report 12
Online Comment Form
The online comment form asked for public input on the proposed changes. The survey was active from
April 3-19, 2019 and had 46 responses. Respondents were required to provide a name and address.
Online Survey Submissions
Hi,
I am reaching out to you today regarding the post card I received in the mail about the changes coming to Medley Park. I
currently live right across the street from Medley Park and can see the park through my large kitchen window. I also work
from home, so I have great insight into the usage of this park. This park is highly utilized and utilized by all. Changes have
been made over the 7 years I’ve lived here, including using the hockey rink as a dog park and the park being updated. I
have thoughts about the changes the city would like to make.
Removing the tennis court and replacing it with a community garden, please don’t do this. The tennis courts are very
highly utilized (please review the city website and look at how often it is checked-out). It would be a shame and a waste of
tax dollars to tear them out (especially considering they just re-did it not that many years ago) and replace it with a
community garden. The one thing I love about this neighborhood is the size of people’s yards, a community garden
wouldn’t enhance this neighborhood. All it would do is bring the folks who live across Medicine Lake road to this area,
which would cause more harm than good. A community garden isn’t something folks in the actual neighborhood would
want and why change something that is working? The tennis courts are highly highly utilized! Please don’t replace them!
In regard to the off leash dog park. I am also questioning this. We just transitioned the hockey rink into a dog area a few
years back. This has been sufficient. Adding additional space to encourage dog owners to not leash their dog nor pick up
after their dogs isn’t needed/wanted. I currently have a hard time as it is now taking my dog out because so many people
DO NOT leash their dogs when they come to this park. We’ve had cars screeching to a halt because dogs are not on
leashes. I am not against looking at other options for the west ballfield, even thought that is used frequently as well, but
encouraging folks to not leash nor pick up after their dogs isn’t going to add to this great community.
If this change is due to the water issue Golden Valley has, per a discussion I had with the city. This will only solve the
problem for the city NOT for the residences. Like I mentioned I live right across the street and have reached out to Golden
Valley a few times in the 7 years I’ve lived here to help with the poor drainage in my yard and all my neighbors’ yards.
They acknowledge this was a marsh area prior to building on it, but won’t help. Why are the residence dealing with poor
drainage (needing to have driveways done every couple years, basements that are wet, etc.) but the city can’t deal with it
on their end? If this is in fact the reason we’re already having a very hard time living here, we shouldn’t be penalized
because “Golden Valley” doesn’t want to deal with it. We enjoy and use the tennis courts, if this won’t solve the CITIES
water problem then I really don’t support it. It is only benefiting the city, because they don’t want to deal with it. I
understand it costs a lot to fix, look at my brand new driveway! That needs to now be fixed, but if this is implemented, do
we get our tax dollars back? I highly doubt it, so a loose loose situation for this neighborhood.
I appreciate Golden Valley and have enjoyed living here. The city takes great pride in taking care of their parks, hence the
reason I stay. I would strongly discourage both changes to this park. The folks that live in this area pay a ton for taxes to
live here, these changes would not benefit us they will benefit the folks from New Hope and the city. Please do not make
these changes please fix the drainage issues this neighborhood is desperately trying to fix.
Breena Lehan - 9035 23rd Ave. North
I think the community garden is great idea. A garden like this would improve access to fresh foods, in theory would
increase vegetable and fruit intake, could attract new vendors to the the GVCF's Market in the Valley, and more often than
not, community garden's are aesthetically pleasing.
As for the off lease pet exercise area, I think that is an even better idea. I have a high energy dog who loves to run and
chase balls and the hockey rinks aren't always the best option. Usually they are filled with dirt and rocks and not grass,
leaving my dog dirty and they don't have a gate to prevent my dog from running out. An enclosed area where my dog can
play would be ideal for me and I bet many other dog owners.
Robert Kueny - 7303 Ridgway Rd
Medley Park Community Input Report 13
I am against the pet exercise area at Medley Park. This is a neighborhood park. What's wrong with leaving the proposed
area a green space to fly kites, shoot off rockets, play catch, run and jump, have a picnic etc.? Putting in a dog park would
bring in people from surrounding cities, be very loud all day, more traffic in the neighborhood, and probably start to smell
in no time. Who would monitor the area and make sure it's cleaned daily? The parking is very limited so people would
probably park on the street. There are too many questions and negatives to move forward with this proposal.
Nancy Post - 2520 Decatur Ave N
I wanted to let you know we are in 100% agreement with the proposed changes to Medley Park - especially the off-leash
dog area. We are a dog family and we’re pet lovers and we’ve travelled all over the Twin Cities seeking out dog parks.
We’re absolutely thrilled over the prospect of having own very own dog park - not just in Golden Valley - but right here in
our neighborhood, just down the street! We love the communal aspect of dog park. People from the community coming
together in a common space, bonding over a love of animals. I’ll add, as the proud owner of a dog who holds the Canine
Good Citizenship certificate, the socialization of your pet cannot be understated.
A word about the naysayers and the NIMBY’s. From what I witnessed at the meeting on April 2nd at Brookview, they do
tend to make a disproportionate amount of noise, and it seems they fall into 2 categories: They’re either dog-haters or
they’re folks who are resistant to change - ANY kind of change. I heard a lot of arguments against the fenced in, off-leash
dog area that simply don’t hold water. The facts bear out that dog parks are NOT noisy, they’re NOT dangerous and they
DON’T bring down property values. My experience is that dog owners who frequent these parks are responsible citizens
who take it upon themselves to police the area and they will not tolerate rule breakers.
I do have one suggestion. I would add one item to a potential sign listing the do’s and don’t’s: “NO HUMPING. OWNERS
AND THEIR DOGS WILL BE NEED TO LEAVE THE PARK IF, AFTER ONE CORRECTION, THEIR DOG CONTINUES HUMPING”. I’ve
witnessed this activity (among dogs) and if it’s not nipped in the bud, a dogfight can and often will ensue. Just putting it in
black and white can go a long way towards informing the public that humping will not be tolerated in OUR dog park.
Thank-you,
Stephen Monson - 2425 Wisconsin Ave. N.
A community garden is a wonderful idea, as is the pet exercise area. Regarding the pet area, it is imperative that a division
is provided between small dogs and medium-large dogs, for their safety.
Emily Dietle - 4343 Avondale Road
I am heartily against having an Off-Leash Pet Exercise Area at Medley Park. I reside adjacent to the pedestrian walkway
that goes from Medicine Lake Road to the northeast entrance to Medley Park. Daily I observe pet owners going past my
patio with their pets. Although many area well behaved there are many who allow the animals to do their "duty" on the
grassy areas next to the walkway and make no effort what-so-ever to pick-up after them. I am afraid this activity will
increase with the addition of an Exercise Area not only going to and from the Park but also within the Park itself. If this
Exercise Area becomes an actuality I am in favor of a licensing or usage fee of some kind to cover the cost of clean-up.
Thanks for listening.
Richard Weller - 9225 Medicine Lak Rd, Apt 103
Thanks for hosting the meeting!
We have lived here in the Medley neighborhood for over 30 years. Our kids played sports at both Medley and Wesley and
our grandchildren continue to play at the parks. Our neighborhood is turning over and many new young families are
moving in. Lots of new kids! We don't think that community garden plots that would benefit such a small number of
participants or a dog park would be a wise use of the park. Most residents have large enough yards to facilitate a garden.
The tennis courts receive heavy use. With the popularity of soccer, how about a soccer field or a water park like the one in
St. Louis Park? With the expansion of the wetland on the western edge of the park, how about installing a system to
remove the ground water. Lastly, we are not sure that a survey taken three years ago of a relatively small sample size is
representative of this neighborhood.
Thank You
Jim & Mary Kaster - 2145 Decatur Ave
I'm very happy about the proposed changes. I live in the neighborhood, and would use both new amenities (at least as
long as I get into the garden through the lottery system!).
Andrew Wold - 1317 Hillsboro Ave N
Medley Park Community Input Report 14
I think the proposal to add a community garden and off leash dog area is fantastic and is exactly what the city needs to
match the growing interest of new younger families moving into our area.
A few improvements or additions I have could improve it even more.
1. We are very involved with a local rescue group here and often we have dogs staying with us for a week or weekend. Will
there be a way to buy a day/week pass at the dog park or can we get these at City Hall? If advertised I bet residents would
plan ahead and have some at there home, or if you had envelopes and forms at the dog park for this purpose would create
another way to help support the upkeep of the park.
2. The condition of the grass in the dog park- seeing how it’s a low area the grass may not last long as what Bassett Creek
does is put down a bunch of mulch. Something to keep in mind, and it would also be helpful to have a hose/running water
by the exit to rinse off your dog too. Residents would need to bring their own towels.
3. Looking ahead adding some dog agility items to the park could be an idea too. I found on Amazon the tunnels start at
38.00 The hurdles start at $29.58 and seesaw is $64.95. So for a little over a hundred dollars, you could add some neat
features.
https://www.amazon.com/s?k=dog+agility+equipment&hvadid=174308869391&hvdev=c&hvlocphy=9019680&hvnetw=s
hvpos=1t2&hvqmt=e&hvrand=11743910876646661791&hvtargid=kwd-25983670&tag=googhydr-
20&ref=pd_sl_35uzom155p_e
4. There should be an adequate number water bowls or consider a fountain to prevent any dog aggression.
5. Someone last night brought up the fact that adding a the dog park with a fence is going to decrease their property
value……here is a link stating the opposite:
8 Neighborhood Features That Increase Your Home Value
https://www.trulia.com/blog/features-increase-property-values-in-my-neighborhood/
6. Hold an annual/semi annual events at Brookview to raise money to support the dog park.? Or add a donation slot to the
day pass lock box at Medley. I know plenty of folks that would drop in a few dollars every other visit. Just put up a sign
that says any donation to help maintain the park is greatly appreciated- or help to buy more dog toys for our furry friends.
Again, if I can help out with anything let me know.
Laura Monson - 2425 Wisconsin Ave N
Thank you for the presentation last night. I could only attend for a short time so missed some formal input and community
comment. What I did hear and receive in printed version was very helpful in understanding the scope of the issue.
On that topic, t's frustrating at these forums when one person, sitting at the front of the room, dominates the input with
her personal agenda. Perhaps a clearer/firmer process for comments would make future presentations more productive.
I also didn't know about the survey suggesting input for the newly envisioned space. I would have liked to be part of the
process earlier.
I believe it would be irresponsible to continue supporting the cost of the tennis courts at that location. I know it's difficult
for some to let this go, but it is clear this isn't a good use of public dollars at this location.
I strongly support the community garden assuming the "rent" charged makes it actually affordable to participate. We are
missing opportunities for neighbors to interact in such an environment. It encourages future generations to embrace
small-scale gardening to supplement food sourcing and uses this space in a much less long-term, tax-dollar dependent
way.
I'm less convinced about the dog park, though I'm a dog owner (medium-sized) and walk passed the park almost daily. My
experience in the neighborhood with dogs, and dog owners, is not positive about the responsibility required to make that
a safe and welcome location for most dog owners. I would like to see open space for free play higher on the viable options
list.
Thank you for considering my comments.
Joan Evans - 7940 Valders Court
Appears to be good plan. Expect appropriate maintenance and parking. We are residents on medley lane for 40 years and
do not have pets. We have confidence in city/park management.
Bill and Pat Harwell - 8925 Medley Lane N
Medley Park Community Input Report 15
Like the idea of removing the tennis courts, not excited about the idea of community gardens as a replacement. Would
prefer that the courts be replaced with a pollinator garden.
Like the idea of a dog park as long as there are separate areas for large and small dogs.
I would encourage the installation of a paved trail that encircles the entire park, and leaving a wooded buffer between the
park and housing to the north of the park.
Thanks to the Park and Recreation for their thoughtful and professional presentation at the community meeting on April
2nd
Robert Hernz - 2400 Cavell Ave N
Love the off leash pet exercise area we take our dog down there all the time
Community Garden not sure how that works would like more information
Sandy Poferl - 2540 Brogger Circle
I don't understand why the City keeps wanting to get rid of tennis courts and why they were left to become to the state of
disrepair that they are in. The City invests their money in the ones that they can make money (Brookview) yet residents
can't play there because they are constantly full for tennis clinics. We used the ones at Glenview Terrace and when those
got ripped out WITHOUT consulting the residents surrounding the park, we started going to Medley. Now those are going
to be ripped out? What a joke.
The idea of a community garden in a city like Golden Valley is ridiculous. We all have our own large yards that we can use
to garden. Why the need for a community garden? And an off leash dog park is even more ridiculous. Why would the city
want to be held liable for possible dog biting our fighting incidents? I would never take my child to a park that was near an
off leash dog park. There are aggressive dogs and you can't control who will take their dogs to the park. At Glenview
Terrace there are people that bring their pit bulls and they are so scary and scare the children and parents.
Maybe you should give residents more options that make more sense and keep residents active.
Judy Koch - Terrace Lane
We dont want the dog park so close to our house. Those animals already run amok. Keep it on the east side of the park.
Irene Stoffels - 2422 Mendelssohn Ln
My husband and I enjoy playing tennis. We have three young children, who we were looking forward to teaching tennis to
in the coming years.
We would like the tennis courts to remain at Medley park. Since it is our closest park, and we can walk there. We have 2
dogs, but don't attend dog parks often because of dogs who are not cared for while in the park. We would love to see a
paved bath around the back portion of the field, so that our younger kids could practice riding their bike around the whole
park. We really enjoy the playground updates! Thanks for taking our input. We were unable to attend the community
meeting.
Karna Markson - 8805 Elgin Place
I walk through this park on almost a daily basis and during spring/summer/fall I have noticed regular usage of the tennis
courts so believe reworking the soil base or relocating the courts would make more sense as a way to meet community
need. Can't we accommodate a reworking of the tennis courts like was done last year with West Westley Park? I see a
community garden as a nice idea, however I have concerns with ongoing release of fertilizer and pesticides into our
community watershed; being that the location is very close in proximity to a creek which flows through the Kings Valley
Community and into Medicine Lake and beyond. I think the dog park is a nice idea to meet additional community need.
David Herrick - 2114 Marquis Rd
The tennis courts are enjoyed and heavily used by all ages and are a valuable asset to this community. When I purchased
my home some 22 years ago, the park and tennis courts were prime considerations in my decision. A MN garden could be
very nice for the 4 months of the MN growing season but would be a blight the other eight months. The current dog park
does not appear to be used much, which could be a factor of its frequent muddy condition. My dog doesn't want anything
to do with it, which could be a factor of never having any other dogs to play with in it. The west end of the park was
converted to prairie or whatever. It has been an eyesore ever since. The bench by the pond is almost inaccesable most of
the year. It would be an excellent location for a garden.
Dan Decker - 2452 Mendelssohn Ln
Medley Park Community Input Report 16
I was at the meeting on April 2nd for proposed changes to Medley Park. I would like to share some concerns that I have
which would affect our neighborhood park.
Currently Medley Park has: basketball court (used daily), playground (used daily), warming house (summer and winter
activities), ice rink (currently a dog park?), tennis courts (used daily and most evenings in summer until lights go out), and
east softball field for girls softball practice.
I am very concerned about the proposal of a dog park, which appears to cover over half of our green space. This would
greatly affect our park and what it has to offer individuals and families. Many of us moved to this area because the
neighborhood and park.
This will decrease the property value of our homes
Would cost of creating and maintaining a dog park would be more than repairing tennis courts?
Hours suggested for park (7am-10pm per website)
Concern for noise and cleanliness of park
Size interferes with what our park offers, such as walking trails for people without dogs
Interfering with “woods” which merges with homes
Wildlife would be affected in the wooded area
Parking will be a real issue, as it is already very congested at times of softball practice. People often park on Medley Lane
near fire hydrant, which says, “no parking”
Near playground with children
How will city vehicles get to area of “Proposed Stormwater Improvements”
We have lived at 9010 Medley Lane for nearly 27 years. I am concerned that when we look out the living areas of our
home we will be looking at a fence, dogs and owners. Also, the dogs will most likely be attracted to the woods, hence
noise and odor. The original mailing we received stated it would be at west softball field, did not mention the wooded
area.
There are other properties near our park which I feel should be considered for a dog park. Near tennis courts at Wesley
Park is a large parking lot and field. This would not have as much as an impact on other activities in park, as they are
separate from playground, etc. Would seem to make more sense to put it somewhere where there is open space.
Regarding the tennis courts and community garden. The tennis courts are used daily, most nights in summer it is in use
until lights go out. This is an integral part of our park. If it is used so often seems it would be worth the cost to repair and
maintain. The garden would serve a limited number of individuals.
When will next meeting occur?
Thank you for consideration in keeping Medley Park a welcoming space for all.
Maureen Greening - 9010 Medley Lane
I was at the meeting on 4/2. There were more than 70 people there, and I know that everyone was opposed to at least
one of the ideas. Please take this public showing seriously.
I agree with many that the tennis court is still well utilized and should be resurfaced and maintained.
The dog park seems like a bad idea to me, as the dogs will tear up the ground and fences will block multiple views, making
the park look industrial. I also resent that the dog people would get a nice table with awning, but it will be fenced off from
other park-goers, playground, etc.
Gardens tend to look weedy and almost all the neighbors around Medley Park are allowed to have their own garden.
I propose this: maintain tennis court. Add benches, tables / awnings to make the park more inviting. Reroute sidewalk and
take out west ball field if necessary. Keep improvements simple and within budget. Organize neighborhood block parties --
similar to Police in the Parks. Maybe "popcorn in the parks". Best to unite community members and stay within a simple
budget.
If city goes through with plan for garden and dog park, I propose to keep tennis court, and then design a fencing structure
that has garden on one side, dogs on another, with shared water source and shared fence, .
Kate VanSickle - 2118 Marquis Rd
Medley Park Community Input Report 17
As a Golden Valley resident and user of the tennis courts at Medley Park, I can attest to the fact that they’re well-used and
frequently fully utilized on nice days. These are the only public tennis courts for a mile around, and ripping them out
would be a loss to the neighborhood as these are a unique amenity in this part of the community.
This proposal is a waste of our property tax dollars – especially considering the fact that the existing amenities are in good
condition, well-used, and the proposal only provides one new element – a community garden – which would be better
situated on the site of the western ballfield – a location where it wouldn’t be displacing an entirely unique amenity as the
eastern ballfield could remain.
On the other side of Medley Park, there’s already a fenced-in off-leash pet exercise area located to the east of the present
site of the tennis courts that doubles as a hockey rink in the winter. This site is much more suitable to remain as a pet
exercise area due to the fencing already in place and recessed ground. The current site on the south side of the park also
has a street and parking separating it from homes, in contrast to this proposal which would be right in our backyard of the
townhomes and for residents in the Medley Hills Condominiums as well. Right now, we hear ducks, geese, and kids playing
ball – all pleasant sounds – and barking dogs would be just the opposite.
Further, putting this so close to our homes, with all of the families with children around would invite injuries, and,
according to the League of Minnesota Cities, increase municipal exposure to liability – especially if the City fails to
adequately provide for enforcement of its own rules and regulations [e.g. leashes to/from park, paid admission, pet waste
pickup]. We’re thinking of having kids ourselves, and couldn’t imagine the City would want to expand the hazard that the
pet exercise area already is, and relocate it into our own back yard.
Andrew Lenz - 2430 Mendelssohn Ln
After attending the informational meeting I understand and support the change from tennis courts to a community garden
seems like a good plan.
However, I am not in favor of the dog park. It takes up one-third of the park for one purpose. There is nothing wrong with
leaving it an open green space for the entire communtiy to enjoy for all sorts of activities. Throwing a frisbee, soccer, flying
a kite, lacrosse, ultimate, football, walking around the park. This list is endless.
Also, there are already two dog parks less than 2 miles away from Medley Park. Plymouth Playfield and Basset Creek Park.
This community does not need a another dog park.
Please leave the park an open green space for the entire community to enjoy.
Thank You,
Doug Hubred - 8930 Medley Ln N
Love the idea of a dog park.
I do not like the idea of the garden- the tennis courts are still used by many people and much more valuable than a garden
to me.
Angela Munson - 2030 Valders Ave N
Please leave the dog park where it is on the east side of the park. Taking out green space in the middle of the park like in
the proposal would be a terrible loss. We don’t want the dangerous dogs so close to our home.
Loretta Huffman - 2416 Mendelssohn Ln
My family (including Phoebe, or dog, would love a convenient well maintained dog park. I'm also interested in the
community garden idea.
Veronica Niemi - 2110 Aquila Ave N
I welcome a fenced dog park. I recommend visiting Basset Creek Park in Crystal. It works well for up to 10+ dogs, visible
from anywhere inside the fenced in area. It has running water available in season most necessary for active dogs on hot
days. Also has timer controlled lights for early spring and late summer/fall evenings - you would be surprised how many
people take their pets out evenings after they get home from work and dinner. Crystal keeps the park stocked with doggy
pickup bags and convenient waste recepticals (just outside the fence.
Crystal has also promoted a Facebook page for active participants to "self" patrol" and inform users.
I would much rather use a similar dog park in the neighborhood!!!!!
John Neimi - 2110 Aquila Ave N
Medley Park Community Input Report 18
Hi, I'm disappointed that the Golden Valley parks department made decision about Medley tennis courts at least 3 years
ago but only shared information with the city residents now. Decision was made in 2016 not to resurface courts and
decision was made in 2018 to add extra court to Wesley with the thought that courts at Medley would go away. Now in
2019 it's hard to argue that Medley courts have to be saved at a high cost when there is Wesley park nearby. However, we
would like to keep tennis courts at Medley park. Having tennis courts is a great asset to the park and community around it.
We played tennis at Medley last summer and didn't find surface to be bad. Could the resurfacing be scheduled to only
happen every 5-7 years? The surface doesn't have to be top notch 100% for a city park. If tennis courts are not possible,
maybe GV could consider pickleball or racketball courts? Pickleball is gaining popularity and there are not enough courts in
the area. Racketball courts are much cheaper to construct and maintain. Maybe courts could be relocated to the west
north side of the park which doesn't fall into floodplain?
Community garden is a great asset to the community as well. However, maybe city could consider a different location in
the city or setting up the garden where the off-leash pet area is planned? Tennis courts are located in a shady area and
many trees would have to be cut to make enough sun for the gardens. This would not be the issue in the wet ball field
area. Biggest townhouse association (KingsValley) right next to the park allows each resident to have a garden by their
house. The east side of the park is surrounded by single family houses which also have access to their own gardens.
City of Plymouth has a dog park on 36th and Hwy169, only one hwy exit from Medley park. City of Plymouth allows non-
residents to use dog park without any permit. This is not true for our neighbor to the south - St. Louis Park which requires
non-residents to purchase permit for using their dog parks. Why setup dog off-leash area right next to another one in the
area? Wouldn't it be better to create dog off-leash area in a more central Golden Valley location? Golden Valley residents
in the NW corner already can use Plymouth park nearby.
It feels like city of Golden Valley is giving up on the Medley park and outfitting it with very cheap options that require very
low maintenance while Weasley and Lions parks in more affluent areas of the city (both are in Hopkins or partially in
Hopkins school districts where houses are more expensive) are getting better assets.
I would like City of Golden Valley to consider some other amenities for Medley park that could be beneficial to the
community. Some ideas would be a splash pad for kids, small or medium picnic shelter with firepit, adult exercise area.
Splash pads are gaining a lot of popularity and a great asset to the community. Brookview playground has a mist area but
it's not enough. There are no other splash pads nearby. City of Robbinsdale has one. There is a great one in Maple Grove.
St. Louis park has splash pad but it's kind of far away from Golden Valley. It doesn't have to be expensive splash pad. It
could be something similar to what city of Hopkins installed recently at Burns park. Not sure if firepit is a huge liability to
the city but there are no public reservable firepits in the west metro area and having one in GV would be great. There are
several reservable firepits on the St. Paul side. One example is Blackhawk Park Pavilion in Eagan which we love but it's too
far away from Golden Valley.
Tatiana Glistvain - 2212 Kings Valley Rd E
The proposal to put a dog park on the west side of Medley Park would have a significant negative impact on all properties
with a view of it, reducing property values for homes, townhomes and condominiums in the sightline. Inadequate funding
of additional infrastructure for irrigation and drainage of an area with high pet waste would also harm nearby water
quality and further exacerbate losses in property value. According to Greenfield Advisors, a real estate research company,
a property with an unobstructed view of an open space or park is worth 5-10% more than an identical property without
this feature. Constructing a giant fenced-in pet exercise area here would directly hurt dozens of homeowners with views
of this park, particularly those who are facing special assessments as part of the 2019 pavement management program.
Keep the dog park where it is now and put the community garden on the west side of the park instead.
Andrew Lenz - 2340 Mendelssohn Lane
I live near Medley Park. My children use it year round. I think it would be a mistake to get rid of the tennis courts. I haven't
used them yet but every night in the spring, summer, and fall I see people on the courts and frequently during the day.
Why get rid of such a valuable asset to the community? It can be enjoyed by several residents as opposed to a community
garden which can only be utilized by a very small amount of residents. Recreation and exercise should be something we
prioritize and are able to enjoy at our parks. Do not replace the tennis courts with a community garden. Please.
Anthony Wells - 2110 Ensign Ave N
I am all for the off-leash dog park but in looking at the proposed space, it seems the area for the smalls dogs is a very tiny
space. Can this area be made bigger for the small dogs? They need to room to run just like the bigger dogs.
Shelby Beens - 2143 Tamarin Trail
Medley Park Community Input Report 19
Hello.
I attended the meeting on April 2nd regarding the changes proposed for Medley Park in Golden Valley and I must say, I'm
more confused now than I was before the meeting. I have had a few days to put some thoughts together.
I'm of the school of thought that “if it's not broke, don't fix it”. I am unclear as to what prompted the initiation of these
proposed changes. While I'm in favor of an off-leash dog park, and even a community garden, I am not in favor of doing
these projects at the expense of eliminating existing amenities, i.e. the tennis courts. (I went to look at the tennis courts
yesterday. Yes, there are cracks… but no buckles. I would expect this since they have not been resurfaced since 2015… by
the way, the nets were not taken down for the winter this year.)
I have some other thoughts and concerns:
1. How was the sample size determined for the survey? It was mentioned at the meeting that the survey consisted of only
400 people, and done via phone calls. I do not think that is a representative sample size for this purpose. Could a
questionnaire be circulated (by mail) to all the residents within a 5 to 10 block radius (more/less) of the park, detailing the
current proposal and gathering additional feedback about the project?
2. Is there a way to include details of the costs involved, particularly the cost of resurfacing the tennis courts versus re-
building them in an alternate location in the park? My property taxes just increased almost 15%. I would like an accounting
of how my taxes are being spent for this project. For example, how much would it cost to replace the lights? They are also
used for the hockey rink. (Maybe they're not necessary. Yes, it would limit the time these facilities could be used.)
3. Is there a way to gather information about the actual usage of the current facilities at the park (in the questionnaire)?
For example, the tennis courts are used a lot. The baseball field is not. Nor is the hockey rink. (Maybe the tennis courts
could be relocated to the baseball field which is on higher ground.) I live in the Kings Valley townhouse community. My
property overlooks the southwest corner of the tennis courts. I am watching a foursome playing tennis as I write this.
These courts are in use most of the spring, summer and fall by tennis players, pickle ball players and youth tennis lessons. I
do not know exactly how often the baseball field is used (scheduled). Of note, the shade from the surrounding trees
which were cut back significantly a year or two ago) is a welcome relief in the hot summer months.
4. Will there be any “accountability” measures to monitor the usage in the off-leash dog park as well as for those engaged
in the community garden? If you will be charging a fee for these options, will a key be required to enter the areas? How
will the fees be collected? If this is a “public” park, how will you keep people who have not paid a fee out of these areas?
We have a swimming pool in our community and the residents can only enter using a key.)
5. Maybe the hockey rink could be used for the community garden instead of the tennis courts. There is more sun in that
area. It is always wet, even in the summer months. The rink is hardly used during the winter. (They stop plowing/cleaning
the ice at the beginning of March-not a very long season with the winters we've been having lately.) It is also a major
eyesore. Or, perhaps make the off-leash area smaller and use part of that space for the garden.
6. I also have reservations about how these proposed changes would disrupt the habitats of the wildlife that live in these
areas. I am hopeful that their livelihood is being considered in this process.
I understand the need to monitor the water levels in this area. My residence is smack dab in the middle of the floodplain.
One rainstorm last summer raised the level of the little creek behind my house right up to the top of the banks, right up to
the pathway. I paid additional dues to the association this year related to work being done to mitigate this issue in our
neighborhood.
I appreciate the opportunity to weigh in on this project. I would hope that your follow up from this meeting will include
providing time for additional feedback and discussions before a decision is made. I think there were many attendees who
left the meeting as confused as I was. I ask that you be mindful in considering the changes you are proposing.
Thank you.
Peggy Keefe - 2214 Kings Valley Rd E
I attended the April 2nd information session, thank-you for hosting that event. I live across the street from Medley park
and understand the soil issues. I wish the tennis courts could stay because they do get used, but again I understand the
decision. I am not in favor of the dog park. Based on the size presented on April 2nd, that dog park will be more than just a
neighborhood dog park. I believe it will become a nuisance. I am concerned with traffic, parking, dog waste,barking, smell,
and what ever else can happen with dogs running around. The hours of operation (7AM to 10PM) are also a concern when
the weather is nice to keep windows open. Thank-you.
Bob Blenkush - 2340 Ensign Ave N
Medley Park Community Input Report 20
The beautiful Golden Valley parks are part of the heritage of the community adding inherent value, quality of life, and a
community image. These parks are part of what I signed up for when purchasing a home in Golden Valley. Any attempts to
dismantle these parks needs to be stopped in the bud. Recent attempts to dismantle the parks includes the attempt to
abbreviate Scheid park for a new fire station. I am discouraged. Likewise the new attempts to redistribute the recreation
park of Medley fields is equally discouraging.
In the last couple of years a significant amount of money has been spent replacing childrens play equipment and
resurfacing the tennis courts. Let the community enjoy the money that has been spent. The courts at Medley are heavily
used and for anyone wanting open tennis play that is even more significant. The new courts at Wesley are being heavily
scheduled out by private tennis organizations.
I do not oppose people having a dog park experience but I do not support that at Wesley park. In my experience an open
leash dog area is never placed in a recreational park. There are very good reasons for that. I will let you figure that out. I
do not oppose a community garden but once again those are never centered in a recreation park. Community gardens are
not part of a recreation experience. Community gardens are not sightly and are only for an assortment of community
gardeners but not for the community as a whole. I think both a dog park and a community garden are valid wants but
neither belongs in a neighborhood nor in a takeaway from a treasured recreational park.
Find a different unused space to repurpose or let this go.
A final suggestion: extend the walking path to complete a circle around the park to provide a nice path for all walkers
including those with walkers, strollers, or those simply not wanting to get wet feet.
David Miller - 8106 Julianne Terrace
Please accept my apologies for not being able to attend the April 2nd review and input meeting regarding the proposed
changes at Medley Park. As a resident who has utilized the tennis courts at Medley for almost 40 years I was very
concerned that they are going to be removed. Levels of obesity (and other health issues related to inactivity/sedentary
life-style) are at an all time high in this country so the loss of any local recreational infrastructure that facilitates exercise
and play is a huge loss. Unlike, garden plots or fenced-in backyards for dogs, sports like tennis are only 'playable' on
common facilities from shared pubic investment. For years
I have read through the proposal document and it seems very one-sided; almost as if the proposal was shared to merely
facilitate and already decided decision. It does not address alternatives beyond the complete removal of the tennis courts.
Could they be relocated? Are there options for reducing the amount of resurfacing that has been necessary? Instead, the
reader is presented with one problem and only one solution.
The supporting evidence is then presented to bolster this one, and only, solution in such a way that seems to cherry-pick
details friendly to the purported solution. For example, the current dog parks map omits the Bassett Creek Dog Park, the 4
Paws Dog Park (just across the highway in Plymouth), the Lions Park Dog Park (across 36th in New Hope), as well as at
least one dog park I know of serving a nearby apartment complex.
Similarly, there is no such corresponding map for the tennis courts. If there way one would be able to see a lack of courts
on the West side of Golden Valley, if one omits the Medley tennis courts. This dearth, continues in neighboring Plymouth
to the immediate West. Suffice it to say what I have known from near-daily use of Medley park - these tennis courts as
serve a sizeable portion of the community and get substantial use.
We need more public infrastructure the facilitates physical activity and social connectivity. Both the tennis courts and ball
field have played a crucial historic role for our neighborhood in both of these areas. The proposal does not put forth any
alternatives that might avoid such a drastic cut of the exercise/sport facilities at this important part. The proposal misses
the mark by making only a partial argument for their removal and cherry-picking certain indicators that support this, the
only solution put forth. I expect more from local governance. Please, I ask you, reconsider the one-sided negative impact
of these plans for Medley park.
Humbly submitted,
Mark Hannan - 2314 English Circle
Medley Park Community Input Report 21
To Whom it may concern. I was unable to make the meeting on the 2nd.
I do live across from Medley Park. I would like to express my extreme displeasure in the off-leash dog area. I feel it will
bring too much traffic, more than the ball games. I fear it will smell. The people in the neighborhood have back yards for
their dogs and do not need a dog area. I also dread the noise of the barking dogs while they are playing. The hours until
early in the morning until 10:00 at night is extreme and I can't help but think it will bring the housing costs down . Such a
large fence will be horribly unsightly. I truly wish that the board will reconsider.
I read that the tennis courts are not holding up due to the wet lands; that is unfortunate because I see people playing
almost nightly in summer. Wet lands are hard to combat...what about a return to wetlands!!
I wonder how the community garden will do with the mud that we have in Golden Valley.?
Thank-you for considering a change in the Medley Park plan
a VERY concerned neighbor
Lynell Ringsmuth - 8945 Medley Lane N
As mentioned at the 4/2 meeting, the tennis courts are used regularly by residents and it does not seem that removing
them is in the best interests of the neighborhood. Why not repair or relocate them to another portion of the park? We
should not have to give up courts that are regularly used.
The proposed dog park within Medley, mainly for large dogs, looks like it encompasses the trees all the way to the North
edge of the park property. The section needed for future storm water improvements decreases the land even more. With
the dog park and the future storm water improvement areas, people not using the dog park should have additional trails
to be able to walk completely around / outside the dog area, including a portion of the woods and to the NW section –
unless NW will be part of the new storm water improvement area. A few more benches along the walkways in the park
would also be helpful.
For a community garden, since there appears to be a lot of land in the section marked for the proposed dog park, why not
use part of that to create a garden? Or could the garden be created on the corner of 23rd and Ensign?
The increased noise and fencing for the proposed dog park will change the look and feel of the park. People visiting the
park and the neighbors who purchased their homes around the park will be staring at the additional 5‘-6’ fencing. If a
garden is installed and separate from tennis courts, that would be three areas fenced in.
What would the hours be for the dog park and how can you ensure owners leash their dogs outside the dog park? What
plans are there to handle an increase in noise, traffic and the parking needed for people who drive to use the dog park and
garden? I am not sure how busy Ensign is, but 23rd is already busy so I’m wondering how traffic will be impacted.
Elizabeth Gross - 2230 Xylon Ave N
I attended the meeting last Thursday and was impressed with the intensity of the tennis players. It left me with the feeling
that the courts should be kept going for another few years, at least until the lights no longer can be repaired. I am fine
with a dog park although am concerned about the many statements made by people that "all" dog owners will behave
responsibly regarding both picking up after their dogs and keeping them on leashes while walking from the parking lot to
the enclosure. It definitely irks me that city staff will end up having to clean up the area. As for the community garden, I
was very unimpressed with the folks who spoke about how wonderful it would be for "people" without expressing any
desire themselves to rent one. I live in the condos to the north of the park and none of the fellow owners I've talked to
have expressed any desire for the gardens. It doesn't make real sense to me considering the potential lack of responsible
upkeep by plot renters and the location close to the wooded area. Frankly, I would prefer to see the area remain tennis
courts, or if that absolutely can't work, turn the court area into a native plant & butterfly garden with a path and benches.
Also, I want to thank the staff for their time plus the good information, handouts and slide presentations. And the new
building is such a great asset for all G.V. residents and I have enjoyed the various occasions I've been there.
Susan Roberts - 9225 Medicine Lake Rd, Apt 312
Hello,
My wife and I support the creation of a dog park. We do not support the creation of a garden to replace the tennis courts.
We feel that the tennis courts get a lot of use and should be maintained.
Tim & Mary Grupa - 2205 Cavell Ave N
Medley Park Community Input Report 22
Dear City Council members,
My wife and I live at the corner of Medley Lane and Ensign Avenue, which is right across the street from Medley Park. Yet
we were not contacted by the council when a phone survey was completed asking residents about this dog park. I
understand the survey took place back in 2016, and if we had been contacted we would have said No dog park.
We have spoken to our neighbors and asked them whether they were surveyed and every one of them said No.
The City Council is therefore making a decision about a dog park without first making it a priority to consult the neighbors
around the dog park. Therefore, your decision is not legitimate as you should have made it a priority to talk to the
residents surrounding the park.
If the City Council did survey other city residents that do not live near this park like we do, it is not a surprise that they
agreed to the idea of a dog park. It's my belief that this is a "We want a dog park as long as it is in my backyard" situation.
This dog park is not going to happen, but if you need to understand why it will not, here are the reasons for not going
ahead with this ill-informed idea:
1. The dog park is not needed. People in our neighborhood already walk their dogs in the park. And the General Mills park
down the road has become a dog park of its own as many dog owners walk their dogs there. Dog owners here are happy
with their options for walking and exercising dogs.
2. Unwanted noise at all hours of the day, seven days a week. Dogs bark. Some dogs fight other dogs and bark even more.
3. Smell. Dog parks are filthy as the wood chips put down soak up dog pee and not all dog owners are diligent with picking
up their dog poop. When the wind comes towards our house as it often does, we are going to smell a stink of dog poop.
No way will we want that.
4. Cars parking on our street at all hours of the day, seven days a week. Ensign is a narrow road and we are OK with the
baseball people parking on our street as they don't bark, don't poop on the ground, and they don't park very long on the
street. They leave.
5. Property devaluation. Who wants to buy a house that gets a waft of dog poop stink? And who wants a house where
dogs are barking all day, seven days a week?
6. You are inviting people from cities other than Golden Valley if there were a dog park here. The word will spread and
we'll have people from New Hope, Plymouth, Crystal, and so on bringing their dogs here. More cars. More barking. More
stink.
To summarize, we and our neighbors are totally opposed to this dog park. Are you going to ram it down our throat anyway
and hope to get reelected?
Thad Schifsky - 8945 Medley Lane N
Thank you for the opportunity to voice our opinions on the matter of redesigning Medley Park. While my family and I
appreciate the thought put into the design, we are not excited about, nor do we feel like a broad enough audience was
surveyed. We understand that not everyone can be pleased, I would just like to share my opinions on the matter.
Regarding the Tennis courts, replacing them with a community garden where 12-20 people have use over the summer
seems like a poor way to utilize the space where currently hundreds of people use it as tennis courts. As parents of young
children, we look forward to the day when we can play tennis with our children as a way to be active together. My family
has used the courts as a “free space” to run around in as well. Taking the courts away from the public and only allowing 20
people to use it, does not seem like a wise way to utilize the city’s recreation area. The courts have been there for 40+
years, and yet the reason for replacing them is that they’re not sustainable. I am sure the engineers making that decision
know what they are talking about, but the fact that the courts have been around for that long could possibly indicate that
they could be refinished and last another 40+ years.
My family lives across the street from Medley Park, and we enjoy our current view. The plan to remove the trees behind
the tennis court is not appealing to us as our view now includes a park followed by woods. In the future, we will likely have
a view of King’s Valley Townhomes, which is not ideal. It sounds as though there is typically excitement for Community
Gardens at first, but after a year or so, they are left untended. Removing tennis courts to replace them with untended
gardens seems undesirable.
Please consider keeping the courts for the reasons I, and others, have mentioned. Thank you.
Lindsay Longballa - 2300 Ensign Ave N
Medley Park Community Input Report 23
RE Community Garden: My profile: 26-year resident and homeowner in Golden Valley.
I was at the April 2 presentation and found myself in agreement with Rick Birno's expressed puzzlement that Community
Gardens came up as the #1 want from Parks and Recreation in the 2016 survey.
Actually - - that is not what the survey told us and I believe there has been a misinterpretation of the findings. The next
paragraph is lifted directly from the Executive Summary of the 2016 survey done by The Morris Leatherman Company:
Residents provide super-majorities in favor of using city funds for three parks and recreation
purposes. By a 72%-27% majority, residents support the use of city funding for city gardens.
By a 69%-30%, residents similarly endorse the use of city funds for off-street trails. And, by a
67%-30% split, residents would approve city funds to be used for an off-leash dog area."
My interpretation of "city gardens" would be the flowers, decorative grasses and shrubs the City of Golden Valley plants
and maintains in our public areas. Such as the medians on Winnetka Avenue and the flower beds adjacent to the
Brookview sign on Winnetka and 55. According to data found in our Comprehensive Transportation Plan update, Winnetka
averaged 15,200 vehicles per day traveling north from Highway 55 in 2015. And we should assume that residents who
were surveyed liked what they saw and want to see more of it in our city. (Me too.)
Was their vision tearing out tennis courts so that we can rent plots to a select few? I highly doubt it.
Ron Lundquist - 2125 Aquila Ave N
I am happy to hear about the off leash dog park and like the idea that you would require a tag.
I know I would use the dog park vs the current one that is a ice hockey rink. It’s not the best space for dogs.
As for the garden space - I would not use it but it sounds like a good idea. However I hate to see the tennis courts be
removed. I believe many use these courts.
Thanks
Kathy Stagni - 9040 Duluth St
I am opposed to changing the billfold with a off-leash pet exercise area. Parks are for kids and humans not dogs. I love
dogs but kids are more important. Seniors seem to like "Pickle Ball". Can the courts be converted to PB. What will happen
to the hockey rink? Please, no dog park.
Sorry I missed the meeting on 4/2 but I just received the notice a couple of days ago.
Roger Hackbart - 2525 Decatur Ave N
We have lived at our current property of XXXX Medley XXXX for nearly 27 years. In that time we have been active and
proud to be a part of our community. We would like to express our concerns of a proposed dog park in which we consider
a family neighborhood park.
Currently Medley Park has a basketball court, playground, warming house, ice hockey rink (which is currently an off season
dog park), general skating rink, tennis courts and softball field. The proposed dog park would use a large portion of the
remaining green space, which is enjoyed by individuals and families.
The current plan shows a dog park which extends into a wooded area, which merges with our property. The noise, and
most likely odor, would greatly affect our living space and quality of life. The hours on the website shows it would be 7am-
10pm.There is also wildlife in the wooded area that would be affected.
The dog park proposed would be in the west softball field. Per the literature this area was chosen because of unstable soil
conditions. If the dog park is in this area, which is prone to flooding, how would it be managed and maintained? Parking
could also be an issue, especially with the current street project, which will narrow our roads.
The proposed dog park would more than likely decrease the value of our home. Medley Townhomes would also be
affected, as some of the homes yards merge with the wooded area. We also want to point out that New Hope is directly
across Medicine Lake Road, with the city of Plymouth and Crystal on either side. It would not be central to Golden Valley.
On the literature that was distributed at the meeting it showed 2 other proposed dog parks. One is “Sochacki Park Dog
Park”, the other “Theodore Wirth Park Dog Park.” Both of these large properties would seem more appropriate as they
will most likely not affect residential areas.
Thank you
Craig Greening - 9010 Medley Lane
Medley Park Community Input Report 24
I went to the meeting regarding the proposed changes. I now appreciate the reason for change. I grew up on Decatur and
remember that before Medley was a park, it was a dump. The engineer spoke of testing the soil. If you go ahead and with
the community garden proposal, I would like to see extensive soil testing. People weren't as conscientious about the
environment and what was thrown away back then.
Jill Wisdorf - 9030 Duluth St
Thank you to the city staff for their work on this project and taking the time to hold the meeting on 4.2.1—. I attended and
learned some helpful information regarding the tennis court costs and drainage issues. We live across the street from the
park and use the tennis courts frequently and can see how often the courts are in use. They are very busy, and provide
activities beyond tennis. We have a 5 year old daughter and 3 year old son, and our kids bike on the courts, we play fun
games on the courts, etc. The gentleman running the meeting stated that the City knows the courts get used a lot, and
that the issue isn't usage; the issue is sustainability. I understand his point, but the concept of replacing something that
gets used by the public in great order with a garden that will have somewhere between 12 and 20 plots doesn't make
much sense. We'd be removing a tennis court that gets used by more than 12 people every day for 7 months of the year
with something that can only be used by 12 to 20 people in total for 5 months of the year.
It was stated that a consulting firm has decided the courts need to be resurfaced every 2 years at great cost. However, the
courts haven't been resurfaced in 5 years, and the current cracks are not bad enough to render the courts unplayable. I am
quite confident that if the City moved to a resurfacing schedule of every 7–8 years to minimize costs the courts would
remain playable and the residents would appreciate still having the courts in some capacity.
My final thought is that our neighborhood has been going through a major change that will only continue and accelerate
in the coming years. That change is a re-vitalization of the community with many younger families moving in as many
original homeowners from the 1—60's move out for various reasons. On our street alone there were 4 babies born in
2015. Young families are moving in at a rapid pace. The point is that our community is getting younger and having
outdoor, physical activity opportunities available for our children is important as more and more activities for kids are
centered around using technology; tablets, smart phones, etc. While our nation is facing an obesity epidemic I don't
believe cities or communities should be involved with removing exercise opportunities for our youth. I know many families
in the neighborhood who can't wait for their kids to get a few years older so they can play tennis with their families at
Medley Park. We also just lost the tennis courts on Boone Ave. behind RSI school so our local options are becoming
limited.
Thanks again to the City staff for their hard work on this project. I know there is never a solution that satisfies all
constituents so your job is not an easy one. Please consider the idea of keeping the courts and minimizing maintenance
costs by moving to a delayed resurfacing schedule. I know many of the neighborhood residents would appreciate keeping
the courts for the reasons stated above. Thank you!
Michael Longballa
2300 Ensign Ave N
Medley Park Community Input Report 25
Social Media Outreach
The City posted information and reminders about the open house and online comment form four times
on Facebook and four times on Twitter between March 23 and April 17, 2019. See Appendix A for
reach and engagement details for each post.
Medley Park Community Input Report 26
Park Amenity Changes Survey
To help gauge public opinion, the City released a survey with questions regarding stance on the
proposed changes and respondent demographics. See Appendix D for complete survey responses. A
print version of the survey was also available at Brookview.
The online survey was active from Nov 17–Dec 31, was limited to one response per IP address, and
had 594 responses. One printed survey submission was also entered into the online survey.
The City promoted the survey online, in the November/December CityNews, and multiple times on
social media between Nov 27 and Dec 31. See Appendix A for reach and engagement details for each
post.
Do you support or oppose the City developing an off-leash pet exercise area in
the Golden Valley parks system?
Of the 593 respondents who answered this question, 177 (30 percent) strongly support developing an
off-leash pet exercise area in the Golden Valley parks system, 54 (9 percent) said they support the
development, and 41 (7 percent) said they are neutral on the issue, while 64 (11 percent) oppose and
257 (43 percent) strongly oppose the development.
Medley Park Community Input Report 27
Do you support or oppose the City developing a community garden in the
Golden Valley parks system where residents can rent raised containers to grow
vegetables?
Of the 592 respondents who answered this question, 149 (25 percent) strongly support developing a
community garden in the Golden Valley parks system, 71 (12 percent) said they support the
development, and 58 (10 percent) said they are neutral on the issue, while 48 (8 percent) oppose and
265 (45 percent) strongly oppose the development.
Medley Park Community Input Report 28
In which quadrant of Golden Valley do you live?
Of the 586 respondents who answered this question, 265 (45 percent) live north of Hwy 55 and west of
Winnetka Ave, 213 (36 percent) live north of Hwy 55 and east of Winnetka Ave, 43 (7 percent) live
south of Hwy 55 and west of Winnetka Ave, 65 (11 percent) live south of Hwy 55 and east of Winnetka
Ave.
Approximately how many years have you lived in Golden Valley?
Of the 585 respondents who answered this question, 145 (25 percent) said they have lived in Golden
Valley for less than five years, 154 (26 percent) said 5–10 years, 159 (27 percent) said 11–20 years, 87
15 percent) said 21–30 years, and 40 (7 percent) said 31+ years.
Medley Park Community Input Report 29
Do you rent or own your present residence?
Of the 585 respondents who answered this question, 53 (9 percent) said they rent their present
residence while 532 (91 percent) said they own.
What is your age?
Of the 585 respondents who answered this question, 0 (0 percent) said they were under 18 years of
age, 79 (14 percent) said 19–30, 294 (50 percent) said 31–50, while 154 (26 percent) said 51–65, 55 (9
percent) said 66–79, and 3 (1 percent) said 80+.
Medley Park Community Input Report 30
Additional Information
The City prepared an information packet that included details about the history of the park, underlying
issues, and the proposed changes (see Appendix B). It was available on the City website, at the open
house, and the April 22, 2019 Open Space and Recreation Commission meeting.
APPENDIX A
Social Media Reach And Engagement
Page 31
Medley Park Community Input Report
SOCIAL MEDIA REACH AND ENGAGEMENT
Medley Park Proposed Changes
Reach = Number of people who saw the post
Engagement = Number of people who interacted with the post
March 23, 2019
PLATFORM REACH ENGAGEMENT LIKES SHARES/RETWEETS COMMENTS
Facebook 929 1787 7 1 5
Twitter 225 4 0 0 0
Comments
NAME COMMENT
Pamala Jane I walk through this park all the time and the tennis courts are heavily used. There
is an active group of seniors that like to play pickle ball at least one day a week.
The hockey and skating rinks are not used so much. The neighbors should get
involved because a dog park will increase traffic and noise in their neighborhood.
Erika Tamminen Joshua Tamminen a dog park in GV?
David Koski Maybe they'll upgrade it like they did Glenview Terrace. Tear out the tennis courts
and leave giant mud/gravel pit for 2 years.
Holly Koch Staples I wouldn't consider those ideas "upgrades." Upgrades are things that involve our
community in still being active. We live next to Glenview Terrace and we received
zero upgrades when they tore out our tennis courts other than new trees that are
already dead and as already stated, a lovely mud pit
Miranda Albertus
Powers
While we appreciated the new playground equipment, it didn’t really seem like
providing input into that project made a difference. They are slotted to take out the
tennis courts at Medley as well- sad to see them go. In this case, I’m not sure that
attending the meeting will help. Appreciate how GV seeks to do projects, though
April 1, 2019
PLATFORM REACH ENGAGEMENT LIKES SHARES/RETWEETS COMMENTS
Facebook 795 23 2 0 0
Twitter 210 6 1 0 0
April 3, 2019
PLATFORM REACH ENGAGEMENT LIKES SHARES/RETWEETS COMMENTS
Facebook 814 34 2 1 0
Twitter 199 5 0 0 0
April 17, 2019
PLATFORM REACH ENGAGEMENT LIKES SHARES/RETWEETS COMMENTS
Facebook 454 22 3 0 0
Twitter 231 8 1 0 0
Medley Park Community Input Report
Oct 18, 2019
PLATFORM REACH ENGAGEMENT LIKES SHARES/RETWEETS COMMENTS
Facebook 1117 176 13 0 11
Comments
NAME COMMENT
Justin Zollar I have never seen the tennis courts used and I go there all the time. A dog park
would be much better for the area, especially since it is so close to a park where
families can tire out the kids (human and dog alike)
Pamala Jane I guess this is why the city is no longer maintaining the tennis courts. They are
used regularly. There is already an off leash area in the park that is seldom used.
I walk through this park almost daily and rarely see dogs in the off leash area.
This is disappointing but I don’t have the energy to try and engage with city
government.
Miranda Albertus
Power
Pamala Jane totally agree Pamela. So sad to see the tennis courts go
Erik Larson The cities war on tennis continues......
Miranda Albertus
Powers
While we appreciated the new playground equipment, it didn’t really seem like
providing input into that project made a difference. They are slotted to take out
the tennis courts at Medley as well- sad to see them go. In this case, I’m not sure
that attending the meeting will help. Appreciate how GV seeks to do projects,
though
Cathy Howard
Waldhauser
I applaud the city's interest in a community garden with access to water. We are
way behind our neighbors in not having one. But I agree that the tennis courts
are also an important community asset and well used. I hope that another more
central location can be found for a community garden and dog parks.
Michelle Bigelow Why doesn't the city put a door on the hockey rink at Lion's Park and let us use
it as a dog park in the summer? Seems like a no brainer.
Debbi Berman
Wolfe
Michelle Bigelow yes!!!
Maren Ahleberg Doors on ALL of the park hockey rinks would make a lot of sense.
Michelle Bigelow An inexpensive win for all.
Andrea Hasey
Scanlon
Keep tennis courts! Take your dog for a walk and exercise yourself and them.
Karna Markson This also makes me sad! My husband and I love tennis- and have two dogs- but
I'd rather have the tennis courts stay!
I know there was a meeting last spring that some of my neighbors attended, and
shared that the tennis courts were the overwhelming majority favorite. So,
question is why does this seem to go through if the neighborhood doesn't want
it?
Twitter 294 11 2 0 1
Comments
NAME COMMENT
Liz Bastian Fabulous!
Medley Park Community Input Report
Nov 21, 2019
PLATFORM REACH ENGAGEMENT LIKES SHARES/RETWEETS COMMENTS
Facebook 756 30 3 0 0
Twitter 235 9 1 0 0
Nov 25, 2019
PLATFORM REACH ENGAGEMENT LIKES SHARES/RETWEETS COMMENTS
Facebook 658 73 0 1 2
Comments
NAME COMMENT
Jill Sauer Wisdorf Can anything be done about the sound quality?
City of Golden
Valley, MN – Local
Government
Jill, thank you for the question. Depending on the device you're using to watch
the video, the sound quality can be improved by using headphones.
Twitter 482 14 2 1 1
Comments
NAME COMMENT
Shep Harris Thx to the OSRC & Park/Rec staff for their good outreach on proposed changes
to Medley Park!
Dec 11, 2019
PLATFORM REACH ENGAGEMENT LIKES SHARES/RETWEETS COMMENTS
Facebook 886 65 2 2 0
Twitter 325 5 1 0 0
Dec 21, 2019
PLATFORM REACH ENGAGEMENT LIKES SHARES/RETWEETS COMMENTS
Facebook 835 105 6 0 4
Comments
NAME COMMENT
Justin Zollar Why would anyone "strongly oppose" a dog park?
Maren Ahlberg Justin Zollar or a community vegetable garden? I suppose it's about location.
Justin Zollar Maren Ahlberg dog parks gotta cost like nothing. Lol. Fencing.. some poop
stations.. if it's by an existing park then city workers already pick up garbage, so
it's not like an additional route is added. It's grass, a fence, and maybe a water
fountain for dogs would be nice.
Pamala Jane Justin Zollar this is from a city in Illinois. They did a good job of breaking down
what goes into a dog park.https://brookfieldil.gov/.../10/Dog-Park-Report-
FINAL.pdf
Twitter 228 10 0 0 0
Medley Park Community Input Report
Dec 27, 2019
PLATFORM REACH ENGAGEMENT LIKES SHARES/RETWEETS COMMENTS
Facebook 1229 192 3 5 5
Comments
NAME COMMENT
Joanie Stockman
Clausen
These questions are not specific to which parks in Golden Valley. That could
make a difference
Pamala Jane Do you mean people might support them if they are not going to be located in
their neighborhood park? I think they should be located at Brookview.
Joanie Stockman
Clausen
I know the people over at Medley believe they should be located centrally.
Pamala Jane Brookview would be perfect then.
Twitter 216 12 0 0 0
APPENDIX B
Parks Redesigned: Medley Park Proposal
Page 36
Medley Park Proposal 1
Medley Park
Questions & Comments
Electronic comments are welcome at
goldenvalleymn.govparks/medley/index.php
until April 19.
Medley Park Proposal 2
Proposal
Install a community garden where the
current Medley Park tennis courts are
located.
Create an off-leash pet exercise area where
the current west softball field is located.
Top resident requests for Golden Valley’s park system:
1
Community Garden
2
Off-Leash Pet Exercise Area
Source: 2016 Golden Valley Resident Survey
Why?
Very poor soil conditions and landscape
impact, water issues, and underground root
structures have caused the tennis courts to
fail and create conditions that make their
long-term viability unsustainable in this
location.
Due to unstable soil conditions, the softball
field cannot be maintained in a manner that
allows for safe play.
3 Medley Park Proposal
Medley Tennis Courts History
Mid-1970s: Original construction
1983: Resurfacing
1991: Complete reconstruction
1992: Resurfacing in spring due to cracking
and failure over the winter
1997, 2005, 2010, 2014: Resurfacing
Courts now require resurfacing every two
years to maintain a safe playing surface.
Courts are built in one of the lowest areas in
the park on a peat soil base with significant
drainage issues.
Tennis court lights are more than 40 years
old and are failing.
City Resident/Courts Residents Per
Tennis Court
Golden Valley 21,000/20 1,050
New Hope 21,000/17 1,235
Edina 51,000/26 1,961
Minnetonka 52,000/23 2,217
Plymouth 77,000/29 2,655
St Louis Park 49,000/16 3,062
Crystal 23,000/7 3,286
Brooklyn Park 80,000/21 3,714
Brooklyn Center 31,000/8 3,875
Robbinsdale 14,500/3 4,833
Locations Courts Lighted Courts
Brookview Park 6 4
Gearty Park (resurface in 2019)1 1
Lions Park 2 0
Medley Park (recommend removal)3 3
Scheid Park (no maintenance)2 2
Seeman Park 2 0
Wesley Park (lights in 2020)4 4
Wildwood Park (pickleball)6 0
Tennis
Court
Comparison
GV
Tennis &
Pickleball
Courts
Research was conducted
in 2017 and only for tennis
courts owned and operated
by municipalities.)
Medley Park Proposal 4
Medley Park Floodplain Map
Medley Park Floodplain Map
Sources: Print Date: 3/25/2019
Hennepin County Surveyors Office for Property Lines (2019) &
Aerial Photography (2015).
MnDNR for 2-Foot Contours (2011)
BCWMC for Modeled Floodplain (2017).
City of Golden Valley for all other layers.I
DD
DDDDDD
D
DDDDDDDDD
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD!.
9309 3
09009
20 9209 1
0
910 93093093
090
0920
920910 Medley
Ln 23rdAveNEnsignAve
NMayfair
Rd MendelssohnLnNK i n g
s ValleyRdE 23rd
Ave N Mendelssohn
Ln
N
Ensign
Ave N914 904 908
9
3
8
938
906
9
3
6 912 932
916
9
1
4 932908
934
9 12
932
9329
3 6 902
906
934
91690890 8 9
3 2 928928928
926926926926
9 24
924
9249
2492292 2
922922908
9
0
8
902902906
906
922
922 904 904
92492
4
91691692
8
928
91891
8 9 2
6
92
6
914914914
918
918918914
9149
1
4
902902902916
916
916916904904904
904
9049129129
1
2
912912906906906906 906908908 908 9089089080
40 80 120 16020 Feet
1 inch = 40 feet
1% Chance Modeled
Floodplain DD Storm
Sewer 2' Elevation
Contour 10' Elevation Contour
Medley West Field History
Late 1970s: Original construction Early 1980s:
Problems begin to surface Early 1980s: 1980s-
1990s: As soils settle, City works to continuously fill
in low spots to keep
field safe and playable.Early 2000s:
Golden Valley Girls’ Softball Association (GVGS) works
with City to find alternative locations
due to safety concerns.2014: City stops
scheduling field for or-ganized athletics
due to significant safety concerns. All GVGS
games and practices are
relocated to Lions Park. Estimated costs to
reconstruct field are pro-hibitive, with no
guarantee of
avoiding re-peated settling.Additional stormwater
storage is needed on the
5 Medley Park Proposal
Recommended Improvements
Community Garden
Remove tennis courts and lights during 2019
construction season.
Thin out trees and shrubs around current
tennis courts.
Test soils beneath tennis courts (may require
additional soil material for mitigation).
Install fence around community garden with
a public access gate and a maintenance gate.
Install water source near the access gate.
Add internal natural trail and mark garden
areas.
Rent garden areas to residents through a lot-
tery system.
Off-Leash Pet Area
Remove ballfield backstop and bench areas
from west softball field during 2020 con-
struction season.
Construct a permanent 5’-6’ fence around en-
tire off-leash area and include a double access
gate for the public and maintenance gate for
staff.
Designate small-dog and large-dog areas
within fenced area.
Provide a water source for owners and pets,
along with an enclosed portable toilet pad,
near access gate.
Construct a 20’x20’ sun/rain shelter inside
the park with picnic tables and an LED safety
light.
Add appropriate signage, waste disposal,
benches, doggy bag dispenser, and bike racks.
Design off-leash area with intent to expand
stormwater management to the west.
Require a fee-based use tag for off-leash area.
Medley Park Proposal 6
Proposed Improvements
Potential
Stormwater
Improvements
Proposed
Community
Garden
Small Dog Park
SunShelter
Proposed
Dog Park
EntryArea
23rd Ave N
KingsValleyRd
Medley Rd
Marqui
sRdMedley Ln
M ayfairRdHillsboroAveNEnsignAveNMendelss
ohnLnNKingsV a l ley RdE
Medley Cir
Pl
aygroundSoftballFieldHockey
RinkBasketballCourtGeneral
Skating
Rink
I 0150
30075
Feet Print Date: 9/19/
2019
Sources: Hennepin County Surveyors Office
for Property Lines (2019) & Aerial Photography (
2018).City of Golden Valley for all other
layers.Medley Par
k Concept
Plan
Medi
ci
neLakeBranchIkePond
Colonial
Pond
Ottawa
Pond
Glen-
woodPond
EgretPond
DuluthNorthPondLilacPond
DuluthPond
St.
CroixPond
Chicago
Pond
LilacPond Pond CT u rn e rs P o
n dGlen
1
PondDuckPond
LoopEPond
LoopFPond
Sweeney LakeWirth LakeTwin
LakeBas
sett
CreekHampshire
Pond
DecolaPondA
NorthRicePond West
RingPondCortlawn Pond
DecolaPonds
B &
C
Westwood
LakeSchaperPond
SouthRicePond EastRingPond
Bassett CreekDecolaPondE
DecolaPond
F
BreckPond
NatchezPond
MinnaquaPond
WirthPond
Toledo/AngeloPond
HoneywellPondStrawberryPond
DecolaPond
D
Bassett
Creek
BassettCr
ee
k Bassett Cr
eekBasse t
t Creek B a sse
ttC re
ek
SweeneyL
akeBranchSweeney
Lake
BranchNW LoopPond
B o
one
Avenue
PondMain
Stem
Pond
B
PondC
BassettCreekNatureArea
Pond Medicine
Lake BrookviewPond
A Hidden
LakesPond
1
Pond 2A
Pond 2B
Pond 3Schaper
BallfieldPond Pond
O
Pond
J
Spirit
of
Hope
Church Pond
GoldenRidgePond Golden
Meadows Pond
SoccerFieldPond
WestPond
201GeneralMillsPondHaroldPond
Medicine
Lake
Road
PondXenia
MitigationPond10th
AvePond
SpringPond
Briar-
woodPond
LaurelHills
PondJFBNWPond
LogisPond Brownie
Lake BirchPondMinnaquaWetlandGrimesPondBassett
CreekParkPond
SweeneyLakeBranchPond M Pond
F
Pond
DP
o nd
E
Union
PacificRailroad
Canadian
PacificRailroad
Bu
rlin
g
t
o n N o rt h er
nSant aFeRail roadCanadianPacificRailroadC
a n a d ia n P
a c ific R a ilr o a d C a n
a d ia n P a
cific
Railroad
U
nion
Pacific
Railroa
d
BrookviewGolf
Course
LionsPark
WesleyPark
S och acki
P
ark
SchaperPark
ScheidParkHampshireParkMedleyPark
BriarwoodLaurel
Avenue
Greenbelt
Glenview
TerracePark
North
TyrolParkWestern
AvenueMarsh
Nature
Area
GeartyPark
Sandburg
AthleticFacility
NatchezPark
ValleyView
ParkPennsylvaniaWoods
BassettCreekNature
Area
WildwoodParkIsaacsonPark
SouthTyrolPark
SeemanPark
AdelineNature
AreaYosemiteParkStockmanPark
Golden OaksPark St
CroixPark LakeviewPark
SweeneyPark
Perpich
CenterBallFieldsRonaldB.
Davis
Community Center
Brookview Park
Westwood HillsNatureCenter (SLP)MPRB)Theodore
WirthRegional
ParkEloiseButler
WildflowerGarden and
Bird
Sanctuary
Wirth LakeBeachGoldenRidgeNature
Area
GeneralMills
Nature
Preserve
General
Mills
ResearchNatureArea
BooneOpenSpace
GoldenHills
Pond
MadisonPond
SouthTyrolPond LibraryHill
IdahoWetland
GeorgiaOpenSpace
ArdmoreNorth&
SouthPonds
JanalynPond
MeadowPond Spac
e
PlymouthOpen
Avenue
OrklaOpenSpace
PicnicPavilion Chalet SochackiPark (T
hree
Rivers
P
ark
Dist.)
Bassett
Valley
OpenSpaceByrdBluffOpenSpace
FishingDock
PaisleyPark
XeniaOpenSpace DahlbergOpenSpace Minnaqua Gre
e
n
b
elt
TRPD)
Mpls
Park &
Rec
Board)
456766
456770
456766
456740
456740
4567156
4567102 394 394
Æÿ55 Æÿ55 Æÿ100
Æÿ100 169
169 34th
Ave
N Medicine
Lake
Rd BroggerCir Knoll
St
Lilac Dr
NLilac Dr NThotland
Rd Mendelssohn
AveWinnetka Ave
NSunnyridgeCir Western
Ave (WaterfordDr)
Hillsboro Ave
NZealandAve NAquila
Ave NOrkla
DrWisconsin AveN23rd AveN
KalternLn Wynnwood
Rd 25th Ave NBies
DrJonellen
Ln Sumter
Ave NRhodeIslandAveNPatsy
Ln
Valders
Ave
NWinnetka
Ave NDuluth
St
Florida
AveNSandburg
Rd HeritageCirKentley Ave Wynnwood
Rd
Kenneth Way
Unity Ave NBa
s se
tt CreekDrQuailAveNScott
Ave
NLilac
Dr NLowry Ter
33rd Ave N
NobleAve
NCross LnQuail
Ave NScott
Ave
NRegentAveNToledo AveNIndiana Ave
N(BridgewaterRd)(WaterfordCt)(
Hid
denLnkesPkwy)
MeadowLnNFranceAve
NTopel
Rd Unity
Ave NPhoenix St
Parkview
TerWelcomeAveNWelcomeCir
Welcom
eAveNXeniaAveNZa
ne Av e
NLindsay
St
St Croix Ave
N St
Croix
Ave N
Yosemite Ave NWolfberryLnBrunswick
Ave NCounty
Rd 102Westmore
Way Green
Valley Rd
Louisiana Ave
NKelly
DrMaryland
Ave
NOlympia St Winsdale
St Winnetka
Ave NYukon CtWesleyDr
WesleyDr Plymouth
AveN10thAveN
Kelly
DrVarnerCirPennsylvania
Ave
NFaribault StQuebec Ave
NRhodeIsland
Ave
NPhoenix
St
Knoll
St
CountyRd156JerseyAveNCountryClubDrPhoe ni x
S
t
Douglas
DrGeorgia
Ave
NCoun
ty
Rd40Hampshire
Ave
NWestc h e sterCirJersey Ave NGardenParkQuebecAv eSWinnetkaAveNWally
St
Ensign
AveN7thAveN GoldenValleyRdDecatur AveN10th
AveN
Natchez Ave
NXerxes
Ave N (
Mpls)Olson
Memorial Hwy
CutacrossRdOlsonMemorial
Hwy
Earl St
Flag Ave
NHampshireLnJerseyAve
NFloridaAveNEdgewoodAveNDouglasDrDuluth
Ln Scott Ave
NDrake
Rd LowryTer
Kyle Ave
NQuail Ave
NPerry Ave NNobleAveNCulver
Rd Dawnview
Ter Dona
Ln
Noble
Ave NScottAveNGl
endenTer CulverRd
Marie
Ln
W Hampton Rd
RegentAveNPerryAveNLilacDr
N27thAve
NMerribeeDr
Kyle Ave
NHampton RdOrchard
Ave NMarie
Ln E
Lee Ave
NKyle Ave
NDresde nLnKewanee W
ay
26thAve
N Me ri
dia n Dr
P ar kvi
ew Bl v
d T e
rra ce
L n M an
or
D rM
cNairDrByrdAveN
Ba
ssettCreekDrMaryHillsDrZenith
Ave NVista
DrXerxes
Ave NYorkAve
NSt M
ar g
aretDr
ZephyrPlXerxesAve
NXerxes Ave
N (Mpls)(
SkylineDr)Spruce TrKyle
PlWestbrook
Rd Noble
AveFrontage
RdCircleDownOrchard Ave
NPerryAveNWindsorWayWestbendRdUnity
AveNG
r e
e n
v
iew
L
nRegent AveNSorellAveFrontenacAveQuailAve NStCroixAveNWinsdale St
StCroixCirAngelo
DrUnity
Ave NAlfred Rd
Spring Valley
RdN ob leDrMajor DrAdeline LnAngeloDrAngelo DrWillsPlToledo
Ave NOttawa Ave
NKillarneyD
rZaneAve NWoodstock
AveWoodstock Ave
Loring
LnYosemiteAveN Turners Crossroad
NW
estchesterCirN F
rontageRdFloridaAveNHampshireAve
NPlymouth Ave N
Idaho Ave NOlympia
StHampshire Ave NArcher
Ave
NKelly
DrPennsylvania
Ave NDuluth
St
Xylon
Ave
NWisconsin
Ave
NSumterAve
NBoone
Ave
NWinsdale
St Meadow
LnN Dahlberg
DrWoodstockAvePoplar
Dr Meadow
Ln NCh ate
lainTer
Natchez
Ave
NEdgewood
Ave
NKingston
Cir
Glenwood AveCountryClub
DrV
a ldersAveNOrkla
DrElginPlDecaturAveN
Indiana
Ave NRoanokeCirWesternAve WesternAveHarold
Ave Loring
Ln
WestwoodDrNArdmoreDrWinsdale StKnoll
St
Oak
Grove
CirDuluth
St Zane
AveNDouglas Dr27thAve NBonnie Ln
Medicine
Lake Rd Madison
Ave
WNevadaAve
NLouisiana AveNCounty Rd70 ValdersAve
NValders
AveN23rdAveN
Rhode
IslandAve NCounty Rd 156Medicine Lake RdMendelssohn Ave
NWinsdale St
St
Croix
Ave
N
June Ave NLegend
DrLegendLn General
Mills BlvdBoone
Ave
NSunnyridge LnGlenwood
Ave
Janalyn CirJanalyn CirGlencrest
Rd MeadowLnSWayzata BlvdWestwood Dr SWestwoodLnStrawberryLnOttawaAveNOttawaAve SNatchez
Ave
S Tyrol
Crest Su ssex R dJune Ave
SWayzataBlvdFairlawnWayNatchez Ave SOttawa
Ave
SPrincetonAve
SDouglas
Ave
CircleDownTurners
Crossroad
SGolden
Hills
Dr
LaurelAveLaurel
Ave HampshireAve SDakota
Ave
SBrunswick Ave SKing
Hill RdGlenwoodAve ColonialDrMedicine
LakeRd
FloridaAveSAlley Market
StMarketSt Louisiana
AveSLaurel AvePennsylvania
AveSRhodeIsland
Ave SSumter Ave SUtahAve
SGregory RdVermontAve SWi
sconsi
nAveSGeneralMills
BlvdHanley
RdRidgeway
Rd
LaurelAve
QubecAveS
County
Rd
102Nevada
Ave
SColonial
RdLouisianaAveSKentucky
Ave SJersey
Ave
SHeathbrookeCir
G
le nw
o
o d
P k w
y CarriagePath)
Xenia
Ave SFlorida
CtLilac
Dr
NOlsonMemorial
Hwy
Schaper Rd Lilac DrNGo ld e n
Va
lle y
Rd LilacDr
N(WoodlandTrail)(
Wat.
Dr)BassettCreekLn NobleDr)France Ave S (Mpls)N Frontage
Rd SFrontage
Rd
Olson
Mem HwyAdair
Ave
NAdair
Ave NWestbrookRd34th
Ave N
Mendelssohn
Ave
NAlley-
Unimproved--
Unimproved-
Wayzata
Blvd Wayzata BlvdBoone
Ave NGol
d
en Vall
eyDr
SchullerCirN
FrontageRd
S
Frontage
Rd Rhode
IslandAve N Pennsylvania
Ave SAlley
Alley Private)
AlleyAlleyLilac Dr
NXerxes Ave
N (
Mpls)Harold Ave
WestwoodDrNArdmoreDrT
he
od
oreWirthPk
wy
Tyrol Tr(
MendelssohnLn)AlleySFrontageRdAlpinePassBren
n
e
r
PassDouglas
Ave
QuentinAveSTyrol
Tra
ilTyrol TrailSunsetRidge Westw oodDrSRavineTrTyrol Trail Janalyn
Ci rMadd usLn MeadowLnSAvondaleRdBurntsideDr Sun nyridgeLnBrun
swickAveNLeberLnC love rleafDrCloverLnCloverleafDr TheodoreWirthPkwyBeverlyAveBu
rntsideDrSpringValleyRdToledoAveNDuluthSt
G
o lde
nValley
R
d SpringValleyCirCounty Rd
66
IslandDr)(IslandDr)GoldenValley RdTheodoreWirthPkwyWirt h
Pkw
yW ay
z a
t
aBlvd
Gl en
w oo
d P
k wyPlymouthAveN(Mpls)
ZenithAveNCrest vi
ewA ve Byrd
Ave N Hwy
55 Glenwood AveBassett CreekDr
Legend DrLeeAveNLeeAveNMajorAveNLeeAveNElmdaleRdAdell AveM innaquaDrM
in
n
a
q u
aDr
ToledoAveNOrdwayMarkayRidge
Orchard
Ave
NNormandy Pl
CherokeePlQuailAveNRegentAveNTrit o
n D
rTrit
on Dr L
o w
ry Ter 3
3rd AveN
SandburgLn LamplighterL
n BrookridgeAveNValeCrestRdWinfieldAveCountyRd66
P ark
Place Blv
d SLP)I-394SFrontageRd (SLP)XeniaAveSCountyRd70Lilac
D r NLilacDrNLilac
D
r NConstanceDrWConstanceDrESandburg
Rd S FrontageRd NFrontage RdN
Frontage
RdOlsonMemorialHwy
S Fron tag e
Rd
Olson Memo rial Hwy OlsonMemorialHwy
Valleyw o odCirYosemite
CirLawn TerRadissonRd Turnpike RdAlle y AlleyTurnpikeRd Col onial
Dr GlenwoodAve BrunswickAve
NMeanderRd
MeanderRdIdahoAveNHaroldAve Wayzata
APPENDIX C
Updated Medley Park Proposal
Page 43
Medley Park Community Input Report Page 33
MEDLEY PARK PROPOSED CHANGES
Updated Map Based On Community Input
APPENDIX D
Survey Results
Page 45
Do you support or
oppose the City
developing an off-leash
pet exercise area in the
Golden Valley parks
system?
Do you support or oppose the
City developing a community
garden in the Golden Valley
parks system where residents
can rent raised containers to
grow vegetables?
In which quadrant of
Golden Valley do you
live?
Approximately how
many years have
you lived in Golden
Valley?
Do you
rent or
own your
present
residence?
What is your
age?
Strongly Oppose Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Own 19–30
Strongly Oppose Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Own 31–50
Strongly Oppose Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Own 31–50
Strongly Oppose Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Own 31–50
Strongly Oppose Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave Less than 5 years Own 19–30
Strongly Oppose Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave Less than 5 years Own 19–30
Strongly Support Strongly Support
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave Less than 5 years Own 31–50
Strongly Support Strongly Support
South of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave Less than 5 years Own 19–30
Strongly Support Support
South of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave Less than 5 years Own 31–50
Oppose Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 21–30 years Own 51–65
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 21–30 years Own 51–65
Neutral Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave Less than 5 years Own 51–65
Support Support
South of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 21–30 years Own 51–65
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 21–30 years Own 66–79
Oppose Neutral
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 31–50
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
South of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Own 31–50
Support Support
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 51–65
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Own 19–30
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 31–50
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Own 31–50
Support Support
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 31–50
Neutral Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 21–30 years Own 51–65
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
South of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 21–30 years Own 51–65
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 21–30 years Own 51–65
Strongly Support Strongly Support
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Rent 51–65
Support Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 21–30 years Own 51–65
Neutral Neutral
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 31+ years Own 51–65
Strongly Support Strongly Support
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Own 51–65
Strongly Support Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Own 31–50
Support Support
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 21–30 years Own 51–65
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
South of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave Less than 5 years Own 31–50
Neutral Strongly Support
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 31–50
Support Strongly Oppose
South of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Own 31–50
Oppose Support
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Own 51–65
Strongly Support Strongly Support
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 31+ years Own 51–65
Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 21–30 years Own 51–65
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 31–50
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 51–65
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 51–65
Strongly Support Strongly Support
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 31–50
Oppose Support
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 51–65
Strongly Support Strongly Support
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 31–50
Neutral Neutral
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 21–30 years Own 51–65
Strongly Oppose Support
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Own 51–65
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 51–65
Strongly Support Support
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave Less than 5 years Rent 31–50
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 21–30 years Own 51–65
Strongly Support Neutral
South of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 31+ years Own 51–65
Strongly Support Strongly Support
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave Less than 5 years Own 19–30
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 21–30 years Own 51–65
Strongly Support Strongly Support
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave Less than 5 years Own 31–50
Oppose Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 31+ years Own 66–79
Strongly Support Support
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave Less than 5 years Own 51–65
Neutral Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Own 31–50
Oppose Oppose
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 21–30 years Own 51–65
Support Support
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave Less than 5 years Own 31–50
Strongly Oppose Support
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Own 51–65
Strongly Oppose Neutral
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 21–30 years Own 51–65
Neutral Support
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 21–30 years Own 51–65
Strongly Support Strongly Support
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave Less than 5 years Own 31–50
Support Strongly Support
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave Less than 5 years Own 31–50
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 31+ years Own 51–65
Strongly Oppose Neutral
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 21–30 years Own 51–65
Strongly Oppose Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 21–30 years Own 51–65
Strongly Oppose Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 21–30 years Own 51–65
Oppose Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave Less than 5 years Own 19–30
Strongly Support Neutral
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 31+ years Own 66–79
Strongly Oppose Neutral
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 31+ years Own 66–79
Oppose
Strongly Support Strongly Support
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 51–65
Support Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Own 51–65
Oppose Oppose
South of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave Less than 5 years Own 31–50
Support Strongly Support
South of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 31+ years Own 66–79
Neutral Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 21–30 years Own 51–65
Strongly Support Strongly Support
South of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Rent 19–30
Strongly Support Strongly Support
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 21–30 years Own 31–50
Strongly Support Strongly Support
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 21–30 years Own 31–50
Strongly Support Strongly Support
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 21–30 years Own 31–50
Strongly Support Strongly Support
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 21–30 years Own 31–50
Strongly Oppose Support
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 51–65
Strongly Support Neutral
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Own 31–50
Oppose Strongly Support
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 31–50
Strongly Support Support
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 31–50
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Own 31–50
Strongly Support Neutral
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Own 31–50
Strongly Support Strongly Support
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave Less than 5 years Own 31–50
Strongly Support Strongly Support
South of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Own 31–50
Strongly Support Strongly Support
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave Less than 5 years Own 31–50
Oppose Neutral
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 31+ years Own 66–79
Support Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 21–30 years Own 66–79
Strongly Support Strongly Support
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Own 51–65
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Own 31–50
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 21–30 years Own 51–65
Oppose Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 21–30 years Own 51–65
Strongly Oppose Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 31+ years Own 51–65
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 21–30 years Own 51–65
Strongly Support Strongly Support
South of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Own 31–50
Strongly Support Strongly Support
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave Less than 5 years Own 31–50
Strongly Support Strongly Support
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave Less than 5 years Own 31–50
Oppose Support
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave Less than 5 years Own 66–79
Strongly Oppose Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave Less than 5 years Own 51–65
Support Neutral
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Own 51–65
Strongly Support Strongly Support
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave Less than 5 years Own 31–50
Strongly Support Strongly Support
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave Less than 5 years Own 31–50
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
South of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave Less than 5 years Own 31–50
Oppose Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 31+ years Own 66–79
Strongly Support Strongly Support
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave Less than 5 years Own 31–50
Strongly Support Strongly Support
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave Less than 5 years Own 31–50
Strongly Oppose Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Own 31–50
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 21–30 years Own 51–65
Neutral Strongly Support
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 21–30 years Own 31–50
Strongly Support Support
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Rent 31–50
Strongly Support Strongly Support
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 51–65
Support Support
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 21–30 years Own 31–50
Strongly Support Strongly Support
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 31–50
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Own 31–50
Oppose Neutral
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 19–30
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
South of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave Less than 5 years Rent 19–30
Oppose Support
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Own 51–65
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 31–50
Neutral Neutral
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 21–30 years Own 31–50
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 31–50
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 51–65
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Own 31–50
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Rent 19–30
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
South of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Own 31–50
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 21–30 years Own 51–65
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 31+ years Own 66–79
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Own 31–50
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave Less than 5 years Rent 19–30
Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Own 31–50
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 31+ years Own 66–79
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave Less than 5 years Own 31–50
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Rent 31–50
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave Less than 5 years Rent 19–30
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
South of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 31–50
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 31+ years Own 80+
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 51–65
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Own 31–50
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Own 19–30
Neutral
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave Less than 5 years Own 66–79
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Own 31–50
Oppose Oppose
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave Less than 5 years Own 31–50
Strongly Support Strongly Support
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave Less than 5 years Own 31–50
Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave Less than 5 years Own 19–30
Strongly Oppose Oppose
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave Less than 5 years Rent 19–30
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
South of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Rent 31–50
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Rent 31–50
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Own 31–50
Oppose Oppose
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave Less than 5 years Own 19–30
Neutral Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 21–30 years Own 51–65
Strongly Support Strongly Support
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave Less than 5 years Own 31–50
Strongly Support Neutral
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Own 31–50
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave Less than 5 years Own 19–30
Strongly Support Neutral
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Own 31–50
Strongly Support Neutral
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave Less than 5 years Own 31–50
Strongly Support Neutral
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Own 31–50
Neutral Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave Less than 5 years Own 31–50
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Own 51–65
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave Less than 5 years Own 51–65
Strongly Support Strongly Support
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 31+ years Own 51–65
Support Strongly Oppose
South of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave Less than 5 years Own 31–50
Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 31–50
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 66–79
Strongly Support Neutral
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Own 31–50
Strongly Support Strongly Support
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave Less than 5 years Own 31–50
Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave Less than 5 years Own 19–30
Strongly Support Strongly Support
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave Less than 5 years Own 31–50
Support Strongly Support
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Own 31–50
Strongly Support Strongly Support
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave Less than 5 years Own 31–50
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Own 31–50
Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 21–30 years Own 51–65
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Own 19–30
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 31–50
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave Less than 5 years Own 19–30
Neutral Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 31–50
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Own 31–50
Oppose Support
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 31–50
Neutral Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave Less than 5 years Own 51–65
Strongly Support Strongly Support
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave Less than 5 years Own 31–50
Strongly Support Strongly Support
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave Less than 5 years Own 31–50
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 31–50
Strongly Support Neutral
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave Less than 5 years Own 51–65
Strongly Oppose Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 31+ years Own 80+
Strongly Oppose Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 31+ years Own 66–79
Support Support
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 21–30 years Own 66–79
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Own 31–50
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 31+ years Own 51–65
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 21–30 years Own 51–65
Strongly Support Strongly Support
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 51–65
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
South of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave Less than 5 years Rent 31–50
Strongly Oppose Neutral
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 21–30 years Own 51–65
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
South of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave Less than 5 years Rent 19–30
Strongly Support Neutral
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Own 31–50
Strongly Support Strongly Support
South of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 21–30 years Own 66–79
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Own 51–65
Strongly Support Neutral
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Rent 66–79
Strongly Support Strongly Support
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave Less than 5 years Own 19–30
Support Support
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 51–65
Support Support
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 51–65
Support Strongly Support
South of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 51–65
Strongly Support Neutral
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 31–50
Support Support
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Own 31–50
Oppose Support
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 51–65
Strongly Support Strongly Support
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave Less than 5 years Own 31–50
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave Less than 5 years Own 19–30
Strongly Support Strongly Support
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave Less than 5 years Own 31–50
Strongly Support Strongly Support
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave Less than 5 years Own 19–30
Strongly Support Support
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave Less than 5 years Own 31–50
Strongly Support Oppose
South of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 66–79
Strongly Support Neutral
South of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave Less than 5 years Own 31–50
Strongly Support Neutral
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave Less than 5 years Own 31–50
Oppose Support
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave Less than 5 years Own 31–50
Strongly Support Strongly Support
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave Less than 5 years Own 31–50
Strongly Support Strongly Support
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 51–65
Support Support
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 31–50
Strongly Support Strongly Support
South of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 31+ years Own 51–65
Support Support
South of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 31+ years Own 66–79
Neutral Neutral
Strongly Oppose Neutral
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 21–30 years Own 31–50
Strongly Oppose Support
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Own 31–50
Support Support
South of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Own 51–65
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 51–65
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 31–50
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Own 19–30
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 31–50
Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 21–30 years Own 66–79
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Own 31–50
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave Less than 5 years Rent 19–30
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Rent 31–50
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave Less than 5 years Rent 31–50
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave Less than 5 years Own 19–30
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 31+ years Own 66–79
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Rent 31–50
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 31–50
Oppose Strongly Oppose
South of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 21–30 years Own 66–79
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 31+ years Own 66–79
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave Less than 5 years Own 19–30
Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Own 19–30
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave Less than 5 years Rent 31–50
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Own 31–50
Support Support
South of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 51–65
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave Less than 5 years Own 19–30
Support Neutral
South of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 31–50
Oppose Strongly Support
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 21–30 years Own 51–65
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 31–50
Strongly Support Support
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 21–30 years Own 51–65
Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Own 19–30
Oppose Neutral
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 31–50
Strongly Support Strongly Support
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave Less than 5 years Own 31–50
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Own 31–50
Neutral Support
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 31+ years Own 31–50
Strongly Support Strongly Support
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave Less than 5 years Own 31–50
Support Strongly Support
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave Less than 5 years Own 31–50
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 31–50
Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Own 19–30
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
South of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave Less than 5 years Rent 19–30
Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Own 51–65
Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Own 31–50
Support Strongly Support
South of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 31–50
Oppose Oppose
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 31–50
Neutral Strongly Support
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 66–79
Strongly Support Support
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 31–50
Neutral Neutral
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 31–50
Neutral Neutral
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 31–50
Strongly Support Strongly Support
South of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 51–65
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Own 51–65
Strongly Support Support
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 31–50
Strongly Support Strongly Support
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Own 66–79
Strongly Support Support
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave Less than 5 years Own 31–50
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave Less than 5 years Own 51–65
Neutral Strongly Support
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Rent 51–65
Strongly Support Strongly Support
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 21–30 years Own 66–79
Strongly Support Neutral
South of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 31–50
Strongly Support Neutral
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave Less than 5 years Own 19–30
Strongly Support Strongly Support
South of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 31+ years Own 31–50
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Own 19–30
Strongly Support Strongly Support
South of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave Less than 5 years Own 31–50
Strongly Support Strongly Support
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 31–50
Neutral Strongly Support
South of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 51–65
Strongly Support Support
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 31–50
Neutral Neutral
South of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 31–50
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 31–50
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 21–30 years Own 66–79
Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 51–65
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Own 31–50
Oppose Strongly Oppose
South of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave Less than 5 years Own 19–30
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave Less than 5 years Own 19–30
Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 51–65
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 21–30 years Own 66–79
Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Own 31–50
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 66–79
Strongly Support Strongly Support
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Own 51–65
Strongly Support Strongly Support
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Own 31–50
Strongly Support Strongly Support
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 21–30 years Own 51–65
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Own 31–50
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 21–30 years Own 66–79
Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave Less than 5 years Own 19–30
Strongly Support Strongly Support
South of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 21–30 years Own 51–65
Support Strongly Support
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Own 31–50
Neutral Strongly Support
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 21–30 years Own 51–65
Strongly Support Neutral
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave Less than 5 years Own 19–30
Strongly Support Support
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 31–50
Strongly Support Strongly Support
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Rent 31–50
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 31–50
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave Less than 5 years Rent 19–30
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 31+ years Own 66–79
Strongly Support Neutral
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 31+ years Own 31–50
Neutral Neutral
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave Less than 5 years Own 31–50
Strongly Support Strongly Support
South of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 31–50
Strongly Support Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Own 51–65
Neutral Strongly Support
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave Less than 5 years Rent 31–50
Strongly Support Support
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave Less than 5 years Own 19–30
Support Strongly Support
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave Less than 5 years Own 51–65
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 21–30 years Own 51–65
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Own 31–50
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 31–50
Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Own 31–50
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave Less than 5 years Rent 31–50
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 51–65
Support Support
South of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Own 31–50
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 51–65
Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave Less than 5 years Own 19–30
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
South of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Own 31–50
Oppose Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Own 31–50
Oppose Support
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Own 31–50
Strongly Support Neutral
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 31–50
Strongly Oppose Strongly Support
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave Less than 5 years Own 31–50
Support Support
South of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 66–79
Support Strongly Support
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 21–30 years Own 51–65
Support Neutral
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 31+ years Own 66–79
Strongly Support Neutral
South of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 51–65
Strongly Support Strongly Oppose
South of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 19–30
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Own 31–50
Strongly Support Strongly Support
South of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 21–30 years Own 51–65
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Rent 31–50
Strongly Support Strongly Support
South of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 21–30 years Own 19–30
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 66–79
Strongly Support Strongly Support
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave Less than 5 years Own 31–50
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 31–50
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 51–65
Strongly Support Neutral
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Own 31–50
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 21–30 years Own 51–65
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
South of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave Less than 5 years Rent 19–30
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave Less than 5 years Rent 19–30
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave Less than 5 years Rent 31–50
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
South of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 31–50
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 31–50
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Own 31–50
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Rent 19–30
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
South of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 31+ years Own 66–79
Strongly Support Oppose
South of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 31–50
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 66–79
Strongly Support Strongly Support
South of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave Less than 5 years Own 31–50
Support Support
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave Less than 5 years Own 19–30
Strongly Support Strongly Support
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 21–30 years Own 51–65
Strongly Support Strongly Support
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave Less than 5 years Own 31–50
Strongly Support Support
Strongly Support Oppose
South of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Own 31–50
Strongly Support Neutral
South of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 19–30
Strongly Support Strongly Support
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 31–50
Strongly Support Strongly Support
Strongly Support Strongly Support
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave Less than 5 years Own 31–50
Strongly Support Strongly Support
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave Less than 5 years Rent 31–50
Strongly Support Strongly Support
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Rent 51–65
Strongly Support Neutral
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Own 31–50
Strongly Support Strongly Support
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 21–30 years Own 51–65
Strongly Support Strongly Support
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Rent 51–65
Support Strongly Support
South of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 31+ years Own 51–65
Strongly Support Strongly Support
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Own 31–50
Support Neutral
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 21–30 years Own 31–50
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Own 31–50
Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 21–30 years Own 66–79
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave Less than 5 years Rent 31–50
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 31–50
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 51–65
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 31–50
Strongly Support Strongly Support
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave Less than 5 years Rent 19–30
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
South of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Own 31–50
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 31–50
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave Less than 5 years Rent 19–30
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 31–50
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 21–30 years Own 66–79
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Own 31–50
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 51–65
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 51–65
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 31+ years Own 66–79
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Rent 31–50
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave Less than 5 years Rent 19–30
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 31–50
Strongly Support Strongly Support
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 31–50
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Own 31–50
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 21–30 years Own 51–65
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 51–65
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 66–79
Neutral Neutral
South of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 21–30 years Own 51–65
Strongly Support Strongly Support
South of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave Less than 5 years Own 31–50
Neutral Strongly Support
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 66–79
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 31–50
Strongly Oppose Support
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 51–65
Support Neutral
South of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 31–50
Strongly Oppose Support
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Own 31–50
Support Support
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Own 31–50
Strongly Support Strongly Support
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave Less than 5 years Own 31–50
Strongly Support Strongly Support
South of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 51–65
Strongly Support Neutral
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 31–50
Strongly Support Strongly Support
South of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 51–65
Strongly Support Neutral
South of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Own 19–30
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Rent 19–30
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 31–50
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
South of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Own 31–50
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Own 51–65
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 31+ years Own 66–79
Strongly Support Support
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave Less than 5 years Own 19–30
Strongly Support Support
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 31–50
Oppose Neutral
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave Less than 5 years Own 31–50
Strongly Support Strongly Support
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave Less than 5 years Own 31–50
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 51–65
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Rent 31–50
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave Less than 5 years Own 51–65
Strongly Support Strongly Support
South of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 51–65
Oppose
Strongly Support Neutral
South of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Own 31–50
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 21–30 years Own 51–65
Strongly Support Support
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 21–30 years Own 31–50
Strongly Oppose Oppose
South of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave Less than 5 years Own 31–50
Support Support
South of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave Less than 5 years Own 19–30
Strongly Support Strongly Support
South of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 31–50
Support Strongly Support
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 31+ years Own 66–79
Neutral Support
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Own 31–50
Support Strongly Support
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 80+
Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave Less than 5 years Own 31–50
Support Support
South of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 21–30 years Own 31–50
Support Strongly Oppose
South of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 51–65
Strongly Support Strongly Support
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave Less than 5 years Own 31–50
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 51–65
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Own 31–50
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Own 31–50
Neutral Support Less than 5 years Own 31–50
Neutral Support
South of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 51–65
Strongly Support Strongly Support
South of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Own 31–50
Support Support
South of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 21–30 years Own 51–65
Neutral Strongly Support
South of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave Less than 5 years Own 31–50
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Own 31–50
Strongly Support Strongly Support
South of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave
Strongly Support Strongly Support
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Rent 31–50
Strongly Support Strongly Support
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave Less than 5 years Own 31–50
Strongly Support Strongly Support
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 51–65
Strongly Support Neutral
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 31+ years Own 66–79
Strongly Support Strongly Support
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 31+ years Own 51–65
Strongly Support Strongly Support
South of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 31–50
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Own 31–50
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
South of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 31–50
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 66–79
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave Less than 5 years Rent 19–30
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
South of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave Less than 5 years Rent 19–30
Strongly Support Strongly Support
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 21–30 years Own 31–50
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 51–65
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 51–65
Strongly Support Strongly Support
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 21–30 years Own 51–65
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Own 31–50
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Own 31–50
Strongly Support Support
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 31+ years Own 51–65
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 51–65
Neutral Strongly Support
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Own 31–50
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave Less than 5 years Rent 31–50
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Own 31–50
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
South of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave Less than 5 years Rent 19–30
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Own 31–50
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Own 19–30
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
South of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave Less than 5 years Own 19–30
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 31–50
Strongly Support Strongly Support
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Own 31–50
Strongly Support Strongly Support
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 21–30 years Own 31–50
Strongly Support Strongly Support
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Rent 31–50
Strongly Support Strongly Support
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave Less than 5 years Own 31–50
Strongly Support Strongly Support
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 31–50
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
South of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave Less than 5 years Own 19–30
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 51–65
Neutral Neutral
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 31+ years Own 51–65
Strongly Support Strongly Support
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 21–30 years Own 51–65
Strongly Support Support
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 31–50
Strongly Support Strongly Support
South of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave Less than 5 years Own 31–50
Neutral Strongly Support
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 31–50
Strongly Support Strongly Support
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 31–50
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 66–79
Support Support
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 51–65
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Own 31–50
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 51–65
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
South of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Own 19–30
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
South of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 31–50
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Own 51–65
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
South of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Rent 19–30
Strongly Oppose Oppose
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Own 31–50
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Own 31–50
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
South of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Own 31–50
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Own 31–50
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
South of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 31–50
Oppose Neutral
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 31+ years Own 51–65
Support Support
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave Less than 5 years Own 31–50
Neutral Support
South of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave Less than 5 years Own 31–50
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 31–50
Strongly Support Strongly Support
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave Less than 5 years Own 31–50
Support Support
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 31–50
Support Neutral
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave Less than 5 years Own 31–50
Oppose Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 31–50
Strongly Support Oppose
South of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave Less than 5 years Own 19–30
Strongly Support Strongly Support
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 21–30 years Own 51–65
Strongly Support Strongly Support
South of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Rent 19–30
Strongly Support Strongly Support
South of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 21–30 years Own 51–65
Strongly Oppose Oppose
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 21–30 years Own 19–30
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 31–50
Support Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Own 19–30
Strongly Support Strongly Support
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave Less than 5 years Own 31–50
Support Support
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 21–30 years Own 66–79
Strongly Support Strongly Support
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 51–65
Neutral Support
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave Less than 5 years Own 31–50
Strongly Support Support
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 51–65
Strongly Support Strongly Support
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Own 31–50
Support Support
South of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Own 31–50
Strongly Oppose Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 31–50
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Own 19–30
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave Less than 5 years Own 19–30
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 31–50
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
South of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave Less than 5 years Rent 31–50
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Own 19–30
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
South of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Own 31–50
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 21–30 years Own 66–79
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
South of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Rent 31–50
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 51–65
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 31–50
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 51–65
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 31+ years Own 66–79
Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 31+ years Own 66–79
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
South of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Own 31–50
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Own 19–30
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 31–50
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 21–30 years Own 66–79
Oppose Oppose
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Own 31–50
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 51–65
Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Own 31–50
Oppose Oppose
South of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Own 31–50
Oppose Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 51–65
Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Own 31–50
Oppose Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 31–50
Strongly Support Strongly Support
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave Less than 5 years Own 31–50
Strongly Support Strongly Support
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 21–30 years Own 51–65
Support Strongly Support
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 21–30 years Own 51–65
Strongly Support Strongly Support
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Own 31–50
Support Strongly Support
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave Less than 5 years Own 51–65
Neutral Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 21–30 years Own 51–65
Strongly Support Support
South of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 21–30 years Own 31–50
Support Strongly Support
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave Less than 5 years Own 19–30
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 31–50
Strongly Support Oppose
South of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Own 19–30
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Own 31–50
Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 66–79
Oppose Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave Less than 5 years Rent 19–30
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
South of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Own 31–50
Strongly Support Strongly Support
South of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 21–30 years Own 66–79
Strongly Support Strongly Support
South of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Own 51–65
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Own 31–50
Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 31–50
Neutral Support
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 21–30 years Own 51–65
Neutral Strongly Support
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave Less than 5 years Own 31–50
Strongly Support Strongly Support
South of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 31–50
Strongly Support Strongly Support
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave Less than 5 years Own 51–65
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 31–50
Oppose Strongly Oppose
South of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 51–65
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Own 19–30
Strongly Support Support
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave Less than 5 years Own 31–50
Neutral Strongly Support
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave Less than 5 years Own 31–50
Strongly Support Strongly Support
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave Less than 5 years Own 31–50
Neutral Neutral
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 21–30 years Rent 66–79
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 31–50
Strongly Support Neutral
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 21–30 years Own 51–65
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 31–50
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 21–30 years Own 66–79
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Own 19–30
Strongly Support Strongly Support
South of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave Less than 5 years Own 31–50
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 31–50
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Own 31–50
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 51–65
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave Less than 5 years Own 19–30
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Own 31–50
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Own 51–65
Oppose Support
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 31+ years Own 31–50
Strongly Support Strongly Support
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave Less than 5 years Own 51–65
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 5–10 years Own 31–50
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
North of Hwy 55, east
of Winnetka Ave 21–30 years Own 51–65
Strongly Oppose Strongly Oppose
South of Hwy 55, west
of Winnetka Ave 11–20 years Own 31–50
Golden Valley Council/Manager Meeting
February 11, 2020
Agenda Item
2.Control of Animal Ordinance Discussion
Prepared By
Jason Sturgis, Police Chief
Summary
The City’s Control of Animals ordinance has not been updated in several decades. (City Code Sec. 6-33.)
Staff recommends updating this section of the code. Current language allows for any dog or animal to
be “under the control and direction of the person having control or custody so as to be as effectively
restrained by command as by leash.” The updated ordinance would no longer allow the use of voice
command for control and would require the use of a leash no longer than six feet in length.
The communications team will implement a public information campaign to outline the issues and
gather community input, including a brief survey in both online and printed versions that will be
available for about six weeks. The City will share information on its website news feed, in CityNews and
social media posts, in press releases to local media, and in email blasts with appropriate lists.
The next action would be for the Council to consider adopting the proposed language changes
sometime in April 2020.
Financial Or Budget Considerations
Not applicable
Supporting Documents
•City Code Section 6.33 Leashing with underline-overstrick language(1 page)
•Proposed Section 6.33 Control of Animals (1 page)
Sec. 6-33. - Leashing.– Control of Animals
No person having custody or control of any dog or animal shall at any time permit thesamea)
to be on or in land, other than land owned, leased, or occupied by the person having the
custody or control of such dog or animal, without the dog or animal being effectively
restrained by a leash, tether, fence, or command control as herein set forth,invisible fence
from going beyond such unfencedland.
Any area or, lot; nor shall any, or yard that utilizes an invisible fence to prevent a dog or
animal from escaping or getting loose must have prominent signage indicating that an
invisible fence is present and the invisible fence must be in working order and effective in
restraining the movement of the dog or animal and preventing its escape from the fenced
area.
Tethers may only be used if all of the following requirements are met:
Tethers must be at least three (3) times the length of the animal secured to it.1)
Any animal secured with a tether must be in an area that would not allowthe2)
animal to become tangled around objects and allow the animal access to shelter
and water.
Tethers must be placed in such a location as to inhibit the secured animalfrom3)
reaching a public sidewalk, street, school grounds, alley, or public place or any other
property other than the owner or custodian's property.
Tethers may not exceed five (5) pounds in weight but shall be of appropriateweight4)
for the size of the animal.
Animals shall not be tethered without on-site supervision.5)
Tethering of any animal by the leg shall be prohibited.6)
No person having the custody or control of any dog or animal of the dog kindshallpermitb)
the same at any time to be on any street, alley, public park, or public place, other than an
area officially designated for off leash activities, without being effectively restrained by
chain ora leash not exceeding six feet in length, unless. Any person 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 leashsuch dog or animal on a public sidewalk,
street, or pathway shall at all times yield the right-of-way to other users and shall not
interfere or allow the dog or animal to interfere with other users.
C ode 1988, § 10.30(13))
Sec. 6-33. – Control of Animals
a) No person having custody or control of any dog or animal shall at any time permit the same
to be on land, other than land owned, leased, or occupied by the person having the custody
or control of such dog or animal, without the dog or animal being effectively restrained by a
leash, tether, fence, or invisible fence from going beyond such land.
Any area, lot, or yard that utilizes an invisible fence to prevent a dog or animal from
escaping or getting loose must have prominent signage indicating that an invisible fence is
present and the invisible fence must be in working order and effective in restraining the
movement of the dog or animal and preventing its escape from the fenced area.
Tethers may only be used if all of the following requirements are met:
1) Tethers must be at least three (3) times the length of the animal secured to it.
2) Any animal secured with a tether must be in an area that would not allow the animal
to become tangled around objects and allow the animal access to shelter and water.
3) Tethers must be placed in such a location as to inhibit the secured animal from
reaching a public sidewalk, street, school grounds, alley, or public place or any other
property other than the owner or custodian's property.
4) Tethers may not exceed five (5) pounds in weight but shall be of appropriate weight
for the size of the animal.
5) Animals shall not be tethered without on-site supervision.
6) Tethering of any animal by the leg shall be prohibited.
b) No person having custody or control of any dog or animal shall permit the same at any time
to be on any street, alley, public park, or public place, other than an area officially
designated for off leash activities, without being effectively restrained by a leash not
exceeding six feet in length. Any person accompanied by such dog or animal on a public
sidewalk, street, or pathway shall at all times yield the right-of-way to other users and shall
not interfere or allow the dog or animal to interfere with other users.
Golden Valley Council/Manager Meeting
February 11, 2020
Agenda Item
3. MnDOT Highway 55 Trail Project – Winnetka Avenue North to Glenwood Avenue
Prepared By
Marc Nevinski, Physical Development Director
Summary
MnDOT is planning to resurface Highway 55 from General Mills Blvd to Highway 100 in 2021. This work
is expected to be completed over two weekends and done under traffic.
Additionally, as part of the resurfacing project, MnDOT is proposing to construct a multi-use trail along
the south side of Highway 55 between Winnetka Ave and Glenwood Ave. The trail is identified on the
City’s Bike and Pedestrian Plan and will be the first section of a larger route identified for the Highway
55 corridor. The route extends from General Mills Blvd east to Theodore Wirth Parkway. The trail will
include connections at Winnetka Ave, Rhode Island Ave, and Glenwood Ave.
The trail will be constructed within MnDOT right of way. It will become the City’s trail and therefore it’s
responsibility to maintain the trail. MnDOT will issue the City a limited use permit for the trail. To
accommodate the location of the trail and work areas, impacts to trees in the right of way are
expected. Construction of the trail is estimated to last eight weeks.
City staff and MnDOT met recently to discuss this project, and specifically the public engagement and
communications associated with it. MnDOT will provide high level information throughout the corridor
and use its usual channels to announce the resurfacing project and its schedule. The City will link
information from MnDOT to the City’s webpage, and push out information on social media. The City
will also provide more detailed information to residents about the trail and hold an open house this
spring, specifically reaching out to residents along Highway 55 who may be impacted by the project.
Financial Or Budget Considerations
MnDOT has budgeted $300,000 for the construction of the trail. If construction costs exceed this
amount, the City may be asked to fund the difference. Funding could be included in the 2021 Street
CIP.
Supporting Documents
Location Map of Proposed Trail Route (1 page)
Bike and Pedestrian Plan Map (1 page)
456740
4567156
Æÿ55
Harold Ave
OlsonMemorialHwyWinnetka
Ave NCountry Club
DrGlenwood
Ave Kelly DrG o ld e n V a lle y
R
d
Rhode
Island Ave NRidgeway RdEllis L n Louisiana Ave NSchuller CirWinnetka Ave NO l s o n
M
e
m o r i a
l Hw
y Gl enwood AveProposed MnDOT Constructed
Trail, 2021 I 0 300
600150Feet Sources: Print
Date: 2/6/2020-Hennepin County Surveyors Office
for PropertyLines (
2019).-City of Golden Valley
äääääääääääääää
ääääCITYOFNEWHOPE C I T Y O F C R Y S T A L
C I T Y O F R O B B I N S D A L E
CITY OF MINNEAPOLISC I T Y O F S T . L OU I S P A
R K CITY
OF MINNEAPOLISCITY OFST. LOUISPARKCITY
OF ROBBINSDALECITY OF CRYSTAL CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARKCITY OF CRYSTALC I T
YOFN EWHOPECITY OFPLYMOUTHCITY OFMINNEAPOLISC
I
T
Y
O
FST.
L O
U
I
S
P
A
R
KCITY
OFPLYMOUTH456766 456770
456766 456740
456740 4567156 4567102
394 394
Æÿ55Æÿ55 Æÿ100
Æÿ100 169
169 Laurel Ave
Duluth St
10th Ave
N Regent Ave NNoble Ave
NOlympia St Western
Ave
Culver Rd 23rd
Ave N Kelly
DrWayzata Blvd
Knoll St
Plym ou th
Ave N
Sumter
Ave
NPennsylvania Ave
NN Frontage Rd
S cottQuebec
Ave NValders
Ave
NCountry
Club Dr
26th Ave
NSandburg
RdZane
Ave NManor
DrWinsdale St Brunswick Ave
N34th
Ave
N
Boone
Ave
NEarl
St
Rd
A veNBridgewaterRdTryol
Tra ilFlorida
Ave
NHanley
RdGolden
Hills Dr
Lowry Ter Winnetka Ave
SXerxes
Ave NIndependence
Ave
NMajorDrZenith
Ave
NFlag
Ave NWestwood
Dr SWestbend
Rd SumterAveSHampshire
L
nOrchard
Ave NCircle
Down Lindsay
St
NobleDrPoplar
DrAve
Heights Dr Heights
Dr SFrontage
R d Dres d
e n L nLeg
e
ndDrFrontage RdBrookridgeAveNWinnetka
Ave NLawnTerNatchez
Ave SGettysburg Ave
NMarket
St
Naper
St
Decatur
Ave
N Oregon
Ave
NKewanee W ay Pennsylvania
Ave SDona
LnArdmoreDrGlenwoodP
k
w
y Tryol
TrailWestbrook
Rd
M
cNair
Dr Phoenix StOttawa
Ave NThotland Rd Wisconsin Ave NUtah Ave SJersey
Ave
SBies
DrWills
PlColon
i
al
DrEdgewood
Ave NBassettCree
k
DrAdair
AveNJuneAve
SNevadaAve
NHarold Ave BrookviewPkwyNWynnwood
Rd Lee
Ave NTurners
Cr ossroadNAquil aAveNMendelssohn
AveNBrookview
Pkwy
SE
lm
daleRd
M
ea nderRd Jersey Ave NSorell Ave Dakota Ave SVista DrKyleAveNWindsorWayAve SGoldenValleyR
oad/County R o
ad 66Highway 100RoseMaryland
Ave
NAlfred
Rd
Cortlawn
Cir
SIdaho
Ave
NIndianaAve
N7th
Ave
NRhode
Island Ave NBrunswick Ave SZ a n e Av
e NBurntsideDrRoanoke Rd WoodstockAve PerryAveNAve
NTrailMedle y L n Georgia
AveNWally
St
Cutacross
Rd
Xenia Ave
NHampshireKillarney DrKentucky
AveSJune
Ave NZephyr PlLouisiana Ave
SCloverLnC loverleafDr
Clo v erleafDrLilacLoop
MaryHillsDrFloridaAveSXylonAveNDecaturAveNKent uckyAveNTopelRd
YorkAve NGreenValley Rd Chatelain Te
rN
o
r
ma
n
d
y Bo
n
n i
e L
n Elgin Pl
MerribeeDr
Louisiana
Ave
NDuluthLn
Marie
Ln
E Kalt ernLnOrkla DrLilacDrNToledoAveNMa
rkayRidgeWestbend
Rd FairlawnWayG
o ldenValleyR dNevada
Ave
SMarieLn
W
WestmoreWay
WolfberryLn
HamptonRd
YukonCtHampshireAve
NKentleyAve
Cortlawn Cir WWinnetka Oregon Ave SPlUnityAveNB
a s s e t t
C reek
Dr BassettCreek
Ln M innaq
u aD rToledoA
v e NWinfieldAveUnity
AveNBre
n n
er
P
a
s
s
FaribaultSt
ArcherAve
N
AdelineLn
K in g s t o n
Cir
G
o
ld
enV
a
lle
yD
rVarnerCirValders Ct G reenview LnHampshire Ave
NWinnetka
Phoenix
St
Duluth
St
WayzataBlvdWisconsinAveN
Adell A
v
e
MajorAveNZealandAveNEnsignAveNKelly
DrXerxes
Ave
NKnoll
St
Lilac
Dr
NFlagAve
NRhode
Island
Ave
NPlymouth
Ave
N
Wayzata Blvd G o lden Valley
R
d Orkla DrWayzata
BlvdAveNZealandAveNS
tCroixCirLeeAveNLamplighterLnSandburg LnMadisonAve
W Lewis RdLilac Dr NHamptonRd Elgin Pl
Boone Ave NCircleDownJersey
AveNWinsdale
St OttawaAve NOlympia St
Winnetka
Heights Dr LilacDrNLouisiana
Ave NKyleAveNNoble
AveManor 10th
Ave N RhodeIslandAveSHalfMoonDr OrdwayLorin g
L n Winsdale StZane Ave NHarold
Ave
FloridaAve
NJerseyAve NParkview
TerPh o
en ix StWisconsin
Ave
NW
a
y
zataBlvd
FranceAve
NHiddenLakesP
k
wyIsland
DrTryolTrail
Maryla ndAveNMedicine
Lake
Road / County
Road
70 B e t
t yCrockerDr
RidgewayRdRhodeIslandAveNTerrace
LnCastle
CtFieldIndiana Ave NSchaper
Rd
Colonial
Rd
24th
Ave
N
27th
Ave
N
SussexRdKing
Hill RdConstance
Dr W25th
Ave
N
SpringValley
CirFrontenacAveSkylineDrSkylineDrHampshirePlCavellAveNLaurelAveSkiHillRdMeridianDrWesternLouisianaAveNColoradoStMarga
re
t D
rRoanoke
CirCherokeeOak
GroveQu
e b
ecAv
e
SKennethWay WasatchLnWelcomeTyrolCrest CortlawnCir NTer
NatchezAveNBur
nt
s id
e
DrG oldenV alleyRdGeneralMillsBlvdEdge
wood
Ave SEdgewood AveSEllis
LnJonellen
Ln
WestwoodLn Gregory Cr est vi
ewAveColoradoWis c o n si n
A
v
e S Valley-
woodCir Maryland Ave
SMedicine Lake Road /
CountyRoad
70SchullerGettysburgCt
Vermont Ave
SFloridaCtMajorCir
PrincetonAve SValery
RdBrogger
CirGardenPark QuailAve
NOrchardLouisiana
AveSWestern
AvePerry
AveNIdahoAveNWayzataBlvdValders
Ave NValders Ave NYosemiteAve
NWinsdaleSt
Decatur Ave
NNatchezAve
SG len
w
o o
d
P kw yOttawaAve SEdgewoodAve NSpringValleyRdSt
Croix
AveN
Wat
erfordDrMendelssohn
Ave
NManches te r DrHeritageCir StCroix
Ave
N
W
el
comeWinnetka
Avenue
North /
County
Road
156Douglas
Drive /
CountyRoad
1021 Highway 1693 S F r o ntage Rd DuluthStreet /County R o ad 66 Ensign Ave NOrchardAve NIdaho Ave NKnoll WestbrookRd
Winsdale St BrunswickScott Ave NWynnwoodRdHillsboroAve NSunsetRidg eDr Quebec StOttawaA
veSAngeloDrWoodlandTrailHiddenLakes P kwyWinsdaleSt AlpinePassAvondaleRdDouglasAveQuentinAveSRavineMaddausLn
LnKyle PlUnity Ave NToledoAveNSpruce TrWes tchesterCirCirCt WaterfordScottAveNDawnview Ter Dawnview Ter ConstanceDrELilac Dr NPlymouth Ave NWisconsinAveNMedley Rd 6 PaisleyLnGlendenTer P l Noble Ave NTer Byrd
Ave NParkviewB
lv dYork AveNMeadowLnSLilac DrNAveNDuluth
St
Patsy Ln
2
3
H illsboroINDEX1 -
English Cir2 - Kings Valley
Rd3 - Kings Valley Rd
E4 -
Kings Valley
Rd W5 -
Marquis Rd6 -
Mayfair Rd7 - Stroden
Cir8 - Tamarin Tr
CarriagePath M endelssohnLn N
ValeCrestRdCir Cir TyrolTrail
Janalyn
Cir Glencrest RdJanalynCir StrawberryLn WestwoodDrNBe
verly Av e
Leber SunnyridgeLnMeadow Ln
NMeadowLnN DahlbergD
rWoodstock Ave Lilac DrNN
Frontage R dHeath-
brookeCirLegendLn
Bassett CreekDr Glenwood Avenue /
Co u n tyRoad40WelcomeAveNWesleyCommons DrTheodo r e
W i
r thPkwyQuailAveNPerryAveNQuailAveNRegentAveNScottA v
eN33rd Ave N
Golden Valley Council/Manager Meeting
February 11, 2020
Agenda Item
4. Census Enumerator Access to Multi-Family Buildings
Prepared By
Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager
Summary
The 2020 U.S. Census will kick-off on April 1. While City staff have been working to coordinate efforts
to raise awareness and highlight the importance of responding to the Census, the State Demographer’s
office is encouraging communities to take an additional step of passing an ordinance to ensure Census
workers have access to multi-family buildings.
Background
The decennial Census is an important tool that provides critical information used to determine
representation in the U.S House of Representatives, to make Federal funding decisions, and to plan for
facilities such as schools, hospital, senior centers. While a majority of residents of Golden Valley self-
respond to the mailed Census materials, a small percentage will not. For those individuals, the Census
employs workers to attempt to make direct contact and collect information.
Historically, renters have a lower response rate. U.S. Code ensures Census employees have legal access
to multi-family buildings as part of their efforts. However, a local ordinance can provide additional
enforcement support while also clarifying protections for individuals. The local version being promoted
by the State is modeled after Minnesota Statute 211b.20 which grants candidates running for office
access to multi-family buildings. Edina, Plymouth, Brooklyn Park, and Brooklyn Center all recently
adopted a version of this ordinance. New Hope is expected to adopt one in March.
Staff is looking for direction from the Council on whether to bring an ordinance of this type to an
upcoming Council meeting for consideration. The Edina version is attached for reference.
Financial Or Budget Considerations
Not applicable
Supporting Documents
Sample Ordinance from Edina (2 pages)
ORDINANCE NO. 2019-18
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 22 OF THE EDINA CITY CODE
CONCERNING ACCESS TO MUL Tl-UNIT HOUSING STRUCTURES BY
UNITED STATES CENSUS BUREAU EMPLOYEES
THE CITY COUNCIL OF EDINA ORDAINS:
Section I. Chapter 22 of the Edina City Code is amended by adding Article IO to provide as follows:
ARTICLE X. ACCESS TO MULTI-UNIT HOUSING STRUCTURES BY UNITED STATES CENSUS
BUREAU EMPLOYEES
22-31 0. Declaration; Purpose.
(a)The United States Constitution directs a decennial census count of all persons living in the United
States.
(b)Complete, accurate census data is of critical importance to all residents of Edina for equal political
representation, fair distribution of federal and state funding, and sound planning and investment in
infrastructure, real estate, business development, and public policy and programming.
(c)During the decennial census, the United States Census Bureau conducts Non-Response Follow-up
Operations (NRFU), when employees of the United States Census Bureau visit households that have not
yet submitted a census form.
(d)Renters and others who live in multi-unit housing structures have historically been at higher risk of
being undercounted in the decennial census, with the number of renter households in an area being the
most influential variable affecting an area's census self-response rate; in other words, the more renters
in an area, the lower the self-response rate of that area.
(e)The risk of an undercount is compounded in areas with high concentrations of communities that
have been consistently undercounted in the past and who are more likely to be renters, including low
income households, communities of color, Native American/American Indian communities, immigrants
and refugees, and young people.
(f)Multi-unit housing structures can be difficult for Census Bureau employees to enter due to security
barriers.
(g)It is critical that Census Bureau employees have access to multi-unit housing structures during the
decennial census, so they can reach households that have not yet participated.
(h)13 U.S. Code § 223 authorizes Census Bureau employees to access "any hotel, apartment house,
boarding or lodging house, tenement, or other building".
22-31 I. It is unlawful for a person, either directly or indirectly, to deny access to an apartment building,
dormitory, nursing home, manufactured home park, other multi-unit structure used as a residence, or
an area in which one or more single-family dwellings are located on private roadways, to employees of
the United States Census Bureau who display current, valid Census Bureau credentials and who are
engaged in official census counting operations during the Census Bureau's standard operational hours of
1
205562v]
9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. (local time) during the decennial census; and Be It Further
22-312. Census Bureau employees granted access must be permitted to leave census materials in an
orderly manner for residents at their doors, except that the manager of a nursing home may direct that
the materials be left at a central location within the facility; and Be It Further.
22-313. This ordinance does not prohibit (I) denial of admittance into a particular apartment, room,
manufactured home, or personal residential unit; (2) denial of permission to visit certain persons for
valid health reasons, in the case of a nursing home or a Registered Housing with Services Establishment
providing assisted-living services meeting the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, section I 44G.03,
subdivision 2; (3) limiting visits to a reasonable number of census employees; (4) requiring a prior
appointment or notification to gain access to the structure; or (5) denial of admittance to or expulsion
of an individual employee from a multi-unit housing structure for good cause.
Section 2. This ordinance is effective immediately upon its passage and publication.
First Reading: December 3, 2019
Second Reading: Waived
Published: December 26, 2019
Sharon II C y Clerk James B. ovland, Mayor
Please publish in the Edina Sun Current on: December 26, 2019
Send two affidavits of publication
Bill to Edina City Clerk
2
205562v1
Golden Valley Council/Manager Meeting
February 11, 2020
Agenda Item
5. Amendment to the Proclamation, Resolution and Letter of Support Policy
Prepared By
Tim Cruikshank, City Manager
Summary
Council has expressed an interest in amending the Proclamation, Resolution and Letter of Support
Policy. The proposed amendments are shown in the stricken and underlined document language that is
attached.
Financial Or Budget Considerations
Not applicable
Supporting Documents
• Proclamation, Resolution and Letter of Support Policy with underline-overstrike language (2 pages)
• Proposed Proclamation, Resolution and Letter of Support Policy (2 pages)
GOLDEN VALLEY
PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS AND
LETTERS OF SUPPORT POLICY
I.PURPOSE AND NEED FOR POLICY
The purpose of this policy is to encourage public awareness and acknowledge
events, achievements, and activities, and causes that are significant to the
community of Golden Valley, through recognition by the City Council. This policy
also defines events, achievements, and activities that will not be considered for
recognition. The proclamation, resolution, or letter of support will be issued to
acknowledge the effort and commitment of the organization or individual but should
not be interpreted as an endorsement by either the Council of the City of Golden
Valley. Conversely, in making these observances the Council does not wish to
offend or promote any other particular point of view. Proclamations are strictly
honorary and are issued as a courtesy. They are not legally binding. To help assure
that proclamations are considered in the context, the following policy and procedure
isprocedures are established.
II.POLICY
A. The City of Golden Valley will issue proclamations at no charge to individual(s)A.
and organization(s). However, the City will not incur any expenses relating to the
advertising of promotion of a proclamation unless a City department initiates the
proclamation. Recipients are responsible for organizing related activities and for
all associated costs.
B. Proclamations will not be issued for commercial purposes, such as theB.
opening of a new business, a new product, or a new professional service. This
includes business anniversaries that are less than 50 years.
C.Proclamations will not be issued for deceased persons, retirements,C.
birthdays, weddings, or family reunions.
D. Individuals or organizations seeking proclamations in successive yearsD.
must annually request the proclamation and provide new information each year
for the proclamation. Proclamations are not automatically renewed each year
and are limited to one recipient per event, per calendar year.
E. It is best if a representative from the sponsoring organizationsorganizationE.
is at the Council meeting at the time the proclamation is adopted.
F. No organization has exclusive rights to the day, week or month of theF.
proclamation.
G. The City Council will consider only proclamations, resolutions, and lettersG.
of support which relate to City government business, Golden Valley-based
organizations or Golden Valley residents. Proclamations, resolutions, and letters
of support shall be directed through the City Manager’s office and should:
not conflict with other activities or programs in the City
enhance civic appeal, i.e., honor persons or groups that have provided a
civic service, hence encouraging others to do the same
help promote charitable and non-profit organizations, including arts,
athletic, and cultural celebrations, to help increase public awareness of
their programs and activities
affirm individuals who have achieved national or international distinction,
or whose significant contribution to the community demands recognition
observe extraordinary events, accomplishments, and causes of interest
affecting a broad range of citizens
help promote service clubs in their furtherance of benevolent programs
be consistent with a policy directive officially adopted by the Council at its
annual goal setting session
·If thea request falls outside this policy, the City Manager may consult with
the City Council for direction.
H. Proclamations, resolutions, or letters of support will not be issued for:H.
matters of political controversy, ideological or religious beliefs, or
individual conviction
causes espousing hatred, violence, racism, or having a negative impact
on others’ civil rights
campaigns or events contrary to City policies
events or organizations with no relationship to the City of Golden Valley
I.The City reserves the right, to approve or reject any request for aI.
proclamation, to modify the text for any requested proclamation, and to read a
summarized version of the proclamation if time constrains warrant. All requests
are reviewed on a case-by-case basis. The City also reserves the right to vary
from the exact provisions of this policy when it finds it to be in the public interest
to do so.
J. All requests for proclamations, resolutions, and letters of support must beJ.
submitted on the appropriate form to the Golden Valley City Clerk at least 10
business days in advance of the date needed.
Adopted April 19, 2016
Amended August 21, 2018
Amended _________, 2020
GOLDEN VALLEY
PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS AND
LETTERS OF SUPPORT POLICY
I. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR POLICY
The purpose of this policy is to encourage public awareness and acknowledge
events, achievements, activities, and causes that are significant to the community of
Golden Valley, through recognition by the City Council. This policy also defines
events, achievements, and activities that will not be considered for recognition. The
proclamation, resolution, or letter of support will be issued to acknowledge the effort
and commitment of the organization or individual but should not be interpreted as an
endorsement by either the Council of the City of Golden Valley. Conversely, in
making these observances the Council does not wish to offend or promote any other
particular point of view. Proclamations are strictly honorary and are issued as a
courtesy. They are not legally binding. To help assure that proclamations are
considered in context, the following policy and procedures are established.
II. POLICY
A. The City of Golden Valley will issue proclamations at no charge to individual(s)
and organization(s). However, the City will not incur any expenses relating to the
advertising of promotion of a proclamation unless a City department initiates the
proclamation. Recipients are responsible for organizing related activities and for
all associated costs.
B. Proclamations will not be issued for commercial purposes, such as the opening
of a new business, a new product, or a new professional service. This includes
business anniversaries that are less than 50 years.
C. Proclamations will not be issued for deceased persons, retirements, birthdays,
weddings, or family reunions.
D. Individuals or organizations seeking proclamations in successive years must
annually request the proclamation and provide new information each year for the
proclamation. Proclamations are not automatically renewed each year and are
limited to one recipient per event, per calendar year.
E. It is best if a representative from the sponsoring organization is at the Council
meeting at the time the proclamation is adopted.
F. No organization has exclusive rights to the day, week or month of the
proclamation.
G. The City Council will consider only proclamations, resolutions, and letters of
support which relate to City government business, Golden Valley-based
organizations or Golden Valley residents. Proclamations, resolutions, and letters
of support shall be directed through the City Manager’s office and should:
• not conflict with other activities or programs in the City
• enhance civic appeal, i.e., honor persons or groups that have provided a
civic service, hence encouraging others to do the same
• help promote charitable and non-profit organizations, including arts,
athletic, and cultural celebrations, to help increase public awareness of
their programs and activities
• affirm individuals who have achieved national or international distinction,
or whose significant contribution to the community demands recognition
• observe extraordinary events, accomplishments, and causes of interest
affecting a broad range of citizens
• help promote service clubs in their furtherance of benevolent programs
• be consistent with a policy directive officially adopted by the Council at its
annual goal setting session
If a request falls outside this policy, the City Manager may consult with the City
Council for direction.
H. Proclamations, resolutions, or letters of support will not be issued for:
• matters of political controversy, ideological or religious beliefs, or
individual conviction
• causes espousing hatred, violence, racism, or having a negative impact
on others’ civil rights
• campaigns or events contrary to City policies
• events or organizations with no relationship to the City of Golden Valley
I. The City reserves the right, to approve or reject any request for a proclamation,
to modify the text for any requested proclamation, and to read a summarized
version of the proclamation if time constrains warrant. All requests are reviewed
on a case-by-case basis. The City also reserves the right to vary from the exact
provisions of this policy when it finds it to be in the public interest to do so.
J. All requests for proclamations, resolutions, and letters of support must be
submitted on the appropriate form to the Golden Valley City Clerk at least 10
business days in advance of the date needed.
Adopted April 19, 2016
Amended August 21, 2018
Amended _________, 2020
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
1.Call to Order
A.Pledge of Allegiance – lead by Boy Scout Justin Berg Pages
B.Roll Call
C.2019 Annual Police Department Report
2.Additions and Corrections to Agenda
3.Consent Agenda
Approval of Consent Agenda - All items listed under this heading are considered to be routine
by the City Council and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no discussion of these
items unless a Council Member so requests in which event the item will be removed from the
general order of business and considered in its normal sequence on the agenda.
A.Approval of Minutes:
1.City Council Meeting – February 4, 2020
B.Approval of City Check Register
C.Licenses:
1.Approve Off-Sale 3.2 Malt License for Holiday Station
Gambling License Exemption and Waiver of Notice Requirement – Chesterbird
American Legion
D.Minutes of Boards and Commissions:
1.Open Space and Recreation Commission – November 25 and December 16, 2019
2.Civil Service Commission – January 21, 2020
E.Approval of Bids, Quotes and Contracts:
1.Approve Cartagraph Contract
2.Authorize Native Vegetation and Maintenance Annual Contract
3.2020 Pond Maintenance Engineering Services
4.Approve Esri Small Municipal and Country Government Enterprise Agreement
5.Approve Contract for Disposal of Tenth Ave Berm
F.Acceptance of Grants and Donations:
1.
G.Receive and File Bottineau Vision Plan
H.Appointments to Boards/Commissions and Rising TIDES Task Force
I.Approve Planning Study of DeCola Ponds E&F Flood Mitigation
J.Amendment to Proclamation Policy
K.Approve 2019 Pay Equity Report
February 18, 2020 – 6:30 pm
Council Chambers
Golden Valley City Hall
7800 Golden Valley Road DRAFT
City of Golden Valley City Council Regular Meeting
February 18, 2020 – 6:30 pm
2
4. Public Hearing
A. Public Hearing – CUP Amendment - Home Health Care Inc - 800 Boone Ave N
B. Public Hearing – Rezoning of I-394 Mixed Use Properties
5. Old Business
6. New Business
All Ordinances listed under this heading are eligible for public input.
A. Proclamation for Conversion Therapy Ban
B. Review of Council Calendar
C. Mayor and Council Communications
1. Other Committee/Meeting updates
7. Adjournment
DRAFT
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
1.Call to Order
A.Pledge of Allegiance Pages
B.Roll Call
2.Additions and Corrections to Agenda
3.Consent Agenda
Approval of Consent Agenda - All items listed under this heading are considered to be routine by
the City Council and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no discussion of these items
unless a Council Member so requests in which event the item will be removed from the general
order of business and considered in its normal sequence on the agenda.
A.Approval of Minutes:
1.City Council Meeting – February 18, 2020
B.Approval of City Check Register
C.Licenses:
1.Approve General Business License – Amusement Devices
D.Minutes of Boards and Commissions:
E.Approval of Bids, Quotes and Contracts:
1.Approve Council Chambers Remodel (#10-05)
2.Authorize Contract for 2020 Spring Brush Pick-Up Program
3.Approve Professional Services for 2020 MS4 Inspections and Training
4.Approve Professional Service Agreement for Douglas/55 PED Underpass and
Roundabout
F.Acceptance of Grants and Donations:
1.
4.Public Hearing
A.Public Hearing - Zoning Text Amendment - Tobacco Sales
5.Old Business
6.New Business
All Ordinances listed under this heading are eligible for public input.
A.Review of Council Calendar
B.Mayor and Council Communications
1.Other Committee/Meeting updates
7.Adjournment
Wednesday, March 4, 2020 – 6:30 pm
Council Chambers
Golden Valley City Hall
7800 Golden Valley Road DRAFT
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
Pages
1.Board/Commission Work Plan & Annual Report
a. Human Rights Commission
2.Review of Council Procedures
3.Council Review of Future Draft Agendas: City Council March 17, City Council April 7, and
Council/Manager April 14, 2020
Council/Manager meetings have an informal, discussion-style format and are designed for the
Council to obtain background information, consider policy alternatives, and provide general
directions to staff. No formal actions are taken at these meetings. The public is invited to attend
Council/Manager meetings and listen to the discussion; public participation is allowed by
invitation of the City Council.
March 10, 2020 – Immediately Following
HRA Work Session
Council Conference Room
Golden Valley City Hall
7800 Golden Valley Road DRAFT