The URL can be used to link to this page

01-12-21 Council-Manager Agenda Packet 7800 Golden Valley Road I Golden Valley,MN 55427 CltJ 0J 763-593-8012 1 TTY 763-593-3968 1 763-593-8109(fax)I www.goldenvalleymn.gov D�d enll g City Council/Manager va - - January 12, 2021—6:30 pm REGULAR MEETING AGENDA This meeting will be held via Cisco Webex in accordance with the local emergency declaration made by the City under Minn. Stat. § 12.37. The public may monitor this meeting by calling 1-415- 655-0001 and entering the meeting code 177 990 8097. For technical assistance, please contact support staff at 763-593-8007 or webexsupport@goldenvalleymn.gov. If you incur costs to call into the meeting, you may submit the costs to the City for reimbursement consideration. Additional information about for monitoring electronic meetings is available on the City website. Pages 1. Discussion of 2021 Legislative Session and Golden Valley's 2021 Legislative Priorities 2-38 with Senator Latz and Representative Winkler 2. Blue Line Update 39 3. Downtown Study Update 40-42 4. Control of Animal Ordinance Discussion 43-99 5. 2021 Bike Lane Project 100-103 6. Council Review of Future Draft Agendas: 104-105 01-19-21: City Council Meeting 01-26-21: Annual Council Planning Session 02-02-21: City Council Meeting 02-09-21: HRA Work Session 02-09-21: Council/Manager Meeting 02-16-21: City Council Meeting 02-23-21: Joint Meeting of Council and Boards and Commissions 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. This document is available in alternate formats upon a 72-hour request. Please call 763-593-8006 (TTY: 763-593-3968)to make a request. Examples of alternate formats may include large print, electronic, Braille,audiocassette, etc. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY City Administration 763-593-8006 / 763-593-8109 (fax) Golden Valley Council/Manager Meeting January 12, 2021 Agenda Item 1. Discussion of 2021 Legislative Session and Golden Valley's 2021 Legislative Priorities Prepared By Tim Cruikshank, City Manager Summary Senator Latz and Representative Winkler will be in attendance to discuss the 2021 Legislative Session and Golden Valley's 2021 Legislative Priorities. Financial Or Budget Considerations Not applicable Supporting Documents • 2021 Legislative Priorities (36 pages) immommmommom immommommoommoom loommoommoommom imommoommoommom immommomommmoom loommommoommomm 0 immmommommummom 2021 GOLDEN VALLEY LEGISLATIVE PRIORITIES tY„f goldenwvv�r Table Contents TRANSPORTATION PRIORITIES T1. Support Full Funding For Bus Rapid Transit (BRT).................................. 4 The City of Golden Valley supports investment in a Bus Rapid Transit corridor on Highway 55 from Wright County to Minneapolis due to a high concentration of jobs, strong reverse-commute patterns, and increased residential development along the corridor. T2. Support Full Funding For Blue Line Light Rail Transit (BLRT) ............. 5 The City of Golden Valley supports full investment in the Blue Line Light Rail extension and policies that optimize the line's function as part of the region's comprehensive transportation system. T3. Support Funding For Bike And Pedestrian Safety Improvements ToState Highway 55 ....................................................................................... 6 The City of Golden Valley seeks funding to improve operations, safety, and mobility at the intersections of Highway 55 and Douglas Drive (County State Aid Highway 102) and Highway 55 and Winnetka Avenue. Future improve- ments would better accommodate vehicles, pedestrians, transit, etc. T4. Support Comprehensive Transportation Funding.................................... 7 The City of Golden Valley supports dedicating more resources to all com- ponents of the state's transportation system and ensuring local units of government have access to resources and funding tools to meet growing needs. ENVIRONMENTAL PRIORITIES E1. Continue To Adequately Fund The DNR Flood Damage Reduction Program For Local Projects ........................................................................... 8 The City of Golden Valley is requesting legislative approval of funds through the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Flood Damage Reduction Program to implement public improvements within the DeCola Ponds and Medicine Lake Road watershed. These projects include improvements within the Cities of Crystal, New Hope and Golden Valley (eg, flood storage, subwatershed diversion, and runoff rate control projects). 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, MN 55427 1 763-593-8006 Page 1 E2.Support Funding For Metropolitan Council Inflow/Infiltration Grants—Public And Private Improvements................................................ 9 Because 1/1 reduction efforts benefit the entire metropolitan area, the City of Golden Valley supports the state providing continued capital assistance for grants to cities as well as financial assistance for private property through future Clean Water Legacy Act appropriations. E3.Advance Building Performance..................................................................... 10 The City of Golden Valley's supports statewide energy efficiency improvements in buildings, lighting, and infrastructure and includes these as local goals in the Resilience and Sustainability Chapter of its 2040 Comprehensive Plan. FINANCIAL PRIORITIES F1. Modify Obsolete Fiscal Disparities Formula To Assist Local Units Of Government With Basic Needs.......................................... 11 The City of Golden Valley supports reviewing and amending the 50-year-old Fis- cal Disparities formula to ensure all metro area local governments have access to resources and funding tools to meet growing needs. By amending the Fiscal Disparities formula, all metro area cities can use the additional amount of prop- erty taxes received to help fund needed improvements. F2. Support Funding For Local Government Aid ............................................. 12 The City of Golden Valley supports funding of the Local Government Aid (LGA) component to help ensure needs for public services can be met by equalizing the tax base for all cities. F3.Support Funding For Affordable And Workforce Housing...................... 13 The City of Golden Valley supports additional tools for local communities to de- velop and preserve affordable and workforce housing. F4. Support Tax Incentives For Community Reinvestment........................... 14 Golden Valley supports state programs and incentives for reinvestment in older residential and commercial/industrial buildings, such as, but not limited to, tax credits and/or property tax deferrals. COMMUNITY AFFAIRS C1. Support For Ban On Conversion Therapy Practices................................. 15 The City of Golden Valley supports the State Legislature banning the practice of conversion therapy for minors in the State of Minnesota. Page 2 City of Golden Valley 2021 Legislative Priorities C2. Police Arbitration Reform............................................................................... 16 The City of Golden Valley strongly urges the Minnesota State Legislature to consider changes to the current Minnesota Public Employment Labor Relations Act (MPELRA) arbitration system in any further discussions or proposals that address police reform measures. C3. Support For House Select Committee On Racial Justice........................ 17 The City of Golden Valley supports the State Legislature's efforts through its House Select Committee on Racial Justice to declare and address racism as a public health crisis and to ensure House legislative efforts are analyzed through an intersectional racial equity lens. C4. Ranked Choice Voting..................................................................................... 18 The City of Golden Valley supports changes to state statute to allow statutory cities to consider and adopt Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) and to provide state- wide standards for those cities that choose to adopt RCV. APPENDIX AppendixT1............................................................................................................. 20 AppendixE1............................................................................................................. 23 AppendixE2............................................................................................................. 26 AppendixF1............................................................................................................. 28 AppendixF2............................................................................................................. 29 AppendixF3............................................................................................................. 30 These priorities are supported by the Golden Valley City Council, along with Metro Cities, League of Minnesota Cities, Municipal Legislative Commission, and Regional Council of Mayors policies, and may be used by local officials and staff to advocate for during the Legislative session. 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, MN 55427 1 763-593-8006 Page 3 i TRANSPORTATION I T1. Support Full Funding For Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) City Position The City of Golden Valley supports investment in a Bus Rapid Transit corridor on Highway 55 from Wright County to Minneapolis due to a high concentration of jobs, strong reverse-commute patterns, and increased residential development along the corridor. Issue Trunk Highway 55 is a major transportation route serving the west metro area and beyond. The corridor contains a high concentration of jobs, has a strong reverse- commute pattern, and is experiencing increased residential development. Bus Rapid Transit is a practical and affordable component of a comprehensive regional transportation system. Actions • Advocate for full funding for Bus Rapid Transit on Highway 55, which im- pacts all communities along the corridor (Minneapolis, Golden Valley, Plym- outh, Medina, and beyond). Additional Documents (See Appendix T2) • Resolution: Supporting Future Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Service On Highway 55 And Participation In Additional Study Of The Corridor (2 pages) Page 4 City of Golden Valley 2021 Legislative Priorities i i i i T2. Support Full Funding For Blue Line Light Rail Transit (BLRT) City Position The City of Golden Valley supports full investment in the Blue Line Light Rail exten- sion and policies that optimize the line's function as part of the region's compre- hensive transportation system. Issue To fully realize the benefits and rewards of a comprehensive regional transportation system, the build-out of the Blue Line Light Rail extension must be fully funded and enjoy the same liability protections as other transit lines in the region. Actions • Support language regarding rail liability for the Blue Line Extension light rail transit project. (State Statute 473.4052 Right-of-Way Use; Contracts; Liabili- ty. 107.19 Subd. 4. Application. The liability limits under subdivision 2 and the insurance requirements under subdivision 3 apply only for that segment of a light rail transit line or line extension in which the project formally entered the engineering phase of the Federal Transit Administration's "New Starts" capital investment grant program between August 1, 2016 and February 1, 2017.) • Provide full funding for the Blue Line Extension light rail transit project in the Twin Cities northwest corridor. 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, MN 55427 1 763-593-8006 Page 5 1 TRANSPORTATION T3. Support Funding For Bike And Pedestrian Safety Improvements To State Highway 55 City Position The City of Golden Valley seeks funding to improve operations, safety, and mobility at the intersections of Highway 55 and Douglas Drive (County State Aid Highway 102) and High- way 55 and Winnetka Avenue. Future improvements would better accommodate vehicles, pedestrians, transit, etc. Issue Highway 55 passes through Golden Valley from its east to west city limits, creating a barrier between the northern and southern portions of the community. This results in significant delays for motorists crossing the highway at any of the signalized intersections due to long signal timing cycles that focus on moving traffic through the community. It also creates difficult and dangerous conditions for pedestrians and bicyclists who wish to cross the highway. The 2020 State Bonding Bill funded construction of a pedestrian underpass and roadway improvements at Highway 55 and Douglas Drive to facilitate safe passage by pedestrians and bicyclists between transit stops on the highway and provide access to the Luce Line Regional Trail. Actions • Advocate for passage of Minnesota Session Laws 2020, 5th Special Session, Chapter 3, House File No. 1, Section 16, Subdivision 7: Golden Valley; Douglas Drive and Highway 55. From the bond proceeds account in the state transportation fund as provided in Minneso- ta Statutes, section 174.50, for a grant to the city of Golden Valley to perform preliminary and final design engineering, environmental analysis, acquisition of permanent easements and right-of-way, reconstruction, and construction engineering of local roads related to construction of public safety improvements at and near the intersection of Douglas Drive and Highway 55, including a box culvert underpass across Highway 55, a roundabout and extended frontage road south of Highway 55, retaining wall construction, underground utility relocation, sidewalk and trail connections to existing facilities, Americans with Dis- abilities Act-compliant facilities, and landscaping. • Advocate for funding from the Minnesota Department of Transportation to study access ways to provide community connectivity across Highway 55 at Winnetka Avenue to mit- igate the highway's impact on the community ($14 million for planning, design, and con- struction). Additional Documents (See Appendix T1) • Highway 55 & Douglas Drive - Proposed (1 page) • Highway 55 & Winnetka Avenue Concept (1 page) Page 6 City of Golden Valley 2021 Legislative Priorities 1 TRANSPORTATION I T4. Support Comprehensive Transportation Funding City Position The City of Golden Valley supports dedicating more resources to all compo- nents of the state's transportation system and ensuring local units of govern- ment have access to resources and funding tools to meet growing needs. Issue A comprehensive regional transportation system that meets the physical, social, and economic needs of Golden Valley and the state requires adequate funding. This transportation system includes streets, bridges, highways, transit, and multi-modal solutions. Collaborative efforts and initiatives are already in progress. Actions • Establish a sustainable formula to increase transit and transportation fund- ing. • Advocate for including improvements to US Highway 169 between 1-394 and Medicine Lake Road in the MnDOT Capital Improvement Plan. 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, MN 55427 1 763-593-8006 Page 7 ENVIRONMENTAL E1. Continue To Adequately Fund The DNR Flood Damage Reduction Program For Local Projects City Position The City of Golden Valley is requesting legislative approval of funds through the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Flood Damage Reduction Program to continue to implement public improvements within the DeCola Ponds and Medi- cine Lake Road watershed. These projects include improvements within the Cities of Crystal, New Hope and Golden Valley (eg, flood storage, subwatershed diver- sion, and runoff rate control projects). Issue The City of Golden Valley experiences localized flooding in the Medicine Lake Road and Winnetka Avenue area and flooding from Bassett Creek in numerous locations throughout the community. This flooding causes damages to homes and business- es, and impacts infrastructure and emergency services. The City is in Phase II of a multi-phase project. Action Advocate for continued full funding of the Minnesota DNR Flood Damage Reduc- tion Program, including funding of the Medicine Lake Road and Winnetka Avenue Area Long Term Flood Mitigation Project. Additional Documents (See Appendix El) • Map: DeCola Ponds Flood Mitigation Area (1 page) Page 8 City of Golden Valley 2021 Legislative Priorities ENVIRONMENTAL 4 ) E2. Support Funding For Metropolitan Council Inflow/ Infiltration Grants—Public And Private Improvements City Position Because 1/1 reduction efforts benefit the entire metropolitan area, the City of Golden Valley supports the state providing continued capital assistance for grants to cities as well as financial assistance for private property through future Clean Water Legacy Act appropriations. Issue Many metro communities are contributing excess inflow and infiltration of clear water into the regional wastewater system. Excess 1/1 results in wastewater flows that exceed the capacity of conveyance and treatment systems, resulting in significant environmental and public health issues and excessive costs to upgrade these systems. Action Advocate for financial assistance through future Clean Water Legacy appro- priations to metro area cities with excess 1/1. These resources should include assistance for cities to address 1/1 contributions from private property. Additional Documents (See Appendix E2) • Memo: MCES I&I Grant Benefits - City of Golden Valley (1 page) 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, MN 55427 1 763-593-8006 Page 9 ENVIRONMENTAL E3. Advance Building Performance City Position The City of Golden Valley supports statewide energy efficiency improvements in buildings, lighting, and infrastructure and includes these as local goals in the Resil- ience and Sustainability Chapter of its 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Issue The State of Minnesota has a goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent by 2050 but is not on track to do so. Buildings are a top greenhouse gas emitter, and a different approach is needed to building design and construction. Building codes, which are established by the State, are not advancing fast enough to reach carbon reduction goals. Action The City of Golden Valley supports policy changes and other solutions that lead to increased building efficiency, including: • clear standards for developers and designers • financial support and incentives for energy efficient improvements • educational support and training • advancing code requirements at a rate faster than the typical building code up- date cycle • statewide adoption of building codes that advance energy performance in new and remodeled buildings Page 10 City of Golden Valley 2021 Legislative Priorities FINANCIAL F1. Modify Obsolete Fiscal Disparities Formula To Assist Local Units Of Government With Basic Needs City Position The City of Golden Valley supports reviewing and amending the 50-year-old Fiscal Disparities formula to ensure all metro area local governments have access to re- sources and funding tools to meet growing needs. By amending the Fiscal Dispar- ities formula, all metro area cities can use the additional amount of property taxes received to help fund needed improvements. For nearly 50 years, the Fiscal Disparities program has reapportioned 40 percent of tax capacity from metro area cities with higher commercial/industrial tax bases to those with less market value per capita. This is to help equalize funding for the betterment of the Twin Cities metropolitan area. While all cities have needs, those that historically have been net Fiscal Disparities contributors have aged and are experiencing greater infrastructure needs than 50 years ago. Much of this infrastructure was built before the early 1960s and is due for replacement. It is time to recalculate the Fiscal Disparities formula to reflect to- day's realities. Since just 2001, Golden Valley has contributed almost $40 million to help other communities meet their needs. With the proposed change, over the next 20 years Golden Valley would keep an estimated $18 million help meet its needs. Issue Golden Valley, like most cities in Minnesota and the nation at large, is facing a loom- ing infrastructure crisis. All across the US, aging systems for water supply, sanitary sewer management, storm water and flood control, transportation, etc, are in need of repair and/or replacement. Not only is much of Golden Valley's infrastructure a half century or more old, but as populations grow, it's taking on service demands it was not built to handle. The Fiscal Disparities program has been in existence for almost 50 years and in need of an overhaul. Actions Advocate for modifying the obsolete Fiscal Disparities formula so all metro area cities can fund needed infrastructure improvements while keeping taxes and util- ity expenses lower than they inevitably would be if this infrastructure problem is allowed to grow into a full-blown crisis. Additional Documents (See Appendix F2) • Table: 20-Year History Of Golden Valley's Fiscal Disparities Contributions With 40 Percent Program And 20-Year Projection Of Golden Valley's Fiscal Disparities Gains With 30 Percent Program (1 page) 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, MN 55427 1 763-593-8006 Page 11 FINANCIAL F2. Support Funding For Local Government Aid City Position The City of Golden Valley supports funding of the Local Government Aid (LGA) component to help ensure needs for public services can be met by equalizing the tax base for all cities. Issue Golden Valley is one of the few cities statewide that does not receive LGA but has many basic public service needs that are underfunded. Actions Advocate for the state to keep pace with inflationary pressures and support increased funding for LGA. Golden Valley supports an increase in the LGA appropriation and a review in its entirety of the formula that would at least provide a minimum distribution to help fund public services. Golden Valley supports HF 2031 authored by Representative Hertaus in 2019. Additional Documents (See Appendix F1) • Table: 10-Year History Of Local Government Aid Distribution And Its Impact On Golden Valley (1 page) Page 12 City of Golden Valley 2021 Legislative Priorities FINANCIAL F3. Support Funding For Affordable And Workforce Housing City Position The City of Golden Valley supports additional tools for local communities to develop and preserve affordable and workforce housing. Issue Cities must ensure they provide a full range of housing choices in the community. As cities, businesses, and the overall economy in the Minneapolis- St Paul region continues to grow, the need for housing available to those with low and moderate incomes also grows. Failure to expand housing options will impact the region's ability to attract talent, grow its economy, and reinvest in itself. Actions Advocate for policy and financial tools that support both the preservation of naturally occurring affordable housing and construction of new affordable housing, including: • increasing funding for the state's rental rehab loan fund for naturally occur- ring affordable housing and including use of the fund in the metro region • enhancing state programs, policies, and funding allocations to promote and finance the preservation and construction of affordable housing, particularly for assisted, senior, and transitional housing • modifying Tax Increment Financing (TIF) statutes to clearly enable pooling of TIF revenue for affordable housing • establishing a statewide notification requirement for rental properties prior to ownership transfer • creating incentives for property owners to participate in the Section 8 Hous- ing Choice Voucher Program to increase housing options for low and mod- erate income earners • preserving and expanding the state's 4d low-income property tax program that provides a property tax benefit to qualifying low-income rental proper- ties Additional Documents (See Appendix F3) • Memo: Golden Valley Affordable Housing Work Plan (2 pages) 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, MN 55427 1 763-593-8006 Page 13 FINANCIAL K Support Tax Incentives For Community Reinvestment City Position Golden Valley supports state programs and incentives for reinvestment in older residential and commercial/industrial buildings, such as, but not limited to, tax credits and/or property tax deferrals. Issue Golden Valley has aging residential and commercial structures that are in need of repair and reinvestment. Reinvestment prevents neighborhoods from falling into disrepair, revitalizes community, and protects the tax base. Action Advocate for state-funded programs that promote reinvestment in communities for residential and commercial/Industrial property owners who make improve- ments that increase the property's market value. Page 14 City of Golden Valley 2021 Legislative Priorities �*2 COMMUNITY AFFAIRS •■■W C1. Support For Ban On Conversion Therapy Practices City Position The City of Golden Valley supports the State Legislature banning the practice of conversion therapy for minors in the State of Minnesota. Issue Conversion therapy, also known as reparative therapy, is a practice or treatment that seeks to change an individual's sexual orientation or gender identity, including efforts to change behaviors or gender expressions or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attractions or feelings toward individuals of the same gender. Conversion therapy is based on the discredited premise that being lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or queer (LGBTQ+) is a mental disorder that can be cured or corrected. Medical, mental health, and child welfare experts, including the American Medical Association and the American Psychiatric Association, have denounced conversion therapy as ineffective, unreliable, unethical, and unsafe for the people who undergo such treatment, including LGBTQ+ people. Furthermore, conversion therapy has been shown to cause serious and dangerous harm to those who are subjected to such treatments, including depression, anxiety, increased suicidal behaviors, lowered self-esteem, internalized homophobia, self- blame, intrusive imagery, sexual dysfunction, and interpersonal harm, such as alienation, loneliness, social isolation, interference with intimate relationships, and loss of social supports. The State of Minnesota regulates and licenses behavioral and mental health professionals but has so far not addressed the serious issue of conversion therapy. Actions The City of Golden Valley supports the State Legislature banning the practice of conversion therapy for minors in the State of Minnesota. The City supports a ban that applies to any and all forms of conversion therapy, but that excludes a prohibi- tion on practices or treatments that provide acceptance, support, and understand- ing for the facilitation of an individual's coping, social support, and identity explora- tion and development, or treatment to support gender identity transition. 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, MN 55427 1 763-593-8006 Page 15 �*2 COMMUNITY AFFAIRS ��•■■� i� C2. Police Arbitration Reform City Position The City of Golden Valley strongly urges the Minnesota State Legislature to con- sider changes to the current Minnesota Public Employment Labor Relations Act (MPELRA) arbitration system in any further discussions or proposals that address police reform measures. Issue As it now stands, the arbitration system undermines the ability of elected and appointed officials, including police chiefs and city managers, to make lasting departmental disciplinary or termination decisions that protect residents and help to ensure a responsible public safety environment in their communities. Without systemic changes, arbitrator opinions are allowed to override the professional judgment of police supervisors when it comes to deciding what constitutes just cause and who ultimately is permitted to return to the streets as an officer. Consequently, rigorous police department accountability standards continue to be compromised at a time when they are needed more than ever. Actions • The City supports a new reasonable standard of review in police misconduct cases. This is necessary to uphold discipline decisions that are entrusted to the local officials ultimately responsible for protecting their communities. Including a new, reduced standard of review in police discipline matters is important to foster cultural change as well as to enhance and support effective police officer ac- countability and transparency measures that are included in the Police Account- ability Act of 2020. The new standard should focus the arbitrator's role on simply determining whether the facts presented show that the employer's actions were reasonable and consistent with city and departmental policies. • The City supports using administrative law judges (ALJs) for grievances involv- ing terminations and discipline related to police misconduct. The ALJ process would involve robust fact-finding and technical legal parameters that would help ensure a thorough review of the officer's and employer's actions. This model also provides an appeals process, which the arbitration process does not. The City believes the severity and importance of police cases involving terminations and discipline related to police misconduct warrant them being elevated into the ALJ system. Page 16 City of Golden Valley 2021 Legislative Priorities �*2 COMMUNITY AFFAIRS •■■• C3. Support For House Select Committee On Racial Justice City Position The City of Golden Valley supports the State Legislature's efforts through its House Select Committee on Racial Justice to declare and address racism as a public health crisis and to ensure House legislative efforts are analyzed through an inter- sectional racial equity lens. Issue In recent years, the elimination of racial and ethnic disparities has received more attention in Minnesota from the Legislature, Governor's Office, educational institutions, philanthropic organizations, faith communities, health care associations, and the state's business community. Established in 2020, the House Select Committee on Racial Justice received recommendations designed to address intentional and unintentional systemic disparities and inequities based on race. These disparities and the committee's recommendations address economic development, housing, education, public safety, health and human services, and environmental justice. Actions • The City acknowledges the Select Committee's findings and encourages its ef- forts to provide definitions, a historical framework, and current data related to the impact of systemic racism and race-related disparities in the fields of health, education, housing, public safety, and economics. 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, MN 55427 1 763-593-8006 Page 17 2 IWA 10,*2 COMMUNITY AFFAIRS w POP,-01AW C4. Ranked Choice Voting City Position The City of Golden Valley supports changes to state statute to allow statuto- ry cities to consider and adopt Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) and to provide statewide standards for those cities that choose to adopt RCV. Issue Current law allows charter cities to consider and adopt Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) as an alternative voting method in local elections. State statute does not extend this authority to statutory cities. Additionally, there are no statewide standards for conducting RCV. The lack of consistent guidelines on how to effectively implement a RCV system imposes significant challenges for election administrators and voters. The Office of the Secretary of State certifies voting systems for cities and counties across the state. This process does not include the systems used for RCV elections. This makes it difficult for cities to access voting systems approved by the state. Minn. Stat. §§ 204D.11 and 206.90 require the use of one ballot only for a state general election unless there is a need for a separate judicial ballot. To allow cities that have implemented RCV to hold municipal elections in conjunction with a state general election, state statute must be amended to allow for more than one ballot. Actions The City of Golden Valley supports: • legislation that would give statutory cities the same authority given to charter cities to consider and adopt RCV • statewide standards for those cities that choose to adopt RCV to ensure it is implemented consistently throughout the state to give voters confidence in the fairness of the alternative process of casting their ballots and in the outcome of such elections • a state certification process for voting systems used in tabulating RCV elections • allowing for the use of more than one ballot should a city with RCV con- duct a municipal election in conjunction with a state general election Page 18 City of Golden Valley 2021 Legislative Priorities APPENDIX 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, MN 55427 1 763-593-8006 Page 19 Appendix T1. Support Funding For Bike And Pedestrian Safety Improvements To State Highway 55 • Map: Highway 55 & Douglas Drive - Proposed (1 page) • Map: Highway 55 & Winnetka Avenue Concepts (1 page) Page 20 City of Golden Valley 2021 Legislative Priorities Hwy 55 & Douglas Dr Transit Stop Retaining Wall Proposed Lane Line Pavement Edge Center Line Z Sidewalk L ❑ 0 ` Z L O C oUntry C ._ ,6 Pedestrian State HwY 55 Underpass State HwY 55 z p WY Frontage Rd pts°�M a� 0 MrlR' r �,. .ri_ ■Ii�1 I rTr E t Perpich Center for Arts Education by the City of Golden Valley, 1/15/2020 O 50 100 20Feet e 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, MN 55427 1 763-593-8006 Page 21 k'Ar- ` v i z ! �` ra r State yw �. Y/V 0. - - at w * YN ;v 46 Z CD � . s; Y - a A 47 by the City of Golden Valley, 12/11/2018 0 35 70 140 e Feet Page 22 City of Golden Valley 2021 Legislative Priorities Appendix El. Continue To Adequately Fund The DNR Flood Damage Reduction Program For Local Projects • Map: DeCola Ponds Flood Mitigation Area (2 pages) 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, MN 55427 1 763-593-8006 Page 23 .� • � 1 --`r � ;ill -'�' � ,ny. y.. a i - w 9 �� sl � .g 1 :y i♦i. ...—., �� ✓ '`I.1 ��aLgF �"�,'�4".r� % �h'�4 � �I�a-. t Y T. s New Hope •^ , '` -- -Me rrre-Labe-Rd - - - - � ---Wdicir bold enValleyz ,,. w ate.. n LO _ 25th Aye N -0 , I °a . � I Under Constru( DeCola Ponds "F �� . y.. �. U Improvement Pi z Q �� o �Jgnelle Lr Completed, 1„,ti410 Ave N , , - . ,> Liberty Crossing Infrastructure Dec Improvement Project >ar�d �. Wynnwood Rd _.. N - o � 'X • Z, a 2�rd a N �a � 23rd Ave N r z t3blden z"-. Meadows z , Dec( >d�Winnetk Q _�,^ d > a Decole pon ; z Pond A --------- a Im Winnetka heights D' nd,owve Il z De a P, ---Project.Location— E N �.0 �� _ 1 o m :.. Z' o z > ' z New Hope j Crystal y < Q — — s T e-Rd------------------ — — Proposed Golden Valley g N Flood Storage '° EArea d DeCola z Sandbur Rd S ^�"' t a Ponds � ^ " ^ _ r gym •a �'d S� � � x "'1" � e � Page 24 City of Golden Valley 2021 Legislative Priorities e olden r DeCola Ponds -Crystal Medicine Lake Road cif--------a-ounty Rti-70 ----- ,�e cake �,� and Winnetka Avenue Road Pond . Lon Term Flood aion, Mitigation Plan ,oject „� - !!! b Floodplain �z Madison ,ye W Flood Prone Properties Mr Explore Potential � � r �z for Flood Storage _ ,—_ g � �� m_.-��--� � � Flood Storage Area Ma on�r o' Sub-Watershed P J t Boundary Sandburg Rd )ia off, rt Isaabson .,, Par{ Y = F uuuuuuulq,ll ip�i �p of - w , v 5 x• 4 r, err 2a �� x WI Z r}� fi* �,4 Print Date 1/8/2020 Sources: " �� s / % �°'J Hennepin County Surveyors Office for aenaI photography(2018). e -MnDNR for city boundary lines&road data(2014) �_ yes ✓ Barr for 100 yeannundation area& watershed boundary of project area(2017). i uCti x -City of Golden Valley for all other layers. 3 �.i a,�,• " � �� p�yyy, 0 225 450 900 Feet 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, MN 55427 1 763-593-8006 Page 25 Appendix E2. Support Funding For Metropolitan Council Inflow/Infiltration Grants—Public And Private Improvements • Memo: MCES I&I Grant Benefits - City of Golden Valley (1 page) Page 26 City of Golden Valley 2021 Legislative Priorities city of olden MEN10RANDUM � 1 v[a. lle Physical Development Department Y p P 763-593-80301763-593-3988(fax) Date: January 28, 2016 To: Tim Cruikshank, City Manager From: Jeff Oliver, PE, City Engineer R.J. Kakach, EIT, Engineer Subject: MCES I&I Grant Benefits—City of Golden Valley The City of Golden Valley has utilized funding from the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) Grant Programs to reduce Inflow and Infiltration (I&I) in both the public and private sewer systems over the past several years. The public grants have provided additional funding to allow expanded scopes on projects and decreased timelines on I&I reduction programs. For example, as part of the annual street reconstruction projects, we have been able to increase sewer lining and manhole sealing quantities with the extra grant money that was available. Also, we were able to expedite a five to seven year sanitary sewer manhole cover replacement program into four years with additional funding from MCES. The 2013-2014 MCES private sewer grant allowed residents to repair their sanitary sewer lateral and be reimbursed by MCES at 33%of the repair cost up to $2,000. The available funding through this grant was so popular that City staff had to turn away applicants. Nearly 300 properties applied for the grant over the two year period. This reimbursement opportunity from MCES led to an increase in I&I compliance with the City Ordinance. The Ordinance requires all properties to become compliant prior to the sale of a property. This allows the City to gradually reduce I&I in the private system. The grant money attracted interest from properties all over the City, including people who were not selling their home. This extra interest in becoming I&I compliant from the available MCES grant funding helped propel the City forward in their I&I mitigation efforts. The public and private grants provided by MCES have helped to lower Golden Valley's annual sanitary sewer flows over the past five years. The public grant has allowed for more thorough I&I reduction to be done with street reconstruction projects and I&I mitigation programs whereas the private grant increased interest in becoming compliant with the City's I&I Ordinance. The additional funding from MCES has pushed Golden Valley ahead in their goal to reduce I&I in the sanitary sewer system. 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, MN 55427 1 763-593-8006 Page 27 Appendix F1. Modify Obsolete Fiscal Disparities Formula To Assist Local Units Of Government With Basic Needs 20-Year History 20-Year Projection Of Golden Valley's Of Golden Valley's Fiscal Disparities Contributions Fiscal Disparities Gains With 4C ; Program With 30 Per Tram* 2001 $629,460 2021 $698,408 2002 $1,289,977 2022 $718,685 2003 $873,927 2023 $739,182 2004 $1,343,255 2024 $759,902 2005 $1,384,112 2025 $780,845 2006 $1,462,884 2026 $802,012 2007 $1,437,447 2027 $823,406 2008 $1,756,887 2028 $845,026 2009 $2,141,648 2029 $866,876 2010 $2,325,874 2030 $888,956 2011 $2,311,610 2031 $911,266 2012 $2,262,916 2032 $933,810 2013 $2,119,872 2033 $956,587 2014 $2,662,702 2034 $979,600 2015 $2,401,573 2035 $1,002,848 2016 $2,321,355 2036 $1,026,335 2017 $2,676,662 2037 $1,050,060 2018 $2,674,558 2038 $1,074,026 2019 $2,727,495 2039 $1,098,233 2020 $2,961,983 2040 $1,122,682 Total $39,766,196 Total $18,078,744 *New commercial/industrial tax capacity value prospectively Page 28 City of Golden Valley 2021 Legislative Priorities Appendix F2. Support Funding For Local Government Aid 10-Year History Of Local Government Aid Distribution And Its Impact On Golden Valley Total LGA Golden Valley Statewide Distribution Portion 2011 $425,345,348 0 2012 $425,238,384 0 2013 $427,494,640 0 2014 $507,598,012 $219,081 2015 $516,898,012 $240,503 2016 $519,398,012 $252,446 2017 $519,398,012 $252,895 2018 $534,398,012 $37,185 2019 $534,398,012 O 2020 $560,398,012 O 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, MN 55427 1 763-593-8006 Page 29 Appendix F3. Support Funding For Affordable And Workforce Housing • Golden Valley Affordable Housing Work Plan 2020 (2 pages) Page 30 City of Golden Valley 2021 Legislative Priorities Golden Valley Affordable Housing Work Plan - 2020 Last updated: January 2020 Prepared By Emily Goellner, Senior Planner/Grant Writer Summary Based on direction from the Council and Manager, staff has developed a work plan on affordable housing strategies and policies. Key Points • The role that the City plays in local housing policy and programming has expanded rapidly since 2017. • Staff will continue focusing on building relationships with NOAH property owners, landlords, and property managers in 2019. • Since health and safety are central to the City's housing interests, any new policies or programs should not unintentionally discourage property improvements, rehabilitation, and code compliance. • The 2040 Comprehensive Plan identifies many goals and action steps for the City to take. They are categorized into five goals: quality, variety, affordability, sustainability, and equity. Staff will work with existing human and financial resources to implement the plan. • Staffing and budgeting impacts associated with policy and program options must continue to be examined to ensure that administration, enforcement, and education can be completed properly. • Some policies and program ideas will be most impactful if enacted on a regional or state level. • The Housing Preservation Tools Workgroup meetings are attended by staff at Golden Valley and ten other city governments (Minneapolis, St. Paul, St. Louis Park, Edina, Eden Prairie, Bloomington, Richfield, Hopkins, Brooklyn Center, and Brooklyn Park), Hennepin County, Minnesota Housing Finance Agency, Metro HRA, Urban Land Institute, and Family Housing Fund. The meetings are held to inform policy recommendations, share knowledge, and bring important stakeholders to the conversations. This group will continue to meet regularly. Staff has accomplished the following actions: 1. Adopted a Tenant Protection Ordinance (applicable to owners upon sale of NOAH property) and notified property owners 2. Adopted the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, which includes an extensive list of actions to be taken to meet affordable housing goals 3. Hosted a training on Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers by the Metro HRA at the February STAR Program meeting for property managers 4. Received CDBG funding for a land trust home for West Hennepin Affordable Housing Land Trust (WHAHLT) (dba Homes Within Reach) 5. Applied for CDBG,AHIF, and HOME funding for an additional land trust home with West Hennepin Affordable Housing Land Trust (WHAHLT) (dba Homes Within Reach) 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, MN 55427 1 763-593-8006 Page 31 6. Researched opportunities for an HRA levy a. Bonds or loans to rehabilitation or acquisition/resale of affordable properties b. Establish a loan program for maintenance of NOAH and/or single-family homes c. Other programs that further the Housing Policy Plan in the 2040 Comp Plan 7. Expanded the City's legislative priority on affordable housing 8. Adopted changes to the Mixed Income Housing Policy to increase the number of housing projects required to comply 9. Provided input at the regional housing forum hosted by Governor Dayton's Task Force on Affordable Housing 10. Planning, Fire, and Police department staff met to monitor condition of housing stock 11. Implemented a 4d property tax program to help preserve existing NOAH units within the City. Staff is taking continuing action on the following strategies: 12. Host additional discussions with NOAH property owners/manager and staff from the Minnesota Multi-Family Housing Association (MHA) 13. Create plan and timeline for selling and developing publicly owned vacant land for affordable housing 14. Update the Housing page on the City website to include more home remodeling information 15. Continue monitoring condition of housing stock and rental rates a. Request rental rate information with rental licensing program applications b. Perform update to housing inventory every 5 years c. Continue monitoring housing stockconditions with inspections 16. Actively follow the work of Prosperity's Front Door, which is the next step after the Governor Dayton's Task Force on Affordable Housing 17. Perform an evaluation of the STAR program for rental properties and recommend enhancements that help the City meet a variety of housing goals 18. Contact property owners to promote NOAH loan program with Greater MN Housing Fund (GMHC), which provides equity for property improvements in exchange for maintained rents 19. Exploring the possibility of using vacant public lands as the basis for new affordable housing via public land disposition. Staff is continuing research in partnership with other suburban cities on the following strategies: 20. Research ordinance prohibiting landlords from excluding Section 8 voucher holders from a building's rental application process (pending MPLS lawsuit) 21. Continue monitoring lawsuit involving the City of Minneapolis policy that prohibits landlords from excluding Section 8 voucher holders from a building's rental application process (at least 4 cities are interested in adopting a policy if lawsuit decides in favor of City of Minneapolis) 22. Research the benefits and process for the adoption of a local Fair Housing Policy, which the Metropolitan Council requires for participation in their grant programs for housing projects Page 32 City of Golden Valley 2021 Legislative Priorities Page 33 hll h } 4 it!it Hill III i ` i q IIII Ili� `\VIIIII�IIII . 11 Ilu It r1 ill r IIIIIII t`� �� IIIIVIIII � I I�� i i t� City of Golden Valley '�` 2021 Legislative Priorities EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Physical Development 763-593-8030 / 763-593-8109 (fax) Golden Valley Council/Manager Meeting January 12, 2021 Agenda Item 2. Blue Line Update Prepared By Tim Cruikshank, City Manager Summary Staff from the Blue Line Extension project including Dan Soler from Hennepin County and Sam O'Connell from Metropolitan Council, will provide an update and summary of the project's 2021 work plan. SUMMARY Physical Development 763-593-8030 / 763-593-8109 (fax) Golden Valley Council/Manager Meeting January 12, 2021 Agenda Item 3. Downtown Study Update Prepared By Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager Summary Representatives from Hoisington I<oegler Group, Inc. (HI<Gi) will present an update on Phase 3 of the Downtown Study. Background In 2020, the City hired HI<Gi to conduct Phase 3 of the Downtown Study. This final phase will further develop plans for catalyst sites in the area centered on the intersection of Winnetka Avenue and Golden Valley Road, develop implementation strategies, and generate a final report that could be adopted into the 2040 Comprehensive Plan as a Small Area Plan. Efforts to re-envision the City Hall Campus must be coordinated with the ongoing Municipal Facilities Study. As feedback helps to shape the direction of that study, community engagement for both topics will be coordinated over the next few months. The Downtown Study is expected to be completed by the spring of 2021. Financial Or Budget Considerations No additional financial considerations. Supporting Documents Memorandum from HI<Gi (2 pages) W13 ®e MEMORANDUM TO: City Council and Manager FROM: Jeff Miller and Bryan Harjes, HKGi DATE: January 6, 2021 SUBJECT: Downtown Study Update for January 1211 Council/Manager Meeting Overview of Study Update HKGi will provide an update of Phase 3 of the Downtown Study, which began in August. Downtown Study Phase 2 Recap As a refresher, Phase 2 of the Downtown Study resulted in an Interim Report that was presented to the City Council in January 2020. This report identified and analyzed redevelopment/reinvestment opportunity sites in the downtown, including the potential phasing of redevelopment of these sites. Alternative redevelopment concepts were explored for the SW, NW, and NE quadrants of the downtown. Active transportation opportunities were explored to improve walk, bike, and transit opportunities to and within the downtown. Community input on these opportunities and concepts were received via a public open house and an online survey. A preferred redevelopment concept for the downtown was identified, which includes a short-term redevelopment concept and three different options for the NE quadrant. A downtown walk/bike/transit circulation plan has been identified, which includes a north-south signature walk/bike pathway through the center of the civic campus connecting the Luce Line Regional Trail to downtown businesses and destinations. All of this work was used as the basis for a draft downtown vision and guiding principles. Downtown Study Phase 3 We will provide an update on the following: • Downtown vision and guiding principles • Study findings, including meetings with Hennepin County Transportation and Hennepin County Libraries • Downtown framework diagrams o Vehicle circulation & access o Walk/bike/transit circulation & access o Land use and development • Catalyst street design concepts— Golden Valley Road, Wisconsin Ave, downtown pathway • Refined redevelopment concepts for catalyst sites— SW and NE quadrants 1 January 1.2, 2021.Council/Manager Meeting Memo—Downtown Study Update—City of Golden Valley Northeast Quadrant Options Based on the downtown study's additional findings and in collaboration with the Municipal Facilities Study, we are continuing to refine the redevelopment concept for the NE quadrant. The redevelopment concept will need to consider the sites anticipated to be involved in future redevelopment: • City-owned land only • Include library land, but McDonald's remains • Include library and McDonald's land Community Engagement The next step in the process is to make the draft concepts available for community input. We welcome the Council's guidance on what type of community input will be helpful for completing the downtown framework plan. Looking forward to our discussion on Tuesday! 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Police 763-593-8079 / 763-593-8098 (fax) Golden Valley Council/Manager Meeting January 12, 2021 Agenda Item 4. 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. The Council previously provided input to staff on the proposed changes at its February 11, 2020 Council/Manager meeting. Shortly after the meeting, work on the ordinance was temporarily put on hold as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. Staff solicited input from the community regarding mandatory pet leashing and maximum length of leashes through an online survey. The survey was live from February 18, 2020 to December 1, 2020 and gathered 652 responses. The survey results are summarized in the attached Community Input Report. Additionally, the Open Space and Recreation Commission discussed the proposed ordinance at their meeting on October 26, 2020 and provided input to staff. The current ordinance allows any dog or animal, whether on public or private land, 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 proposed ordinance would allow the use of voice command for control on private property, but would require a leash on public property. The proposed ordinance also contains new requirements for signing areas controlled by electronic pet fence, using tethers to restrain animals, and removing excrement from public property and private property owned by another. Financial Or Budget Considerations Not applicable Supporting Documents • City Code Section 6.33 Leashing with underline-overstruck language (2 pages) • Proposed Section 6.33 Control of Animals (1 page) • Community Input Report (53 pages) Sec. 6-33. eashi„g-Control of Animals a) On private land. No person having custody or control of any dog or animal shall at any time permit the ean,edog or animal to be on e-r-� rim land, eth than land ewne^', leased, .,ee w. ied by the ...,.-S9R having the 6USt9dy tire) of " .J..g 9F -.Y.�..-.-.I� without the doe or animal being adequately supervised and effectively restrained by leas" ^"^"PAPA„^d ^+.^l "^.^;R -;^+ ^f+", from going beyond such ^�^^^^^' , � let; ^ "hall a private land by voice control, leash, tether, fence_ or electronic pet fence. b) On public land. No person having#custody or control of any dog or animal ^fps kindshall permit the doe or animal to be on any StFeetpublic land. uding but not limited to any street, alley, sidewalk, trail, public park. or public place, other than an area officially designated for off leash activities, without being effectively restrained by eh;;OR era leash not exceeding 44wenly feet in length, ^'^« ,^eepApaRied ^f eeenti ell FestF iRed by Rd as by a l "which is shortened to six feet when another person or animal is within twenty feet. Any person accompanied by such doe or animal on public land shall not interfere or allow the doe or animal to interfere with other users. (Ged 1999 § c) Other requirements. ( Any area, lot, or yard that utilizes an electronic pet fence to prevent a doe or animal from escaping or getting loose must have prominent signage indicating that an electronic pet fence is present, and the electronic pet 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, lot, or yard. Tethers may only be used if all of the following requirements are met: a) Tethers must be at least three times the length of the dog or animal secured to it. b� Any dog or animal secured with a tether must be in an area that would not allow the dog or animal to become tangled around obiects. ccl Any dog or animal secured with a tether must have access to shelter and water. d) Tethers must be placed in such a location as to inhibit the secured dog or animal from reaching a public sidewalk, street, public park, school grounds, alley. or public place, or any other property other than the owner or custodian's property. e) Tethers may not exceed five pounds in weight but shall be of appropriate weight for the size of the dog or animal. fj Dogs and animals shall not be tethered without on-site supervision. gj Dogs and animals shall not be tether by the leg. (3 It is unlawful for any person who causes or permits any dog to be on any property. public or private, not owned or possessed by that person. to fail to remove excrement left by that doe to a proper receptacle located on property owned or possessed by that e Sec. 6-33.—Control of Animals a) On private land. No person having custody or control of any dog or animal shall at any time permit the dog or animal to be on private land, without the dog or animal being adequately supervised and effectively restrained from going beyond such private land by voice control, leash, tether, fence, or electronic pet fence. b) On public land. No person having custody or control of any dog or animal shall permit the dog or animal to be on any public land, including but not limited to any street, alley, sidewalk, trail, public park, or public place, other than an area officially designated for off leash activities, without being effectively restrained by a leash not exceeding twenty feet in length, which is shortened to six feet when another person or animal is within twenty feet. Any person accompanied by such dog or animal on public land shall not interfere or allow the dog or animal to interfere with other users. c) Other requirements. (1) Any area, lot, or yard that utilizes an electronic pet fence to prevent a dog or animal from escaping or getting loose must have prominent signage indicating that an electronic pet fence is present, and the electronic pet 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, lot, or yard. (2) Tethers may only be used if all of the following requirements are met: a) Tethers must be at least three times the length of the dog or animal secured to it. b) Any dog or animal secured with a tether must be in an area that would not allow the dog or animal to become tangled around objects. c) Any dog or animal secured with a tether must have access to shelter and water. d) Tethers must be placed in such a location as to inhibit the secured dog or animal from reaching a public sidewalk, street, public park, school grounds, alley, or public place, or any other property other than the owner or custodian's property. e) Tethers may not exceed five pounds in weight but shall be of appropriate weight for the size of the dog or animal. f) Dogs and animals shall not be tethered without on-site supervision. g) Dogs and animals shall not be tether by the leg. (3) It is unlawful for any person who causes or permits any dog to be on any property, public or private, not owned or possessed by that person, to fail to remove excrement left by that dog to a proper receptacle located on property owned or possessed by that person or a public refuse receptacle. P }}t Leash COMMUNITY INPUT REPORT Alf, ............................. is ........... city 0 f golden valley Overview...... ...................................................................... ..................2 Question1 ........................................................... .................................3 Question2..... .............................................. .........................................3 Question3.......... .............................................................. .......... ..........4 Question4.......... .............................................................. .......... ..........4 Appendix A. Social Media Reach & Engagement....................... ......... .... .....49 Pet Leash Ordinance Community Input Report Page 1 Soliciting public input was a major component of the Golden Valley City Council's consideration of updating the City's pet leash ordinance. Staff solicited input from the community through an online survey regarding the following areas: • mandatory pet leashing • minimum length of leashes To promote the survey, the City published three website news stories about the issues being considered by the City Council. All information included links to the online survey. The City further promoted the survey through social media posts on Facebook and Twitter. Survey The City published a survey for residents to give their input on the topic. The survey was live Feb 18, 2020—Dec 1, 2020 and garnered 652 responses. ,Social Media Outreacl The City posted information and reminders about the survey three times on Facebook and three times on Twitter between Feb 18, 2020 and March 24, 2020. See Appendix A for reach and engagement details for each post. City of Golden Valley,MN-Local Government Publishes 6y Loomly 0•February 18 0 The Ci.y Cc-ncil o..ld like inout firm residents 1e7. ;,y c,;ne ,_s -1�e cu:I-nl :��nce allu::-^-_ e V=.;h =,,,e•,� controlled by vo ce commands. https-.//www.goic.�nvalleymn.gov/.../council-looking-to. GOL❑ENVALLEVMN,GOV City of Golden Valley,MN:City Council Looking To Update Pet Leashing Ordinance 1,466 469 People Reaches Engagements City of Golden Valley MN - - �ww`-olaenVaileyMN 00911 Residents have one week left to share feedback on a Like Q Comment proposed updated pet leashing ordinance. The short survey can he taken online,. ' Comment as City of Golden Valley,MN-Local goldenvalleymn.gov/newsarchive/in... 4:49 PM �Mar 24,2020• Loomly ill View Tweet activity Q 1_-1 Q Pet Leash Ordinance Community Input Report Page 2 1. Do you agree Golden Valley should have an ordinance requiring all pets be leashed at all times in Golden Valley public spaces? Of the 646 respondents, 451 (70 percent) answered yes and 195 (30 percent) answered no. Answer Count 0 Ye, 451 i No 195 2. Do you think 6 feet is an acceptable maximum leash length for all pets in Golden Valley public spaces? Of the 646 respondents, 391 (61 percent) answered yes and 255 (39 percent) answered no. Answer Count Yes 391 255 35 Pet Leash Ordinance Community Input Report Page 3 3. If not, what maximum leash length would you consider acceptable? Of the 217 responses to this question, the most popular answers were 10 feet, 12 feet, and 15 feet. 47.0 i--.'J 40.0 35.0 30.0 25.0 22 20.0 18 15.0 13 10.0 7 8 5.0 3 Ir 1 4 2 2 1 2 1 1 D.D FM 3 4 = 10 24 25 :. YZ 4. Do you have other comments? This question was open-ended and gathered no statistical data. See responses below. The current law is sufficient. No change is needed. This ordinance should be promoted as a way to keep all pets and humans safe, but especially as a way to protect people who are scared of dogs from undue stress of dogs approaching them There are rumors of a requirement that dogs must be on LEATHER LEASH. If this were true, that would be extremely excessive requirement with no good reason. Pet Leash Ordinance Community Input Report Page 4 I have read recent numerous comments on Nextdoor's website by Golden Valley dog owners objecting to leashing their dogs. Somehow they feel it's their right to allow their dog(s) to roam freely as they walk through our neighborhoods only depending on voice commands to control their dog(s). Audible sounds do not offer physical restrainment...a nylon/leather leash does. In my opinion, no dog will respond 100% of the time to an owner's command therefore, it's time to remove that risk and require dogs be leashed when walked on publicly owned property. I love dogs, I've owned dogs and would never consider walking them without them being on a 6' leash...I never used a retractable leash either . There's a certain arrogance off-leash supporters have...e.g. their dog(s) can do no wrong/harm. Well, maybe they'd like to come over and replace the flowers their off-leash dog trampled in my gardens! Please vote to require all dogs to be leashed. If people don't like it, they can move...there will always be others who will want to move into our community! Keep dogs leashed, even "good dogs" can be unpredictable. Consider providing waste bags for dog owners. Also, should close dog parks when waste is not picked up. I'd be very happy to have dogs on restricted-length leashes. Too often "voice command" doesn't prevent them from running into the street in front of my car or running onto my front lawn to relieve themselves. Asking an owner to keep their dogs close to them while walking on public property is the safest and most neighborly thing to do. And although I don't have a dog now, I have in the past and always kept them on restricted leashing on a walk (not retractable). Thank you. We always leash our dogs in public spaces with a 6 ft leash. That said, this is an owner (training) issue, not dogs. Owners need to be more responsible for their dog(s) while around other people and/or dogs. Joggers who let their 'voice command' dogs run loose (and up into other people's property) run the risk of ruining good will toward dogs. (It's rude.) So a 15 ft rule should apply to 'voice command' dogs in public places. MOST owners ARE responsible while walking their pets. It's a few bad apples (inconsiderate owners) that ruin it for everyone else. Please don't make Golden Valley an unfriendly community. Thank you! Dog Owners should be allowed to have their dog on an electronic collar in place of a leash and be allowed to have their dog off leash in their own yard without a fence or in ground Pet Leash Ordinance Community Input Report Page 5 fence if the dog is voice trained and the owner is outside with them. I also disagree with the requirement for a yard sign for inground fencing. Keep it as it is, I like it just the way the laws are This is a complete waste of time to satisfy the complaints of those in North Tyrol. Can we focus on something else with our time. I feel retractable leashes need to be allowed although certainly dogs should be under control of their owner and perhaps within 6-10 feet of their owner when when approaching people or other dogs. A standard 6 ft leash is not long enough for me to be able to walk safely in the street when my dog walks up on snow banks I heard Eft leather leash, that is to much. Leather is to heavy for small dogs. I am not sure about the maximum length, but for a small dog like a dachshund, 6' seems too short. I don't like retractable leashes, because the owners do not have control of their dog. As a dog owner and a teenager I have an important stance on this. Somedays playing with my dog in my front yard or running around the culdesac my dog is the best stress reliever from constant school work and anxiety. As a nanny, I know that dogs can run up to kids and scare them but it's important forchildren to know how to handle dogs too and the most harm these dogs will do is say hello. Please consider the words of your cities youth when making this Retractable and off leash should be included as options I think the current ordinance is just fine. As to leash length I think there is a difference between small dogs Le. Under 15 Ibs and large dogs. Leash should be retractable and allowed to be more than 6 feet long. Dogs on private property can be off tether if there's owner supervision and/or have an electric fence. I think a leash length of 8 or 9 feet would be reasonable - 6 feet seems too short. (Question 4 didn't allow anything except a single number response.) I did a quick internet search, and found very little on reasonable leash length - and not written by leash or pet supply sellers. One question might be how the 6 foot length was established, and is it reasonable? After reading the old ordinance, and the proposed revisions, I agree there has been some ill- informed commentary, and think the ordinance is reasonable, perhaps with a minor change to the leash length. Good luck! Dogs should be on leash in all public spaces, but no need for a maximum leash length. That seems quite unnecessary. Pet Leash Ordinance Community Input Report Page 6 6' or shorter is reasonable when near other people and pets but when no other people are nearby the extending leashes are reasonable. People just need to have their pets under control when near others. Not all pets or people are comfortable with dogs approaching them. My husband suffered a dog bite over christmas, from a dog that the owner said was friendly. Yes I feel all dogs should be leashed. I have had plenty of dogs run up to me when I was walking, I am afraid of large dogs. Most time voice commands do not work. No What about retractable leashes? These often expand beyond Eft. In my own yard, I should not have to tether my dog. Micro managed!! We are never going to live in a perfect world. Just because other cities are doing it, doesn't mean Golden Valley has to follow!!!! Length of leash depends on the size of the dog and how well you can control them. 6 Ft is fine though (makes the ordinance easier to understand and follow and enforce if needed), and taking out the voice command is fine too. People do not always know what voice command really is. having a hard time with this web sight.... It's for the dog's safety. No We have no issues in our neighborhood with dogs being off leash in the park. Most neighbors have dogs and frequently build community in the park while playing with dogs and socializing with each other. We are strongly against this ordinance and if we were interested in something like this why not just live in Minneapolis... If there is a leash law, then there should be dog parks easily assessable throughout GV. I feel dogs that are controlled under voice command and e-leashes should be exempt for the ordinance. Thank you for addressing this public concern! Pet Leash Ordinance Community Input Report Page 7 I would like to see the city reexamine pet laws/ordinances more broadly, especially as it relates to pet owners who ignore neighbor requests to keep their dogs in the house/quiet during night hours. The current laws work. Many dogs have been professionally trained with voice commands, have ecollars or retractable leashes. While there is a plethora of information in favor of and against various leashing options, they represent the variety used by owners. We DO NOT have a widespread issue on this front as 99% of owners are responsible and manage dogs well. This is not necessary. We need facts to support a change of this magnitude. I do not feel this ordinance should be rewritten. I believe the council may hear from a very vocal minority on this, who don't support the ordinance. The folks I've seen opposed to the ordinance seem to only be those who believe in their own supernatural ability to control their dogs as well as, or better than, a physical leash would. Others are suggesting that being a "good neighbor" means allowing people to walk their dogs as they wish (without a leash). Acting like neighborly courtesy and biased self-judgment of one's own abilities are enough to keep everyone safe and considerate is unfortunately pretty delusional. Similarly, we don't allow people to drive whatever speed they'd like down neighborhood roads because we trust them to be good neighbors. We have speed limits as law, for everyone's safety. In the case of "command control" for dogs/animals some neighbors are complaining that they "invested a lot of money" in their dog's obedience and their own ability to control them with their voice. To draw a parallel back to speed limits, if people could "invest a lot of money" in driving school to be incredible drivers with peerless reaction time, I still don't think neighbors would take kindly to them driving 50 mph through the neighborhood. Because a) nobody knows that they went to driving school, and b) nobody would ever trust that they're not going to have a slip-up and run into a pedestrian. It's the same thing here. Pet Leash Ordinance Community Input Report Page 8 Here is what the American Kennel Club has to say: "Like a case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, the leash-aggressive dog is calm, cool, and downright polite when walking among people or around dogs off-leash. But hook on a leash, and he lunges, barks, and snaps at the sight of another dog. Has this scenario reduced you to mapping out walks where you know you won't run into other dogs? While it sounds counter- intuitive, the road to fixing this issue is actually off-leash interactions with dogs. But don't do this without seeking the help of a professional dog trainer, because before you take this step, you must learn how to correctly read the native language of dogs—body language! If you don't know what your dog or the other dog is saying with their body signals, you may see play when it's really tension, and tension when it's really dog play. Although leash-aggressive dogs rarely follow through with a bite, the experience is frightening and embarrassing enough to make their owners decide to limit or eliminate walks altogether. But that doesn't have to be the case if you understand the causes and solutions for this type of behavior. A combination of frustration and tension, leash aggression is a common problem. Many dogs that show these traits crave interaction with other dogs, but most have less-than-stellar canine social skills for creating a successful meet and greet. Much like a child who runs onto a playground and puts another child in a headlock as a way of saying, "Hey, let's be friends!" a dog lacking social skills may lunge and bark at a passing dog instead of using subtle signs to signal their desire to form a relationship. When their owners witness this behavior they (understandably) pull their dogs away and avoid exposing them to social interactions with other canines. But this ensures that their dog will never learn how to correctly interact with other dogs, and dooms them and their dog to a life devoid of canine friendships. Call in the Experts. In addition, a qualified trainer can help you evaluate your dog to see if this is a typical case of leash aggression, or if there's something else happening. Whenever I'm handling this type of dog behavior problem, I always make sure that the dog has had a complete veterinary exam to rule out any medical causes for the behavior." The current rules are working. The proposed changes are far too restrictive As dog owners ourselves, we think it would be great if it was possible for the city to better enforce owners picking up after dogs as well. Can all leashes have a "doggie bag" holder? This survey is worded in such a way to give advantage to proponents of proposed leash ordinance. Not a very objective survey. Pet Leash Ordinance Community Input Report Page 9 We have a granddaughter severely allergic to dogs. It is dangerous to take her for walks when she visits twice a week. We would like to be able to take her to the park without worrying about a dog, friendly or not, approaching her. Electronic and retractable leashes should be considered. Must have ordinance to keep people especially children safe. Give us a dog park please. Put poop bags next to the garbage cans in the parks like other cities. Install dog watering stations at the parks. Thank you. The City needs to stop sending out surveys that have biased language. You can't ask questions 3 and 4 if you don't think there is a problem with off-leash voice commands instead of strict leash requirements. Also, nothing in this survey addresses potential changes to " guidelines regarding animal control on private property, including electronic pet fencing and tethering pets outdoors." It is not clear whether "guidelines" would be non-binding or requirements that, if violated, could trigger city action. There are plenty of penalties for problem pets and there is no need for further regulation on this issue. Further regulation is actually the opposite of more progressive communities that recognize the importance of growing more integration between the community and the pets in the community, such as by relaxing limitations on allowing pets in commercial establishments. Civil actions, fines, and existing laws are enough, and looking to more when you just shot down a dog park just makes the City Council look bad. Considering the number of dogs in this community, it is time to offer more, not less, for families with pets. Pick something better to do with the time of our city officials and police than pet ordinances. You have enough problems with a half empty set of stop malls defining our town, a stalled and controversial light rail project, budget concerns, and keeping business in the area. retractable leashes are fine, so are well trained dogs who respond to voice commands. The city should be more worried about it's out of control property taxes and over-regulation of EVERYthing including building. Voice command is not sufficient. Pick up the poop No I think electronic collars should be an acceptable form of controlling dogs too. As an owner of two dogs, I appreciate this. I have yet to meet a dog on fool proof voice control. I would not want to encounter an unleashed dog while walking my dogs. Too many people think it's about their dog "oh my dogs nice" and let their dogs get too close to others. Pet Leash Ordinance Community Input Report Page 10 I could maybe see it in an open space, like a park but not on city streetS or trails. Retractable leashes are also an issue, most trainers don't like them and owners rarely use them correctly or responsibly. A Eft leash should be plenty. I am against "The new ordinance could also outline guidelines regarding animal control on private property, including electronic pet fencing and tethering pets outdoors" aspect of this ordinance. Any ordinance dictating how I should handle my pet on my property is overreach and abuse of power. I'm so very happy you are modernizing this! We have so many kids (and more than a few adults) in the neighborhood with behavior reactions to uncontrolled pets, this is going to make a lot of families feel safer at the park, or even in their own yards! Please include an ability for public safety to respond to complaints of unleashed pets on an adjacent property (company, schools and churches or other large private lawn spaces people treat like parks). It's a big issue in our area and I feel bad for police who aren't able to respond. I appreciate you looking into this issue. I agree that dogs should not be just running free. Thanks for asking! We should spend our time on important issues such as plowing sidewalks on Golden Valley Road, and reducing burglary Pet Leash Ordinance Community Input Report Page 11 Reasons for updating the City code, other than it "has not been updated in several decades" are not apparent to me. Has the city staff made data available to the public specific to this topic that shows leash laws make communities safer? I believe that leash laws disincentivize the public from properly training animals to respond to voice commands which puts animals and the public at risk. If the public does not have a legal option to let their animal off leash, they are likely to rely too heavily on mechanical restraint which leaves the animal and public vulnerable to unsafe situations. What happens when the leash is dropped, the tether is broken, or the animal slips out the door? The public faces the same if not greater risk. I propose the City Council of Golden Valley explore alternative options to keep the public and animals safe. Some ideas include: Requiring the public to purchase an annual animal license that gives owners the option to pay an additional fee for certification to allow off-leash voice command control of animals by passing a test. Secondly, Golden Valley could consider adding off-leash facilities to city parks for owners to train off-leash commands, offsetting costs through license fee collection. As of today, I pay license and access fees to other municipalities and travel outside of our community to enjoy off-leash areas. A third option would be to consider zoning quieter areas of the community where existing off-leash voice command recall ordinance remains unchanged. As a final thought, I'd like to remind the you and the council that Australia recently passed laws effectively recognizing animals as sentient beings. This means the law recognizes that animals can feel and perceive the world around them and deserve to have quality of life that reflects their intrinsic value. To me an ordinance that requires 6 clarifying points on proper use of a tether does not recognize animal's intrinsic value. So I ask, why the negative reinforcement? For the sake of our beloved community, let's try positive reinforcement. Changing the leash law is not necessary. I have lived in this community for over 40 years and have always been a responsible dog owner. Dogs that are well controlled verbally by their owners should be allowed to continue to take walks off-leash. Our neighborhood has always appeared to be dog-friendly. I have to wonder how many of our neighbors are truly upset about seeing a dog walking off-leash with its' owner. I'm guessing that it's a very small minority of people. Responsible dog owners and their dogs would be penalized by this change in the law. Taking a survey to find out this information is useful. At the very least, not allowing dogs to be on retractable leashes that can be let out to over 6 feet is a terrible idea. The current law is adequate. More stipulations become untenable, unenforceable and draconian. Leave well enough alone!! Everyone has a "good dog"...until they're not. Keep them leashed. Pet Leash Ordinance Community Input Report Page 12 It has been my experience that some dog owners claim they have voice control of their dog when in reality they do not. It's just an excuse to let their dogs run free. The new rule would remove that excuse. We have laws about leashing. We have fines/penalties if a dog attacks a human or other dog. Leashing on your own property is ridiculous. This will just be another ordinance that won't be enforced....just like the winter parking restrictions. The current ordinance is just fine. Most retractable leashes come in 16' lengths, and is a reasonable length when walking and allows our dog to wonder at their pleasure. At that length I can easily retract it if another group is approaching or we are crossing a busy street. I completely disagree with anything limiting how we control our animal on our own property. A leash is what works best for my animal on my property. For others that's an electric fence. Why does it matter as long as the animal can't access public property? Kind, well-behaved, trained dogs should not have to be leashed at all times. All of the people that have dogs in the neighborhood have spent a great deal of time working with their dogs to teach them how to act around other dogs, children and adults. Don't tell me how to control my pet on my private property. As a dog owner of two incredibly well-behaved chihuahuas I am not in support of this policy, especially one that feels this drastic. I understand there are mixed sentiments around the current state-of-the-state and I also understand that there are a few bad apples who ruin it for the majority. Part of what I love about Golden Valley is how pet friendly it is, especially in my neighborhood. I purchased a home two years ago overlooking an off-leash dog park and that was definitely part of the appeal. I do allow my dogs to roam in the yard with me, outside of their fence. They are never unattended and they've never bothered a soul. If a policy change does occur I would hope that you would at least consider extending the 6 ft leash mandate - it's not only disappointing, it seems cruel for a suburban neighborhood (using a leash that short wouldn't even let my little ones tumble in the grass freely). I also very much appreciate that this survey went up so quickly to pulse the community- when something effects our everyday life I like knowing that we all have a voice. Thank you, -Kelly Pet Leash Ordinance Community Input Report Page 13 I feel all pets should be on a leash I do however disagree with the decision be made to length and type. Who determines the ability of a pet to be controlled by voice command? -the owner? - nonsense! I've been rushed and barked at by dogs in parks! In a matter of seconds a dog could be out of control. "Stop biting that man Fido" is real effective. 25 to 50 feet for training leads This is a public safety issue. Residents should be able to walk around the city without feeling threatened by dogs who are off leash. Not everyone likes dogs, and off-leash dogs can scare them. We don't live in Hooterville. The % of dogs in our state is 32%, which means there are about 6,700 dogs in GV. We're all safe when they're leashed. I asked my veterinarian, who practices in GV, about this issue and she said they see a lot of injuries caused by unleashed dogs. She said voice control is great ... until it's not - until the dog is motivated to not be controlled. These are animals. Even the best dog can be spooked or distracted and act in an unanticipated manner. Even the best-trained dog can break training and scare or hurt a person or another dog. This is about humans respecting the social space of other humans. Voice control is completely subjective, and no other cities around us have this loophole -for good reason! No one can guarantee their off-leash dog is 100% under their voice command 100% of the time. Unless you're in physical control of your dog, your dog isn't really under control. A "mental" leash isn't a leash. Signage regarding rule to pick up poop. Maybe even a place to get bags. I know that the ordinance currently allows for dogs off leash, if the dog is controlled as well as they would be on leash. I have encountered a number of dogs off leash, usually while walking my own dog (on leash.) Not a single dog I have EVER seen off leash stayed within 6' of their owner. Every single owner I have ever seen that thought their dog would be that well controlled was wrong, every single time. Honestly if I thought it was realistic, it would be fine, but it's just not. It's very frustrating when other peoples dogs start running at us as they mumble about how "usually" their dog is so well behaved. They're not. They never are. It's just not happening. What ends up happening is there are dog owners who just keep their dogs on leash, and there are dog owners who let their dogs just run wherever. Unless the city is actually going to enforce the law as written (somehow,) it's just better to not allow dogs off leash outside of dog parks. No specific law is needed. It should be common sense and issues such as dog attacks should be dealt with as they occur with no specific requirements on leashes. Pet Leash Ordinance Community Input Report Page 14 Whether or not a dog can be controlled by voice command under any stress or unusual circumstance can only be proven (in the negative) after the dog causes injury or damage. Spaces like open fields and the path around Brownie Lakes are so great for dogs to run around and for their owners for to connect. It's an important part of our community that our dogs spend time off leash (though in control) in Golden Valley. The owners of Dogs must be responsible for picking up their poop! Too many times I find in my yard random poop! Take responsibility dog owners! I live one block from the nature area and walk in it or past it several times per week. Many owners take their dogs off leash into the nature area. Do I have a problem with that? Absolutely not! One guy in particular is older and limps but he has a very energetic dog who romps around in the park. That's terrific. What isn't terrific is the guy whom I haven't seen in a while who has two dogs who are on leashes but have to be restrained so they don't attack my dog. They actually attacked a neighbor's dog a couple of years ago, the neighbor was away from home, and so I ended up driving the disraught daughter and the dog to the vet. He was OK except for his eye which needed some eyedrops. I would love to see some sort of ordinance of once and done -- if your dog attacks another person or another dog, there is a $500 fine. PS The only time our dog get outside off leash is when she escaped past an open door and then we run her down. She would be lunch for a coyote. I wouldn't limit leash length, allow retractable leashes. We constantly have off leash dogs in our neighborhood and the owners let them on our property unrestrained. It's a public nuisance (often digging in our yard or leavimg waste) and we wholeheartedly support requiring leashes on dogs in all cases. I believe the majority of dog owners manage their pets on extendable leashes up to 12 feet. Restrictions on this are difficult to enforce and seem to be aimed at a few offenders. Animals controlled by voice commands are fine, I have not had a problem with this ever. This review seems random, without a violation trend or example of threat to support a change. It also seems at odds with practices in neighboring cities. Unless there is a pattern of offenses city wide why spend resources on what appears to be of random problems that are not systemic. I have been chased by unleashed dogs while out jogging at least 5 times, so I would appreciate this ordinance very much. In all instances that I have been chased, the dog DID NOT respond to voice commands. Pet Leash Ordinance Community Input Report Page 15 The wording for this survey is deceptive and doesn't address the real question of voice control as an acceptable form of dog restraint. For the record, if voice restraint is an effective method for controlling one's dog, it should remain thus in the current ordinance. What about retractable leashes? How are you going to enforce the 6 ft long rule with those? Those can go up to 15ft. Will you issue tickets? The article has mentions ordinance for private property. I would need to know more information before supporting any restrictions there. Without that info, I would oppose any restrictions to private property. I think the councils time would be better spent addressing the issues with people keeping there dogs outdoors all year round and strengthening the abilities of the police to do something about it. If you guys are looking for quality data to make real decisions about city policy, you need to improve your survey writing skills. First, you should write the survey a non-leading manner; This is survey writing 101. Also, its hard for people visualize how long 6 feet is - instead, perhaps giving people perspective on the length of standard leashes. In fact, you could have probably combined question #3 and #4 to get better results (and easier to analyze) - something like "Standard non-retractable leash lengths range from 4 to 8 feet long. Retractable leashes can range from 15 to 30 when fully extended. How long do you think the maximum leash should be in Golden Valley?A) less than four feet B) four to six feet Q six to ten feet D) ten feet or more E) I don't think there should be a maximum length" Please spend more time thinking about the surveys you write before you send them out. This is important to protect our dogs, our kids, and ourselves. My dogs, my daughter, and I have all been injured by dogs off leash, even when the owner is nearby. In the absence of a clear and serious problem needing address (other than, e.g., getting one or two vocal complainants to stop complaining, which may be the problem here), I strongly question the need to change the ordinance. I run regularly, and while there have been a couple times that poorly controlled dogs have been a problem, it's never been a major safety issue. What's more, why adopt yet another ordinance seeking to control individual behavior, when it's rarely if ever enforced (or even worse, selectively enforced)? Please leave the current ordinance as-is. I would love to be able to walk freely with my cat (leashed) in my own yard without worrying that the dog next door was not going to run into our yard again and this time rather than pick her up and be forced to the ER for antibiotics, not pick her up and have her killed by the neighbor dog. In my yard. They should be leashed or have invisible fences if they are any danger whatsoever to other animals and pets. I could care less about a little dog or basset Pet Leash Ordinance Community Input Report Page 16 hound that isn't going to hurt other animals or kids, but too many people assume it's okay to have a potentially dangerous to other animals dog run out of their yard or off the sidewalk and into someone else's yard in GV. I use a 25' long lead for training. Deal with people who leave their pets outside all year round. I think retractable leashes should be permitted when dog is not in an "actively inhabited public space-Streets, etc. to permit dogs to "explore" beyond 6 feet. In my neighborhood dogs frequently make a run for it when delivery people come to people's homes. We are all familiar with local dogs and know to grab any escapees. Clearly owners don't want their dogs out and are anxious when these occurrence take place. I would like to recognize that there is a very different scenario when an owner intentionally has a dog off leash or isn't controlling their pet in an active public area (or their neighborhood for that matter) and when dogs are escaping their homes or fenced confines. I love dogs and cats. I have been nipped at and chased by dogs that the owner thought were under control. For the safety of our pets, our children and ourselves, dogs (and cats) need to be leashed. I don't mind longer leashes, as long as the owner can rein in the animal when others are around. Even the best trained dogs cannot always go against their nature. It's just not worth the risk. I think the rule should change to: "All dog owners are to be responsible for the behavior of their dog and must be in a position with the proper equipment (leash, collar, commands) to ensure their dog does not physically touch, encroach or threaten persons or dogs in public arenas without verbal or written approval. Doesn't the City of Golden Valley have more important topics to delve into than this? A big disappointment in our elected officials. Dog owners have the intelligence to know when and where our pups should or should not be leashed. We do not need a mandate. While most dogs walked off-leash are well trained, not all are. Without familiarity with a specific dog, there is no way to know how it will behave when you encounter it off-leash. Even well trained dogs are often allowed to chase wildlife when off-leash resulting in the dog being temporarily uncontrolled and creating potential safety issues. The proposed ordinance strikes me as a reasonable and appropriate balance of the interests of dog owners and their neighbors (I've been a dog owner in Golden Valley for 35 years). Pet Leash Ordinance Community Input Report Page 17 I have a small (101b) dog who is not dog friendly. She will snap at other dogs who approach her and while she might not do a lot of damage, she's likely to be killed when they snap back. We walk her at odd hours or late in the evening to avoid other dogs. Despite our efforts to avoid other dogs, there have been multiple times another dog has enthusiastically approached her off leash. She goes ballistic and I've lifted her up over my head to get her out of range of the other dog while they are jumping on me trying to get to her. It's scary and frustrating and dangerous. People love to think they have voice control over their dogs and I'm sure some of them do but it's clear to me that at least some of them don't. For the protection of everyone and all dogs, please change the ordinance. I have owned 2 - 3 dogs at any given time since I moved to Golden Valley in 2001. 1 strongly agree that all dogs should be on a leash no longer than 6'. 1 don't trust owners who say their dog responds to 'voice commands' as that training and response is usually a product of a controlled environment. A dog obedience training center, a private fenced yard or a large field in the country where the dog will be a hunting partner. When in a public area there are too many distractions for both the owner and the dog. Same applies to dogs in the front yard under voice control...it's not a controlled environment and I am not confident that the owner is going to have constant eyes on the dog and they wouldn't dart out into the street after a squirrel or rabbit or a person passing by with a dog on leash. I don't want to see a dog hit by a car and I don't want to be the victim of a dog attack. I've experienced that first hand and several thousand dollars later. I have never had a seriously negative experience with a dog in an owners front yard who had an electric fence. I appreciate the signage but have had dogs charge the perimeter of their yard while we're on the sidewalk and it scares the crap out of me. Sometimes the owner yells out the front door that there's an electric fence ... not to worry. Well, that's fine for them but I've already soiled myself and my dog(s) are hyperventilating. Bottom line, I'm in strong support of all dogs being on a lead no longer than 6'. Retractable leads do NOT provide the control and direction a standard lead does. I'm also experienced in mishaps with those. I am not in favor of dogs being under 'voice control' in public areas or in private front yards. I don't know what the proposed ordinance says about a dog being on a tether or tied up lead in the front yard but I've also experience that and don't have an issue with it. I can SEE the tether or the lead and as long as the dog can't run into a public walk way it's not a problem. Unfortunately I've seen many dogs hit the end of that tether and choke themselves. This can cause injury to their throat and necks but that's the owner's judgment call. Pet Leash Ordinance Community Input Report Page 18 The city should not regulate how pet owners contain & control their pets on private property. Not everyone likes dogs. Even if people do like dogs, children and dogs don't always mix well, even if a dog has never reacted poorly with a child doesn't mean they never will. People don't always leash their pets at the park or at the General Mills nature preserve and that can be scary and dangerous. When my kids were 3, we were run down and knocked down by a "puppy" off leash and the owners did not have voice control or any control of the dog. Unfortunately, people cannot be left to their own devices and trusted to ACTUALLY have their pets under "voice control." I don't think most dog owners know what that actually means. On walks with our dog (who is always leashed because we know very well he's not always going to follow commands) we've encountered many people who think their dog is listening, but clearly is not. Their dogs harass ours (nipping,jumping on), follow us, etc. and the owners just stand there and yell at them, or laugh like it's not a big deal. It is. If you own a dog, it shouldn't be a burden to take them for a walk on a leash, so implementing a leash ordinance in Golden Valley shouldn't be a big deal. I don't think leashes are necessary for dogs that obey commands. If there's no dog park in the city of GV, how can GV tell owners that they must be leashed at all times? I have a 9 lb Min Pin and a Welsh Corgi terrier mix. We do not walk them except when we are out of the city; we do not take our dogs to 'off leash parks' as they are too dangerous and dirty; we take our dogs out in our backyard ON retractable LEASH and harness. In addition to loose stray/owned dogs, we are always alert for coyote, large owls, hawks, fox, raccoons at night any one of which could decide the Min Pin would be a tasty meal. Perhaps 2-3 times a year our Min Pin will sneak out the door and run like fire - but my first worry is cars that speed down our street. I get in my van with the back door open, drive down the street with a treat in hand and she will jump in the car; occasionally a neighbor will catch her and she never bothers anyone. I do think that dogs being walked should be leashed, but I think it should be left up to the owners discretion as to what type of leash is used. I personally believe, from our vet's review, that a good harness (Ruffwear) and a retractable leash set to keep the dog 1-2 feet near you when passing other walkers with or without dogs. We also have a Ruffwear expandable walking leash which we use out in the country. That is what works for us and it might not fit everyone's needs, but I don't believe legislating leash lengths and types is a good use of Golden Valley's resources. Loose dogs running, owned or wild, should be addressed. Pet Leash Ordinance Community Input Report Page 19 Private property should be exempt from leash rules, especially length requirements. Electronic fencing should be allowed. Since we did not get the dog park- we don't have anywhere to have the dogs off leash unless at a park where the dogs can run . We really enjoy taking our dog to park off leash to play- What is the current enforcement? Have there been issues with the current policy? How much control can you really have on private property? I do not think that the city needs to regulate leash length for its citizens. This is a gross overreach. In the 8+years we've lived in GV, I've only on a very few occasions met up with a dog that was impolite enough to cause me a disturbance - every single time that dog was appropriately on a leash,just handled by someone who was distracted, inexperienced, or just being disrespectful of others around them. We owned ourselves a well trained dog for many years who was by far more obedient than most other dogs we would encounter when out in public and he was most obedient when walking along with us, off leash and under voice control. I do think there would be a great benefit to more public education and awareness of the current ordinances and the consequences of not adhering to them with dogs that are not adequately trained. I do however, feel that changing the ordinance to arbitrarily require leashing will be unlikely to do much to change the behavior of those who are ignorant or choosing to disregard the qualifications already required currently. A side issue is the proposition of regulating the way dogs are kept within private property. This also comes across to me as arbitrary. One of the things we chose this area and our home for was the fact that not ALL of the yards are fenced off and separated from each other. Invisible fencing might be prohibitively expensive for some and does not work for all dogs. Physical fences, especially combined with the limited sidewalks available only makes connecting with neighbors that much more difficult and unwelcoming. Based on my personal experience, those who are choosing not to adequately train, restrain, or control their animals are *likely* to continue to do so regardless of what the ordinances are. On a final note, I do feel it is appropriate to maintain the requirement to have a dog on leash with public parks. For both their safety and the safety of others. It just makes sense. Residents should see what data exists that has triggered a need to change this law. I'm a firm believer that bad dog behavior is caused by bad owners ... no leash law will solve this. It is not acceptable to punish responsible dog owners. The requirement to leash on private property is ridiculous. It's private property ... private. Pet Leash Ordinance Community Input Report Page 20 We have a massive yard, to put in fencing would could close to $15k. We do not have the money to do that and our dog responds promptly to all commands. Please consider a different option for those with well trained animals.... like giving fines to those that ARE NOT trained or being cared for. I think people should use what they need to keep their dog under control. I can see times when 6' would not be appropriate. Are you talking about a leather exclusive leash? This is so ridiculous. I've yet to come across a poorly behaved pet. If something happens, it would obviously fall on the owner. Don't punish all responsible owners of well behaved animals, because of some fear. We need to be adults who accept responsibility for ourselves, not telling others what to do, on such a minuscule issue. No changes to private property. I think that if pets are contained by voice commands and are within a reasonable distance from the owner, there should be no issue. Get busy solving real problems Each owner should be responsible for their dog. If they can control them with voice commands that's fine. They should not be ticketed when the dog is not causing an issue just for not being on a leash. However if they are off leash and cause an issue then for sure they should be cited. Dogs should be leashed if they are not in a fenced yard or in a dog park. P.E.R.I.O.D. On public land all animals need to be leashed and under owners control. If you are having a picnic for example a longer leash should be acceptable but if walking around other people a 6' leash should be used. My question is, why is somebody looking for a solution when there isn't a problem with current laws? There shouldn't be regulation on pets leashes or unleashed if on private property. if more dog owners they should use have harness on dogs for more control instead of hooking the leash to dog collar give people discount at pet store to get harness if violate brake the law t get a ticket send for 2hour class on how control the dog at Animal humane society of golden valley mn As a resident of Golden Valley I would prefer more freedom and less pointless laws and regulations. Pet Leash Ordinance Community Input Report Page 21 We have lived along Lions Park for 14 years. More than ever, people leave their pets unleashed as they walk through the park and while their kids are playing at the park. It is very common to see dog fights ensue. Extendable leashes are okay, but must be retractable to shorter lengths. Retractable leashes should be allowed when no other dogs or humans are around. Where I walk I rarely encounter anyone and appreciate the dog being able to "run" around a bit and explore. Not harming anyone. I think as long as dogs are leashed, the type of leash (retractable or not) should not matter. Please don't eliminate the option to use a slightly longer, retractable leash in public. This type of leash allows my high energy dog (that is always on leash) a little more freedom to run about and get exercise while we're walking. Very easy to draw in and lock at a shorter length when others are approaching. I can't imagine that our current leash laws need to be more strict. Could it be that there are people not following the current laws and that should be addressed?The proposed changes to the law seem overly strict and out of character for our city. I think of Golden Valley as a community that is a progressive and accepting community and this law is the exact opposite of that. Thank you for your consideration. Both these questions are not binary choices. There should be an ordinance requiring CONTROL of all pets. Leashes, including retractables would be ONE acceptable option. Voice control is also acceptable, but needs to be defined. The people who want a leash law give examples of being aggressed by dogs who are not on leashes. To me that says the owners are already breaking the law. It seems more likely that the persons who are upset did not want openly call out the said resident. That is a problem. How about enforcing the law we already have about dogs being required to be under voice control? This doesnt seem to be a wide spread problem and law abiding citizens and pooches should not be punished by more restrictions on something that is not a widespread issue. Non-retractable leash. It can be made of various materials (leather, cloth, etc). (#4 did not accept my answer) Please do not accept "under voice command". also, retractable leashes should be acceptable of course. the issue is not the leash length. the Pet Leash Ordinance Community Input Report Page 22 issue is can the dog's owner walk or stand to keep their dog/s away from other dogs and people. I do not support a law that restricts a pet's enjoyment on their own property — Le., tethered or restrained. I think there should be clear exceptions for service dogs/animals in any ordinance. I think that there should be no encouragement of invisible fences in any ordinance. I think retractable leashes should be allowed. I also think the city would do better to post both the current ordinance and a version including proposed changes before posting surveys like this so that it is completely clear what the city may choose to do and people will be less likely to be confused. The owner should be able to decide for themselves for leash length. No one size fits all remedies are possible. Small dog vs. large dog makes a big difference. It is despicable that Golden Valley is starting a war on dogs. Private property is private property, get off my land! And if GV doesn't want to create spaces for dogs to play, then how dare you to tell owners how to handle their dogs in public. Children are more of a nuisance than dogs are, are we going to require shock collars on them? This is a disgrace to the world. I think that. a dog should be able to be off leash if it has been trained for voice commands, also for sure a dog should be allowed to be off leash on personal property or in an invisible fenced yard. My dog has been sent for training 4 times and I often walk her off leash down to the lake and over to theo wirth or down to the softball fields and pond. Responsible dog ownership cannot be legislated. I would like to see some data identifying the extent of the problems to be addressed by a new ordinance. Where I live is not densely populated and I often do not encounter other people or dogs in public spaces when I am walking. A six foot leash is overkill for controlling my dog. adfadsf Appreciate the opportuity to weigh in on this issue. Of all the issues facing our city and resident quality of life, I am not sure leash laws are the most important issue for council and staff to focus on in 2020. Pet Leash Ordinance Community Input Report Page 23 I'd like more information on what prompted the city council to update the pet leash ordinance. Are there enough incidences that would require this change? If so, what is the justification behind it and what evidence shows this change will be effective? One of the reasons why I moved to Golden Valley is because of reasonable ordinances such as a leash law that allows voice command restraint. I like this because it puts the responsibility back on the person without mandating exactly how the person should act. I also believe in not over-governing citizens of your city. Instead of trying to control all dog owners, maybe you need to increase the punishment for the bad owners (ones who let their dogs get out of control). Don't let a few bad apples ruin the bunch. As a dog owner, I understand that there are irresponsible dog owners. I can see the voice command exemption as hard to enforce and subject to interpretation by owners who, through wishful thinking, do not leash their dogs. However, I think all leashes, including flexi leashes up to 10 feet, should be allowed. A six foot leash overly penalizes both owner and dog for the sins of a few irresponsible owners. I will send via email. In general, I'm pretty agnostic on most questions, but I do feel that off- leash walking on Golden Valley streets/public areas under "Voice Command" (or any other sort of non-leash system such as hand signals, shock collar, etc.) isn't realistic in the context of an inner-ring suburb. 15 to 20 foot recoil lease with locking mechanism. Lock allows owner to keep pet at a fixed length of a foot or two up to the full range distance I agree with the recommendations but do not feel this should apply to private property. If your dog can be controlled with voice command, that should be sufficient when on your own property. Retractable leashes are dangerous for bikers/pedestrians, but 6' is not long enough for toy breeds As for the discussion on having pets tethered or not on private property, I have had dogs run into the street to greet me and my dog and my dog being leashed and that dog not, my dog not liking it. I do believe of the owner does respect just keeping the dog in their yard and the Pet Leash Ordinance Community Input Report Page 24 dog is well trained that is fine, but for the owners who don't care, I am not sure whose side the law is on now, but I would say that the owner of The current ordinance is fine. Retractable leashes are a bad idea when it comes to safety. Dogs and owners may enjoy the additional leash, but as a person, the ability for the dog to lunge is problematic as well as the fact that the long leash itself is a hazard when running on trails or sidewalks due to the thin cord. I'd like to see an ordinance that offers flexibility to dog owners who have trained their pets. Otherwise dogs ought to be on leashes. I don't support the new proposed law. Aggressive dogs should be on a tighter leash, but gentle well behaved obedient animals don't need such control. My neighbors dog poops in my yard it's hardly ever leashed. I strongly support leash laws! The point of having a leash law is for the protection of the dog, other pets, and people. There should not be a restriction of the length of the leash but a restriction that the owner has to be in control of the leash and pet. What dog wants to take a walk and be restricted to only 6 ft. Retractable leashes go upwards of 12 ft and you can still maintain full control of your dog by using common sense! We don't want families to not want to move into the city because of a strict dog leash ordinance, when in fact a few bad incidents were from owner error in either judgement or common sense! Voice command is not always safe when other dogs are around. Especially miniature ones There should be no consideration for adding restrictions to pet restraint within the boundary of privately owned single family homes. Requiring invisible fencing or tethering of animals is a gross overreach of bureaucratic officials. Homeowners should be allowed the right to determine the best course of action to take when pets are outdoors, based on the individual's pets behavior, personality, and ability to understand and obey verbal commands. There is no need to change the current requirements. Irresponsible people ruin it for the rest of us. There are people in my neighborhood whose dog walks better off leash than mine on a leash. The rules we have are fine, they're just not enforced. Making stronger rules won't solve the issue. There is mention of designated off leash space, to my knowledge there is no public off leash space here in Golden Valley. My Pet Leash Ordinance Community Input Report Page 25 maximum off leash is for retractable, it's nice if you're in spot to let your dog investigate a tree or something (I usually keep mine shorter, so if it were 6 feet and I occasionally broke rule to let my dog sniff a tree, I'll be fine) As long as people have control of their animal by a tether I don't care how long the leash is. Why anger people with unnecessary restrictions? Also, what about electronic collars? I sometimes walk my dog with a collar that has a remote control. It can even vibrate to get her attention or static charge zap her if she doesn't listen. What about free roaming cats? I saw a woman almost lose control of her car (and could have hurt people) due to an outdoor cat. I don't see any need to fix things that don't need fixing. I feel people are very responsible and respectful in our neighborhood. The walk is for the dog's pleasure and mine likes to check out things along the way. When leashed, I think 6 feet is acceptable. Properly trained dogs should be able to run around parks and yards so long as they respond to commands and are cleaned up after. There should NOT be an exception for pets under voice command. Most pets are NOT 100% reliable under voice command, proven by the number of off leash dogs that run up to my dog on walks while their owner yells "They're friendly!" at me. Off leash dogs also crap on lawns while Theo owners walk a half a block ahead and don't pick up. I think retractable leases are fine I always brought my dog closer when coming upon other dogs and people If we have an ordinance someone had better enforce it. Properly trained dogs should be able to run around parks and yards so long as they respond to commands and are cleaned up after. Please keep Golden Valley a dog-friendly city. Voice commands are sufficient and the public safety aspect is remedied by the disclaimer that pets must be leashed in parks. Lets include cats who are loose, kill birds, and are hit by cars regularly because they are loose and at risk. Pet Leash Ordinance Community Input Report Page 26 More laws aren't going going to help anything. People will take care of their animal or they won't. The current law is fine and barely enforced. Might as well be more specific on speeding, noise complaints...housing maintenance. General regulations are fine... but it's ultimately up to people to change the culture etc... nobody cares about a 25 dollar petty misdemeanor fine blah blah blah. how often should I bathe? Figure out a way to get people to care about others and be considerate. Just getting people to talk about this topic will do far more than passing city ordinances. Hopefully it extends to picking up dog waste and litter from people. That there would be great.... if you get really motivated....go after violent crime, greed and obesity. I have lots of ideas. I think very well behaved dogs and owners are OK to be off leash... That said how is one to know if songs are well behaved enough? It always is once to see the well behaved dogs off leash running and fetching in GV parks but I do worry that a dog could be injured or injure while of leash. I guess I am kind of wishy washy on this. I do however have a problem with fertilizer being ised in grass! :) Requiring leather leashes is ridiculous, as some people's beliefs would not allow them to use leather, also some of the nylon/other materials could be just as good. Also, retractable leashes should be allowed. Dogs should be leashed at all times outside of its home or yard, unless it's within a dog park that allows it. Pet Leash Ordinance Community Input Report Page 27 First let me say I don't think anyone should be walking their dog with a 30' leash. The ordinance might be better suited to making the walking length 6 feet and for those that bring their dogs to parks to train, maybe a longer leash allowance may be made. Training leads are useful with Labs, Springers, and other fetching animals when you're working with them. Also, I read on Nextdoor that the ordinance restricts leashes to leather material. If that's true, I don't think owners should be restricted to leather. For one thing, it violates certain animal rights and vegan sensibilities--not that I'm vegan. However, there are plenty of fabric leashes that perform as well as leather and have reinforcements built in for handling larger dogs. Thankfully, I've never had to worry about a pet owner with a longer leash than that when walking in the Hampshire Park area. In the end, 6' is pretty long. Just please consider allowing other leashes made of equally strong materials. Thanks for listening. Great idea- all dogs should be leashed. I could see an exception for electronic fences. I feel that if an animal is trained well the leash law should be lest the way it is written. Voice command or shock collars should be allowed for well trained pets. Dog trainers regularly use long leashes to train obedience commands for working dogs including "come," "stay," & "down." Leashes are are a training tool, that are too often used as a crutch for controlling poorly trained animals. Eliminating off leash allowances for working dogs and their handlers is a solution looking for a problem. If this were to be enacted, I would advocate strongly for the addition of a performance based permit for animals that can demonstrate off leash obedience. Whatever the maximum of a retractable lease is. As an owner of a small dog under 15lbs. A retractable leash is much more convenient. Outlawing them or enforcing 6' leather leash is inconvenient and not necessary. The fact this is being brought up as an important issue is absurd. Over the past five years there has been a steady increase in my neighborhood of visitors with dogs off leash. I am experiencing more episodes of uncontrolled dogs approaching my dogs and me, I'm witnessing more unleashed dogs create hazards for bicyclists on park paths, and Pet Leash Ordinance Community Input Report Page 28 I've observed more unleashed dogs at risk of being struck by vehicles/trains at our neighborhood's intersection. Too many owners overestimate the voice control of their dog. I have personally injured a bicyclist and my dogs due to trying to use a retractable leash (against posted rules), and no longer believe they are safe. My dogs are well-trained and socialized, but have injured another uncontrolled dog while defending themselves. I did not reports the incident because I was concerned about wasting police resources. I've had numerous other close calls. I have to assume there is an issue of under-reporting when people question if the number of incidents justifies this new regulation. If another serious incident occurs, I would like the police to be able to have something to support their actions. I believe the right to dog ownership means accepting the responsibilities imposed by the community, and I am in favor of the new ordinance as proposed. Yes, we have no off lease dog parks in GV. Scheid park would be perfect Seems smart for public safety and to keep them off of lawns or out of areas where they aren't welcome. Having animals leashed will also mean that owners know when and where their pets defecate and can clean it up immediately. The length of the lease in an home-owners yard should be able to be longer than. 6 feet. GV should have an off lease area somewhere. Thank you. Retractable leashes should be considered acceptable. The overwhelming majority of pet owners will retract a leash to the —6 foot range when passing other pedestrians or pets. But when no one else is around, a retractable leash offers the pet a bit more room to roam, while keeping the animal under control at the same time. Retractable leashes and dogs controlled by voice should be exempt We have 3 dogs. Yes, leashing is important. retain ability to have electronic fencing Retractable leashes should not be restricted. Voice command trained dogs should be allowed to exercise and play on front yards as some residents don't have back yards. Changes should not be made without adequate presentation of fact that support the necessity to change to more restrictive guidelines. I firmly believe we do not need a new law to address dogs in Golden Valley. The "under control" policy should remain in place. I believe this is a case of a very small but vocal minority trying to exercise their control over other's behavior and pet ownership. Pet Leash Ordinance Community Input Report Page 29 live across entrance to general mills trails at duluth and Aquilla- would say some 60%. folk who drive up and park let their dogs run free though a Golden Valley City Sign sits at entrance to trails- perhaps it needs to be larger I think I already filled out this survey, so sorry if I did! I just took our 10 pound Yorkie Terrior - poodle mix for a walk and realized that the leash is way longer than 6 feet. It might be 20 feet but is retractable. Maybe you could say leash must be no longer than 6 feet or retractable to 6 feet. I cannot imagine having a big dog on a 6 foot leash, especially when walking in the nature area or on trails. They need to run around and sniff! No just that people make sure they pick up their dogs poop and respect people's yards Dictating the type of leash goes too far. Max 6 ft seems reasonable. Going beyond that to a type of leash is overreach. No retractable leashes Keep pets on a leash. If there is no problem, there does not need to be a solution. Dogs that are 100%verbally controlled should be able to be unleashed on the owner's property. Leashes should be required at all times, especially in residential areas. A 6 foot leash gives too much leeway for dogs to veer off sidewalks and roam on private property As long as this ordinance only concerns public spaces I think it's a good idea. It should not apply to homeowners yards whether fenced or not. Our sidewalks are too narrow for a 6 foot leash. Dog owners are unable to maintain control of their animals and keep them away from others were traveling along the sidewalk. The city needs to enforce its ordinance and should publish offenders of the ordinance the same way they publish other police reports. People are unable to control their dogs are a hazard to the community members and their children especially in city parks where people often unleash their dogs and let them run free while young children are playing nearby. There have been Zero reports of dogs off leash attacks. Only ON leash attacks. Do not try to fix what is not broken. Common sense people!! Pet Leash Ordinance Community Input Report Page 30 Consider those who come to our city from outside the United States and have experienced trauma. Having a dog run up to you, even if friendly, can cause an onset of trauma related anxiety. Please consider our most vulnerable in this city. Has there been an incident that would cause GV to change the standing law? What would happen if we kept it? Laws like these create animosity and bad neighbors. We can all be grown up and respect each other And be good neighbors I'm frustrated, annoyed and most recently, scared when one of my neighbor's large dogs comes onto my property unleashed. The last time the dog ran up to me and barked in my face while I just froze. Several times, the owner herds his dog back to his property by way of my driveway toward my garage, and through my shrubbery. It is very stressful. He never apologizes, but either yells at his unleashed dog or says something to his dog like, 'that's very bad behavior.' Last time he heard me say, 'it's not the dogs bad behavior' (that he's not leashed). They also wait until the dogs do their business on my property instead of on theirs next door. Once I saw a young man in my driveway at tam. At first, I thought it might be a robber. Then, I asked him what he was doing and he said, 'looking after my dogs. I then saw the unleashed neighbor's dog in front of my home about 30 feet from the property line. I wish these dogs were leashed every time they were outside. Why now? Has something changed. Let's keep the existing law. This survey represents only a few . I believe if anything the aggressive dogs are on leashes . People don't walk aggressive dogs off leash . Friendly dogs are off leash. no reason to have a rule. I have neighbors who sometimes have their dogs off leash and they appear to have complete control with voice commands. I just don't know if this is true for everyone. My dog has been attacked by an off leash dog once so I'm always wary until I know the owner. I also worry about off leash dogs and traffic. Cats are pets; I would like this to apply to cats, too. We routinely have unattended, unleashed cats wandering across our property or, worse yet, hunting on our property. Unacceptable. Is this really something that can be enforced or will it be used re-actively after an incident. What about designated off leash spaces? What are you trying to correct? I an ordinance the best way to do that? We can't legislate every type of negative behavior. There is some risk of harm in life. Pet Leash Ordinance Community Input Report Page 31 Please allow for retractable leashes and use of discretion/common sense by the owner of the pet in terms as to what is appropriate for their own dog. Also disagree with mandate for all home owners to tether their own animals in their own yards. If one has a dog who responds to voice commands, I see no need to force people to tether their own animal in their own yard. The 6 ft. max. requirement and forcing all to tether their animal in their own yard is overkill. IF there are incidents/complaints about individual owner's lack of control over their pet, then require that owner to pay a fine or to move to a shorter/non-retractable leash. I am NOT a dog owner, but I've been a home owner in Golden Valley for 35 years and walk frequently in my neighborhood, (in which there are lots of dogs) and in GV parks as well as those in other surrounding metro areas. I have NEVER had an incident where I have been confronted by an out of control dog. I see the proposed leash ordinance as being overkill and "heavy handed." I have had 2 dogs who are always harnessed and leashed when outside of our fenced yard. We walked once or twice daily in our neighborhood and in the Wirth park/woods. Every single day we encounter off leash dogs, about 75% of whom are clearly not under their owner's control. Last weekend, my dogs and I were run at by a great dane in the woods. The dog bit my larger whose leash got wrapped around a tree while I was holding my smaller dog in my arms. My dogs were leashed; totally in my control; I even stepped off the path and was hip deep in snow to try to avoid the group be it was clear they were not minding or in charge of their dog. This was not an isolated incident. The owner's answer to me was, "other people do it." As I explained to her, that is not a rational explantion or an acceptable one. The great dane was doing what dogs do: protecting his people. This was not his fault it was the owner's fault. This happens nearly every weekend. Both of my dogs have been bit and roughed up and both while leashed and within a few feet of me. I would greatly appreciate having my rights protected. Off leash is for off leash areas. Period. We regularly get approached by off leash dogs while walking our leashes dogs-on streets,in park, in Wirth. Most of those dogs do not heed and are not under owner's control. I am sick of hearing,'don't worry: he's nice!' Dogs are dogs. They protect owners. Isn't a matter of nice. Both my dogs have been bit and come at while they were leashes and in my control. I have made countless calls to report off leash dogs. Voice commands are sufficient Pet Leash Ordinance Community Input Report Page 32 Dear Mayor and Members of Golden Valley City Council: I respectfully express considerable opposition to the proposed leash law amendment for Golden Valley. My husband, Mark, and I recently moved to Golden Valley from St. Louis Park with our two mature dogs. They are well trained to obey voice commands and hand signals. We very much enjoy giving them the opportunity and freedom to be dogs. The more exercise and time they receive from us, the healthier and happier our family and neighbors are. In addition, it has taken considerable time, effort and money to be responsible pet owners to train our dogs. It is unjust and unnecessary to take away our ability to enjoy our dogs in our own yard and in the appropriate spaces in Golden Valley. The current leash and voice command ordinance works. If pet owners are not adhering to the voice command portion, please consider holding irresponsible pet owners more accountable instead of punishing all dog owners and their fury companions. If, as a group, you do change the leash ordinance, please do not require dogs to be tethered on private property. That is overreaching and completely unfair. Where would the ordinance stop? I have experienced dog and dog owner aggression from leashed dogs much more often than off-leash trained dogs. What about cats? I've been bitten by a neighborhood cat, is there a feline ordinance? If you all decide that voice command will no longer suffice anywhere in Golden Valley please, at a minimum add line items and dollars to the budget to create neighborhood off-leash dog parks before you make and enforce the change. You have been elected to represent all members of the community and spend tax dollars wisely. We would like to be heard. I recommend creating a focus group to gather input from members of the GV community who have differing opinions who can work together to understand differing points of view, gather more information, identify root causes and create solutions for all not just a few. I will be attending the Council Meeting in April to express ardent disagreement with the proposed leash ordinance change. In the meantime, please feel free to contact me at the email below. I would be happy to help you organize a research committee to gather more information and input from the community. Thank you, Hollace Masino hollacemasino@gmail.com Please do not outlaw retractable leashes. There is no logical reason to outlaw retractable leashes. You could state that the dog must be on a very short leash (e.g. 3 ft) when passing someone else on the path. Retractable leashes allow my dog to explore the smells along the unmown edges of the trail. This patrolling of territory is instinctual. Dogs want to have a job. Patrolling is one of the most universal instincts in dogs. Outlawing retractable leashes would leave the dog unfulfilled. i think the current leash law puts dogs in danger. Leashes pets prevent tragedy. Most owners have no idea how to properly read dog behavior and just because the unleashed dog is friendly doesn't mean the leashed ones are and it causes so much anxiety for leashed pets. Pet Leash Ordinance Community Input Report Page 33 This will be very beneficial for dogs and ownersM As a professional dog trainer I have first hand experience that people believe their dog to have great recall and are under voice command, but actually don't fully train their dogs under circumstances where there are distractions, therefore in more trafficked public areas the dog isn't truly train on, thus posing a risk to themselves, people, children and other dogs that can result injuries and heartbreak. I am an animal behavior specialist at the humane society, and was a dog trainer for 5 years previously. I have a dog who does not like other dogs due to being attacked by an off leash dog, but is otherwise a lovely girl. I cannot even walk her in my neighborhood anymore in fear of off leash dogs. I know there are many dog owners who experience this same problem. We cannot expect average dog owners to be able to responsibly deem their dogs adequately "under voice control". I think that its dangerous to assume that pet owners can responsibly decide this for themselves and it puts many dogs in danger. Off leash pets are often dangerous for leashed pets who feel defensive when other dogs run up to them since leashed pets can't get away All dogs should be leashed in public areas as it is a matter of safety for other people and other dogs Voice control is not an acceptable substitute for a leash. Not all people who think they have control actually do which can lead to problems. Thank you for considering this change to keep people and dogs safe! Dogs are unpredictable and with reactive dogs on leash, having off leash canines even with a "voice command" could end very badly. Leash laws protect people and their pets. I have seen some people training their dogs in parks on longer leashes, but in the middle of a field with no people or trails nearby. I don't have any issue with that, but think 6 ft is a good length for sidewalks and trails. I have had many run-ins with loose dogs in Golden Valley, including in parks and trails that are posted for on-leash dogs only. One instance resulted in my dog being bitten. How will this new ordinance be publicized so that owners know the new rules? With my dog not being dog friendly, it is scary for other dog that is not on the leash, walking up to my dog and my dog might attack them. Every dog needs to be on leash for all dogs' safety. Some of us get stressed out when we see dog off leash. Pet Leash Ordinance Community Input Report Page 34 So many dogs are scared of other dogs racing up to them while on a leash. This is simply not fair to both the handler and the scared dog. One bad interaction has the ability to really set back a dog and handler team that are working hard on making walking near other dogs safe and predictable. Please consider the safety of ALL dogs! Thank you! —a professional dog trainer who works to help many of these leash reactive dogs In public areas that aren't specified dog parks, all dogs should be leashed. I have seen on leash dogs be attacked by unleashed dogs. Unfortunately irresponsible owners believe their dogs ate under control, when in reality they aren't. Ecollars should no be considered under control either. Ban retractable leashes!!! If the city is to restrict all off leash dog activities, it must provide an off leash dog park for dogs to supplement this restriction. I think 6-10ft is a reasonable limit Also outlaw shock or electric collars This proposal is ridiculous. Stop policing everybody so much. Nobody wants to live in a town where one can't allow their dog a little space. A maximum six-foot leash is overkill. Stop trying to police everybody so much. NO pet should allowed to roam free. Fines should be quadrupled for ANY pets found roaming free. While some dogs may be reliably controlled by voice command, if threatened or scared they may react unpredictably. Even if owners can control their own dogs, they cannot control the world around their dog. For the safety of all animals and people in public spaces, it is best for all dogs to be leashed. As a dog walker in the TC area, leash laws are vital to my safety and that of my clients dogs. A number of owners have let their dogs charge me and my client dogs saying "They're friendly". I don't care if they are friendly or not, I am responsible for keeping my client dog safe. In those situations, it is clear the owner did not have voice control of their dog as they have never once been successful in getting their dog back as it harasses mine. More often than not, these off leash adventurers don't keep a leash on them at all. Pet Leash Ordinance Community Input Report Page 35 Longer leashes could be allowed with the stipulation that leashes must be shortened if you are being approached by a person or dog (Bloomington has similar wording.) Electronic collars should not count as leashes. I agree dogs should be leashed out & about on the streets, however dogs that are well- trained and don't misbehave in parks, beaches etc should be allowed their freedom. Retractable leashes should also be prohibited, due to their safety risks. Not only for the dog, their handler, but also those around them. Please include Flexi leashes to be locked at 6 feet when redrafting this ordinance. There are several great parks and trails I have to avoid because of out of control off leash dogs. I would love to be able to enjoy them again if the ordinance changes! Minneapolis allows 8 feet. Bloomington allows longer than 6 feet as long as you shorten your line when you see someone approaching. Those are reasonable in my opinion. Unleashed is not; "under voice command" is open to interpretation but a physical leash is not. In some places, with a skilled handler, a 10-15 long line may be acceptable. Retractable leashes shouldn't be allowed. Choke, prong, and electronic collars of any kind should not be allowed. I'm in favor of allowing retractable leashes, especially for small dogs. Dogs should also be required to be on a leash when outside in general. Currently on a persons own property a leash is not required. Without a fence (invisible or physical) they quickly go from "in their yard" to in my yard. One dog in particular is DAILY out in their yard. It has left the yard 5 times to go after my dog, another time after a different dog passing by (I went to help), and another time after a person. Each time the dog continues to be out. They should be under leash control when outside, period, or within some sort of fencing system. All dogs should be on a leash with no exception. Voice commands don't always work and animals are animals, which means they can be unpredictable. Please remove the voice command exception to the leash law, except in designated leash free areas. Unfortunately, some people believe their animals are better trained than they really are. In the case of a distracted animal that does not respond to the command being given, there are too many instances where the owner could not respond quickly enough and the animal or person who is perceived to be a "threat" by the dog would not be able to get clear quickly enough. I have observed cases where the owner is not staying close to the Pet Leash Ordinance Community Input Report Page 36 unleashed animal or paying attention to what the animal is doing. Leashes protect both the animals and the people around them! I took this survey previously. I have had no issue with dogs off leash but some people have. People take priority over dogs. Please substitute this survey for my precious one. Golden Valley needs to do a better job of getting this enforced. There are numerous dogs off leash in the General Mills nature trails ( off of ensign and Duluth St) Some of the dogs are aggressive and most people are not picking up their dog's poop . I live only 3 blocks away and my dog ( who was leashed) was attacked by an unleashed dog, and despite talking to the owners , they continue to walk their dog off leash. It's gotten so bad that I don't even feel safe walking my dog in the General Mills nature trails due to aggressive dogs going after my dog . Many General Mills Employees are also upset about this as they walk in the trails on their lunch break. Between off leash dogs and a mine field of poop , it is not a pleasant experience. Don't ever have a law that states if a dog is under voice command, no leash required. Any dog can "have a moment". Smaller dogs are not safe. All dogs have leashes. Shouldn't be the extendable type. Don't need to be made of anything special. More dogs and walkers out at all times with cobid 19. We need this change. Absolutely need this change. No dog is 100% safe and there can be new or surprise situations for any owner & dog. Who is going to enforce this? Why have rules you can't/won't enforce. What about ordinaces related to dog waste? On a walk within three blocks of the high density housing (Talo and Arcata) I saw four bags of dog poop behind a hedge and significant amounts of feces that weren't event picked up. I also walked past the "dog park" at Talo--not one dog in there. Poor planning on the part of the city. These high density living complexes should be REQUIRED to have pet walks/parks as part of the complex! Leave the existing ordinance as is It's about the owner's capacity to manage their dog, not the leashing. Pet Leash Ordinance Community Input Report Page 37 I read the working draft of the proposed ordinance changes and would like to see the concept of "respect for others" pop up somewhere. Also, perhaps there should be a more explicit "penalties for violation" set out in the thing. I'm aware that such is typically contained in a different section of the Code of Ordinances. It is usually treated as a "petit misdemeanor" (which is a "fine only, no court appearance required) , but I'd like to see something that would allow a little more creativity by enforcement authorities- e.g. "pick up dog poop in the parks" sorta thing. Good luck. We're all in this together! If animal is under control fetching it playing frisbee should be acceptable. It's seems unnecessarily strict and likely won't be uniformly enforced. I generally find excessive ordinances burdensome as I cant remember them all. I tend to feel less relaxed going out in communal spaces when I feel like I'll accidentally violate some ordinance. However, if this is very important to the people of Golden valley then I'm not offended by it, I just hope we are thoughtful about if it's really necessary. (I havent had any problems with dogs off lead) I am a lifelong resident of GV. I bought my home from my folks who bought it in 1957. More rules and ordinances are not necessary in my opinion. I have had a dog all my life and there are no issues. The issues I would bet are the handful of folks who constantly complain whether legitimate or not. I have more issues with pet owners who think my setback property is a community park. Oh and my mother ran the GV Animal Humane Society(Animal Rescue League) from 1958-68! It is my belief that the burden to be responsible and considerate falls on the pet owner. An aggressive dog will be aggressive on or off-leash and in my experience, most incidents occur not because a dog isn't leashed, but because an untrained dog has escaped from a home/yard and does not listen to the owner's commands to return. Generally, dog owners who are comfortable with their dogs being off-leash have spent a great deal of time training their dogs so they can reap the benefits of getting exercise while unrestrained. please leash all dogs. Is common sense safety for us all. Who cares the length as long as they're on a leash. I am a dog owner and always have my dogs leashed while outside of our fenced yard. All dogs should be leashed, even those that can be controlled via "voice command". Even good dogs can be unpredictable at times. Pet Leash Ordinance Community Input Report Page 38 Leashes should only be required if other people are nearby. Also not necessary if dog is sitting or lying down. Since I answered "no" to question 1, logic would suggest the question about leash length is not relevant to me. But since the survey requires a response, I chose no. I believe that non-aggressive, well behaved dogs that are closely supervised should be allowed off leash in certain public spaces, provided that there are no other people using the space at that time, or if people using the space at that time also have pets and all parties agree they are comfortable allowing the dogs to play together off leash. In general, if a dog is well behaved and an owner is conscientious and responsible, we should allow for reasonable off leash flexibility while respecting the space, comfort and safety of others. Expandable leash should be just fine. None This is an important issues since there have been a number if incidents where dogs have behaved inappropriately off leash. I love both dogs and cats - I would love to have some off-leash areas. Unfortunately, there are people who are unable to control their dogs who let them off-leash in public. With kids and other pets around, it can be frightening to encounter a friendly or assertive dog that may behave in a way that appears aggressive. We have some neighbors who can barely control their dogs on leashes, so let's be safe. Let dogs run if safe Add a poop clean-up requirement to the ordinance, too. I support this ordinance because it will help keep pets and community members safe. I would like to see some limitations on front yard invisible fence. I pass by several houses that a dog comes barreling out across the lawn while I'm walking by and I never know if he is going to stop or not....I would prefer if invisible fence was allowed in backyard only, but perhaps the invisible fence could be a ways back (20' plus?) from the curb? My dog can feel threatened when a dog come running towards us and we never know if it will stop. I have a large dog and if she feels threatened, it could cause a fight even though she is very docile, non-confrontational, and loves to play with other dogs. Pet Leash Ordinance Community Input Report Page 39 I am in favor of enforcing the leash requirement. I am a dog lover and former dog owner. I see many unleashed dogs in my North Tyrol neighborhood. I have been growled at,jumped on, had clean clothes and jackets stained by nuzzling dogs. The owners just seem to smile and say, "Don't worry, he's really friendly." Maybe it would be OK to let well trained ones loose to chase balls in open, empty spaces. Expanding leashes would be OK if they pulled them short when passing others. Thanks for addressing this! Should be able to play ball or frisbee with dogs as long as they are under control. If a dog is not aggressive and in recreation with owner -ie. ball throwing/retrieving then okay w/o leash. Enforce dog pickup responsibility. A well behaved dog that is on verbal commands should be able to play fetch off leash when no other dogs are around. I have used parks to practice obedience training. Can't do that in a dog park because many unknown dogs will gather around. Don't ruin it for everyone. Must be on leash at ALL times (exception inside a fenced yard) I walk my dog without a leash. She responds to me by voice command. BUT I know my dog and I leash her whenever we see another dog coming down the road. She is afraid of other dogs because of being attacked by a dog that was off leash in a yard. I don't let my dog run all over other peoples yards. I am against the retractable leashes not matter what. I'm more concerned about people not picking up their dog feces. I'm disgusted by the amount that is at the parks here in Golden Valley. Responsible owners bring their dogs to the park to play catch and frisbee, this should continue to be allowed. First voting against a dog park and now considering restricting dogs being able to run and exercise? What if you live in an apartment or have a small yard? I am very against this. I go for multiple walks in the park weekly and pass owners playing catch with their dog and have never had any issues. Create an amenity for pets if you are considering removing one. This does not strengthen the community. Retractable leashes should be acceptable. More often than not, others are not within that distance when out for a walk. It should be the dog owner responsibility to restrict the leash when approaching people on trails. We need a dog park or designated off leash areas. Pedestrians should be safe from unleashed dogs. Pet Leash Ordinance Community Input Report Page 40 we are all very allergic to dogs and absolutely do not want dogs to be off leash. thanks No dog parks, stop bothering pet owners. Dogs under voice control should be allowed off leash , but fines should be high if an injury occurs. owners should be able to use adjustable leashes with locks so they can leave the dogs at end of leash when no one is close and shorter when people are close by use adjustable leashes because 6 ft is too much under some circumstances and 10 ft lets the dog run a bit when no one is around. Most retractable leashes extend well beyond 6'. WE love dogs and it is great to have them in the neighborhood. But it is irresponsible for some It It is very irresponsible of dog owners to let their dogs off leash as they cannot account for how a leashed dog might react. I am the owner of a dog that is reactive on leash. It is quite stressful when walking by properties that do not have an invisible fence where dogs are just left in the yard. Super selfish and irresponsible. I hope this ordinace passes. Yes dogs are the best, no leashes!13 Ban retractable leashes It's the owners responsibility to be aware of their dogs ability to be social in public spaces. Less restrictions but more consequences for people who have dogs that can't handle themselves. I would also recommend that dogs may not be allowed to free roam in their own yards (require a leash, a fence, etc). I've heard many times of dog owners having their dogs off leash in their yard, only to have the dog run out of the yard and attack another dog being walked by on the street. These kinds of situations have deterred me from getting a dog. The leash length is dependent on the activity. Longer leads are used for training in open spaces. I understand the issues with having dogs off leash. Maybe only certain hours off leash? It's not only about the dogs behavior but other dogs and children's reaction to an unleashed dog running up to them that created anxiety. Dogs need a little space to run too! Pet Leash Ordinance Community Input Report Page 41 There's some people who have dogs that are trained to come back. I'd hate to see them lose that right. It really should be 6'. While we love dogs, many dog owners are disrespectful with longer leashes, and its also common in our neighborhood for people to not use leashes at all and let dogs run deep into others properties. They seem oblivious to the fact many do not like that. I think the leash length should depend upon the 'public space' for example- downtown Golden Valley vs one of the city's parks. I would hope people use common sense- a dog that doesn't response to voice commands for example might always need to be leashed vs a very obedient dog. A 30 foot length of leash is a nice length to let the dog run and play- but meanwhile the handler still retains control (and can reel it in/let it out depending up the surroundings and any perceived risk). ALSO CATS SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO ROAM - POOP - ETC. We have loads of cats in our neighborhood that are out an unattended. I find cat poo in my flower and vegetable garden frequently. Thank you. Cats should not be allowed to roam around. I feel this is a must there are so many people with dogs that just run loose or have such a long list it makes a person scared to walk around and I love dogs We don't need any more invasive ordinances trying to control public behavior. Leash laws are not the answer. My dog and myself have been bitten twice by dogs on a 6 foot leash while we were in public spaces. My dog was leashed when he was bitten and he has been bitten by dogs both on and of leash. An untrained dog can be dangerous on or off a leash. I have been scared in the woods by large aggressive dogs on a leash that were barely restrained by their owners. I would support an ordinance to require pet training classes and dog socialization. Under the current ordinance it is fair that police may enforce the rule that dogs must be under voice control. Non-controlled dogs and their owners should be cited, but those who are well-controlled should be able to maintain exemption from the rule. This feels like one or two examples ruining it for everybody else. Retractable leashes are RETRACTABLE and provide distance control. DO NOT RESTRICT LEASH LENGTHS. Pet Leash Ordinance Community Input Report Page 42 We have experienced a MAJOR issue with dogs being uncontrolled on school grounds and in parks. People think they can take their dog to the school to run free, then they run thru the neigborhood and are not picked up after. When the limits do go in, you're going to need a significant communications effort, yard signs etc. Biggest issue is clean up after dog. The problem with dogs off leash lies with the owners that do not keep track of their pet. That is about 50% in my neighborhood. I think well-behaved, friendly dogs should be able to be off leash to play fetch in parks, and I also think flexi-leashes are acceptable for well-behaved dogs. I walk with my young children and play in Golden Valley's public parks. There have been a couple occasions where we have encountered others with unleashed dogs whose dogs have quickly approached my children barking and jumping at them causing fear. Dog owners may know and trust their dogs but others do not. Leashing makes sure that everyone feels safe. I use the type of leash that retracts and extends. I retract the leash and heal my dog when passing other walkers, bikers, and moving cars. I am a dog owner who spends lots of time out and about with my leased dog. Leash laws are the best way to keep pets, wildlife, and people safe. The exception should be made for dog parks, however there should be posted "rules" at the dog park similar to St. Paul, MN rules Pets should still be allowed to be off leash if they can be commanded by voice. What I'm finding is that owners don't socialize their dogs thus causing the issue. If your pet is not comfortable with other pets that is the true problem. Can you say that you will always be the person to walk your pet? What about vacations? or if your pet runs outside the house when the front door opens? Your pet needs to be socialized. I walk my dog off leash (it's a small pug) and he's well trained in voice command to sit, stay, wait, come and easily picked up if need be. I don't have an issue with other pets off leash. Current rule ( voice control ) works as long as people use it properly. Pet Leash Ordinance Community Input Report Page 43 Longer length is OK because the owner should be in control of their dog. Also, many leashes sold are not 6 feet. Pet owners should be held accountable to clean up their pet waste. We live adjacent to a city trail, and the feces are horrible! PLEASE POST SIGNS by all city trails, and perhaps have plastic bags available. (the trail near us is Duluth St., between Flag and Gettysburg) Longer leashes for tiny dogs would not pose a major problem.. Barking dogs is a far bigger concern for me. My neighbor's dogs bark all day long and drive me crazy, especially now that I'm spending most of my time in my house. With the warmer weather, I won't be able to enjoy leaving my windows open and the fresh air because of my stupid neighbor's dogs. I think the rationale for this is that many dog owners believe they have control of their pets but really don't. The form is not working on question #4, but my answer to that is as follows: A 6 foot leash is a good length when a dog is on leash, but voice control is adequate when off leash. I wouldn't mind the 6' if it was actually kept at that, but many dogs are in "my space" doing what they do at that length. Can't blame the dog. Blame the owner/trainer/walker. Also I see dogs being exercised just a couple feet away from the walker/runner/owner with good control, so it can be done. My dog does obey voice commands and I leash her if any small children, other on leash dogs, or neighbors I know are fearful of dogs approach. I do not think those of us that have spent the time and effort to train our dogs should be punished. There are several other off leash dogs in my neighborhood that are also not an issue. I'm the owner of an aging dog is is good under voice control, "come" and "stay", and frequently use a leash when coming across others with leashed dogs until we pass them by. In my walks in my neighborhood, I've very rarely had issue with any of the scores of dogs we've encountered that were either on or off leash. I find that many just use a leash because they may not have pursued the training and discipline to use commands, and that those who have their dogs off leash, the dogs have been fine encountering my off-leach dog. I wouldn't want the 20-30 foot wanderings of my off-leash dog, who loves the smalls, to be limited by others problems. But I also recognize that I'm not aware of such problems, and I do have empathy for an individual's dramatic issue with some off-leash dog. I'd hope those are Pet Leash Ordinance Community Input Report Page 44 dealt with on a one-by-one basis rather than having the city have an updated ordinance penalizing all dogs. I don't understand why this ordinance is needed. My dog was voice-command trained. Never a problem. I can't believe this is a problem but for one or two people. To punish us all because of a few crabby souls doesn't seem right. I can't believe the huge number of dogs walking on Brunswick and all are leashed (different lengths) and cleaned up after. If a dog is running lose it is because he escaped and NO RULES WILL HELP THAT. This makes me very angry for you to waste time on such unnecessary business! Please inform pet owners that their pets are not allowed on private property to urinate, defecate or be allowed to walk on property to explore. I do not want dog's defecating on my property whether or not they pick up. I have seen pets by my front door, while off lease. When asking owners, to not allow their dogs on our private property, most are defensive and have told me to shut up. Only one walker in many many years, has responded, I won't do that, and hasn't. Thanks My neighbor's dog has been aggressive and threatening. It has even has left the neighbor's lawn and charged onto our property, frightening us. It came dangerously close to a moving automobile in our own driveway. Please require leashes on private lawns, too, unless there is a reliable fence to restrain the dog. 12 foot leash except when others are in close proximity, then 6 feet. But some animals are very docile and obedient and do not need to be leashed at all times. The pet policy should address bird killing by free roaming cats. If dogs should be on leashes, so should cats. Consideration should made for dogs under control of an electronic leash Comfortable with pets controlled by voice commands Pets off-leash creates too much risk when mixed with pedestrian and vehicle traffic. While driving a vehicle it is impossible to tell if someone has their pet under voice command or if the pet will jump out into traffic lanes. Enforce the laws about cleaning up after all pets. I think it should be based on complaints verifiable complaints about owner/dog. Meaning if the owner has no control over dog or dog is aggressive and/or has a history of aggression. Majority of dogs I have come in contact with have no issue whether on or off lease. Do not let the few ruin the fun for the many. Pet Leash Ordinance Community Input Report Page 45 I think the leash laws should stay the same in Golden Valley with the addition of voice commands keeping keeping dogs within 6 feet and or electronic collars with the same effect. Thank you! ? I think most responsible dog owners know that poorly behaved dogs are not a product of a bad dog, but of an irresponsible owner. Changing the law doesn't make bad owners better, it simply punishes responsible owners. I ask you this question, are you listening to the loudest, whiniest voices or you listening to the majority of the voices that are quietest? There are a lot of dog owners in Golden Valley and I believe by far the majority are responsible. I have lived in Golden Valley for 23 years. I have owned a dog all 23 years. I have an extremely well behaved, professionally trained dog. Golden Valley is a great city and a wonderful city to walk your dog. The current leash law is great and it doesn't need "fixing." Please consider how the majority of the responsible dog owners in the city feel about the law and don't restrict our freedom to enjoy one of the best pastimes know to humankind: walking your dog. "Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws." — Plato "The more laws and restrictions there are, The poorer people become." — Lao Tzu People take advantage of the current leash law and the off leash dogs are getting out of control in GV. I am constantly seeing posts on the next door app about people being charged by off leash dogs. This is a huge problem and I personally will not walk my dogs in golden valley. I am even constantly on alert with dog deter any spray when my dogs simply go outside to go potty on a leash. This is getting way out of control, especially with the quarantine. Something needs to be done NOW. Pet Leash Ordinance Community Input Report Page 46 Unless a yard is fenced in, I'd like to see dogs leashed when others are present or in the owner's arms. There's just too much variation in owners and how they perceive their dogs temperament and training. I'd also like to see a push to have dog owners not allow their pets to poop and pee in other residents yards or along park trails where houses back up to the parks. GV neighborhoods are seeing more and more families with children move in, and no parent wants to deal with a child encountering an unexpected dog pie while playing. Obviously, this issue is far less concerning than any person getting chased or bitten by a dog off leash. I would fully support an exemption to the leash law provided residents can demonstrate (submit a video or through neighbor endorseement or both?) that dogs off leash can be controlled through voice command. I have three neighbors with extemely well behaved and disciplined dogs and one who says her dog is trained, but the dog runs in and out of the street and has been hit by a car...thankfully okay. So I would continue this as an exemption (privilege) for those pet owners who are uber responsible for their pets and respectful of their neighbors. I like the idea of neighbor sponsors or endorsements because they know the dogs and their owners. Thanks. Wayyy to many dogs being excersized without a leash. This must stop! I live adjacent to Medley Park, and for years have seen loose dogs that clearly aren't under their Owners' voice commands. There are far too many unleashed dogs in my neighborhood and surrounding area, which have come after myself and my dog while on a walk. There needs to be action taken and real consequences for those who do not follow these laws. Please make sure dogs are leashed. Off leash dogs are a huge safety issue in GV Just yesterday, a barking dog ran at me, my husband and 21 month old child while we were taking a walk. The dogs apparently stopped at the invisible fence. But let me tell you something, when a dog is running at me while I have my child It is scary. I am not thinking " I'm sure there's an invisible fence" or "the owner must be close by and the dog responds to voice command". My concern is for my child who is now scared and crying. I don't think my child's freedom should suffer so that a dog can run wild and free. There are dog parks for that. People can fence their homes. The off-lease dogs are causing more harm than good. Pet Leash Ordinance Community Input Report Page 47 My dog was attacked by a dog off leash late last summer. A leash law could have prevented this. I agree with the current law "Dogs restrained by voice commands as effectively as a leash are exempt from the leash rule" 6 feet is fine when walking if necessary, but it would be helpful to allow 30 foot lines in parks/large grass spaces when training a dog. Although some pets do well with voice command, there have been too many instances on my street where it doesn't work when the animals become distracted or aren't trained well enough. A dog ran after me and scared me in my own yard and didn't obey voice commands from it's owner. Arlo - 7yrs My dog is always leashed, I wouldn't trust him to not run after squirrels and bunnies. We have had unleashed dogs come after us in the park, from yards, and even from yards marked with signs indicating an invisible fence. Many dogs do not follow the owners voice commands, at least with distractions. Dogs that are demonstrably controlled by voice command alone SHOULD continue to be exempted from leash law. There are amazingly well behaved dogs and a simple demonstration could be performed instantly on request to give evidence. In some cases such as in crowds or on sidewalks a leash is actually a greater hazard for tripping and entanglements. Requiring a leash of trained and well behaved dogs punishes both the owner and the dog psychologically and discourages the sort of behavioral training that should in fact be encouraged. Voice command is every bit as effective in controlling a dog. And to say one size fits all or please the lowest common denominator is totally unfair to all tax payers of the community. Pet Leash Ordinance Community Input Report Page 48 APPENDIX A Social Media Reach and Engagement city of go l d e n�� valley Page 49 SOCIAL MEDIA REACH AND ENGAGEMENT Pet Leash Ordinance Reach = Number of people who saw the post Engagement = Number of people who interacted with the post Feb 18, 2020 • u u Facebook 1466 469 11 3 24 Twitter 313 8 2 1 0 Comments Stacy Pawlowski I'd like to know more about why this is being revisited. I'm concerned about Pampuch requirements on private property mentioned at the end of the linked page, as I think it has a lot to do with proximity to other structures, property lines and streets/sidewalks. Donna Taylor Pets on a leash at all times when in public. For the safety of the pet but other and other pets! You may have a well behaved pet off leash however I have a pet whom doesn't not care to be approached. He is always leashed, but it is an issue when others don't. As far as personal property if the animal stays on that property I have not issues of free roam. This is not the case in about 70%time. I take my pet to off leash park or my back yard if I want it to have free roam. Yes that requires time driving and scheduling, but that is what Dog parks are for! As a pet owner I get angry at others dog poo in my yard because I am responsible and clean up. Don Taylor I live in the super high density housing area along 394. Talo has a dedicated dog park and nobody uses it.They walk their dogs (read: use their cellphones) and pay no attention to where the dog goes—while on the leash. I'm tired of dogs peeing and pooping in my yard. I confronted one of them recently. He threw up his arms and said he didn't have any bags. WTH? Paul Testa Don Taylor my man has a service dog He is in a mobile scooter he had no use of his legs. And can't walk. ZHe literally crawls on his knees to pick up mess from his service dog, what are other dog owners excuses for not picking up poop etc.?? No bags. Or lazy?? Come on stop and think before you walk your dog outdoors with your good legs. it's all irritating when I hear or see this in writing in Fb. People don't like dog parks for many reasons, our Vet asked us not to take him to dog park,it's a great place for dogs to get hurt or sickness. Molly Rose I'm fine with requiring leashes in public (unless in a place like the nonexistent dog park or whatever) but I'm a bit confused about the private property restrictions. If a dog is off leash on its owner's property, that's not the city's issue. Also, encouraging or requiring electric fences is awful; please do not. Justin Zollar What an absolute disaster city. War on dogs for no reason at all. Liz Burwell Uhhhh good luck with that,the city doesn't even enforce animals who are nuisances currently.. Stephen Dent I think the current law is working well and there is no need to change the law because some people cannot control their dogs when they are off-leash. Golden Valley does not have a year round off leash park. Sometimes, I walk my dogs along a Bassett Creek path when there is no one else around, off leash. They are extremely well behaved and I obey the 6 feel rule and they come the moment I call them. Why punish everyone when some people cannot control their dogs and do not give their dog obedience training like I did.And besides as one person commented, Golden Valley does a horrible job enforcing its current dog barking ordinance. How will it ever control the small number of times a person takes their dog off a leash. What a waste of police time and energy.lnstead, I wish they would do something about the speeding on St. Croix Avenue North. That is a really dangerous situation, but no police action or even a discussion to put a stop sign or speed bumps between Lilac Drive and Douglas Drive.lt's like a speedway, even with school buses. Alicia Maria Kopp I'm a bit confused as to what the problem is? In public spaces dogs are either on a leash that is a set length or retractable, unless they are off leash reliable, right? My Bailey has been gone for a full year end of this month. But she was off-leash reliable. She had a lot of pride in her off leash walks. We didn't always take off leash walks because once fall and winter hit, she was all about the cold weather and rolling in leaves and snow. Sheryl Cummings Alicia Maria Kopp I agree. We had an extremely reliable off-leash dog and every time I ever encountered an issue with another dog, they were always appropriately leashed, but untrained or handled by someone who was distracted or just flat out disregarding of the people around them. People like that aren't going to suddenly change by creating more ordinances for those who are already being respectful of the laws and their neighbors. ED Alicia Maria Kopp Sheryl Cummings We never had any issues with other dogs while on walks.This community is amazingly dog friendly and eager. And the etiquette for introducing dogs to one another is something you learn quickly. I really would like to know what is prompting this kind of updates to the pet leashing ordinance. Is there a problem or is this busy-bodying? Sheryl Cummings Alicia Maria Kopp that's what my question is as well Justin Zollar If GV doesn't have a single dog park, then they cant require pets to be leashed at all times. Steve Johnson Justin Zollar Yes, they can. David D. Axtell I wish we'd commit to a dog park, leave private property alone, and have better enforcement of what we have on the books. Comments elsewhere suggest that is the real problem. Stephen Boyd Justin Zollar It's probably the same NIMBY neighbors that helped kill off the dog park that are now whining about unleashed dogs. a Christine Nelson Justin Zollar I'd love to see a dog park added for my pups, but either way I think it's best to keep pets on leash in public areas. Not sure what is being recommended for private property though. Stephen Boyd David D. Axtell Getting a dog park will take citizens banding together to lobby for one...and not just two or three people. Justin Zollar Taking your dog to an open field and throwing a ball should not be illegal. Edwin Sweeney Should always be leashed when in public. Tj Beagan Don't tell me how to control my pet on my private property. Eric Simpson The description in the article says zero about your private property. Where did you get that it could affect you that way? Tj Beagan Eric Simpson I will re-read, but thought something about impacting how pets are controlled at homes. Steven Stewart fine with me Feb 27, 2020 Facebook 807 71 2 0 2 Twitter 237 4 0 0 0 Anne Dykstra I also think there should be a rule that owners carry a bag and scoop to carry away the remains of their dogs droppings when it's done on private property. My corner planting of ground cover around my flowering crab tree is used by owners to let their dog take a poop quite often. It means I do the clean up and I hate it. And...it's no good just to let it be as it draws pests and smells bad. Anne Dykstra Thank you Laura! March 24, 2020 Facebook 607 44 0 0 0 Twitter 286 41 0 0 1 bing How about a survey on lowering residential speed limits instead! The time is now, Mpls wasted no time to lower theirs. This is way past due! 14 SUMMARY Physical Development 763-593-8030 / 763-593-8109 (fax) Golden Valley Council/Manager Meeting January 12, 2021 Agenda Item 5. 2021 Bike Lane Project Prepared By Jeff Oliver, PE, City Engineer Summary As part of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, the Golden Valley City Council appointed a Bicycle and Pedestrian Task Force to make recommendations for the locations of facilities throughout the community to be included in the Transportation chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. The original plan was to construct approximately half of the on-street bike lanes that were included in the Comprehensive Plan in 2019, and the other half in 2020. Due to some budget constraints, COVID- 19 postponement, and final design adjustments, the project is now scheduled for construction in 2021. The project was last discussed with City Council at the April 14 Council Manager meeting. In total, 11 segments of bike lanes are proposed for construction as part of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Those 11 segments are listed below and also included on the attached map. • Olympia Street (Winnetka Avenue to Douglas Drive)—Segment#1 • Golden Valley Road (Pennsylvania Avenue to Douglas Drive)—Segment#2 • Pennsylvania Avenue S (Wayzata Blvd to Laurel Ave)—Segment#3 • Laurel Avenue (Pennsylvania Avenue to Turners Crossroad)—Segment#4— Note that modifications are proposed to this segment and discussed later in this memorandum. • Laurel Avenue (Pennsylvania Avenue to Turners Crossroad)—Segment#4 (east and west) • Wayzata Blvd (General Mills Blvd to Texas Avenue)—Segment#5 • 101" Avenue North—Segment#6 (east and west) • Rhode Island Avenue North (TH 55 to 101"Avenue)—Segment#7 • Boone Avenue North (Golden Valley Road to Plymouth Avenue)—Segment#8 • Decatur Avenue North (Golden Valley Road to 101"Avenue)—Segment#9 • 71"Avenue North (Decatur to Boone)—Segment#10 0 Golden Valley Road (Boone to Wisconsin)—Segment#11 Council/Manager Meeting Executive Summary 2 City of Golden Valley January 12, 2021 Based on discussion at the April 14 Council Manager meeting, Segment#10 was to be evaluated further by staff for parking concerns. The attached memo summarizes the issues along Segment#10 in regards to on street parking and also recommends using 'sharrows' in place of a dedicated bike lane to accommodate both bike traffic as well as parking demands along 711 Avenue. The west end of 101"Avenue, Segment#6, was also evaluated by staff for connection to Mendelssohn Avenue. The Comprehensive Plan includes a future multi use trail along Mendelsohn Avenue, however, that project is not currently in the 10-year CIP. Therefore, for safety reasons, staff is recommending removing the west end of Segment#6 (101"Avenue from Mendelssohn Avenue to Decatur Avenue) from the 2021 Bike Lane Project. Project Schedule It is expected that the 2021 Bike Lane Project will be bid this winter, the contract awarded in the spring, and installation completed by the fall of 2021. This contract is also planned to include the mill and overlay of Laurel Avenue between Jersey Avenue and the railroad tracks west of Xenia Avenue. Better pricing is expected with a larger project. Financial Or Budget Considerations • Funding for the 2021 Bike Lane Project is included in the 2021 to 2030 Capital Improvement Plan (S-030) in the amount of$700,000. Supporting Documents • Bike Lane Project 71"Avenue Recommendation (1 page) • Project Location Map (1 page) G:\Council-Manager\Agendas\2021\01-12-21\5a-Bike Lane Executive Summary.docx A, SEH Building a Better World for All of Us® January 05, 2021 RE: Golden Valley Citywide Bike Lane Project 7t1i Avenue Recommendation City Project No. 20-02; SEH No. GOLDV 148501 Jeff Oliver, City Engineer City of Golden Valley 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley,MN 55427 Dear Jeff: SEH is preparing bidding documents to implement bike lanes on various City Streets. Bike facilities are planned for 7th Avenue between Decatur Avenue and Boone Avenue that has an existing width of 32 feet; adequate to carry one lane of traffic in each direction and allow parking on one side of the street. Currently parking is allowed on the westbound side but not allowed on the eastbound side. Dedicated bike lanes in each direction is possible within the existing street width,however it would require elimination of parking on the north (westbound) side of the street. The bike lane project has included public outreach to gain input on the pros and cons of the project. Business owners on the north side of 7th Avenue have expressed concerns regarding potential elimination of on-street parking. During pre-pandemic time periods, City staff and SEH design team staff have observed on-street parking demand regularly occurring along that block. The impacts of eliminating on-street parking may generate parking behaviors at other locations that may be detrimental to public safety. Business owners have also advised that the loss of on-street parking would be detrimental to the success of their businesses. An alternative to eliminating parking should be considered. This could be accomplished using shared lane pavement markings and traffic signing. If implemented,bicyclists could utilize the parking lane along westbound 7th Avenue during periods that have little or no on-street parking demand. However, during time periods with higher levels of parking demand,when vehicles are parked along the westbound side of the street,bicyclists could still be present,but operate within the westbound traffic lane under the advisement of a"share the road"warning sign for bicyclists and drivers. Pavement markings called "sharrows"would be installed within the driving lane to further advise bicyclists and motor vehicle drivers that bicycles may be operating in a common lane. A bikeable connection between Decatur Avenue and Boone Avenue is important to the efficacy of the citywide bike plan. Elimination of on street parking would have detrimental effects. Therefore a"share the road"treatment is recommended for westbound 7th Avenue from Boone Avenue to Decatur Avenue. On the eastbound side, a dedicated bike lane would not impact existing on-street parking opportunities and is recommended. Respectively submitted, &"A6. eel& Michael E. Kotila,P.E. Sr. Transportation Engineer/Project Manager Engineers I Architects I Planners I Scientists Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc., 10901 Red Circle Drive,Suite 300,Minnetonka,MN 55343-9302 SEH is 100%employee-owned I sehinc.com 1 952.912.2600 1 800.734.6757 1 888.908.8166 fax o � � C 0 -0 of s JJ a� co z z > > > sia in > > > Q azi Co O U' d J Co N �i ri ui co > ao 6 O > Q Q O as � o o �o a O c 'j Q� 0 114 c (dw z� FZ N as se 6noa J m R • $ an � � v p!ao!-q� S any O aMs ua ! a N I and Aesaar c S n - euell !no ; i 70 > O c IZ ° i ti = any e u Al ch ad N an 0 _ puels♦ PO4H > j R i J NO a)I}au S any anLo E u! uo !M Lo LW, i 00 4D • c pnl9 sll! leaau ! m 4? m cfl o U ! 0 71. I C I la uaw ---- --- -------- ------------ MEETING DATE ITEM 01/19/21 CITY COUNCIL PRESENTATION CONSENT LICENSES CONSENT BOARDS, COMMISSIONS, &TASK FORCES Approve 2021 Council Assignments to BAC and CAC Approve Resolution Appointing Commissioner and Alternate Commissioner to the Bassett Creek Watershed Commission CONSENT BIDS,QUOTES, CONTRACTS Approve Purchase of a Mower Approve Purchase of Lift Station Control Panel CONSENT GRANTS& DONATIONS CONSENT MISCELLANEOUS Receive and File November Financial Reports Approval of Building Inspections Division Policies PUBLIC HEARING First consideration of Ordinance - Modifications to City Code Chapter 103 - Buildings and Building Regulations OLD BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS COVID-19 Pandemic Emergency Administrative Actions 01/26/21 ANNUAL COUNCIL PLANNING SESSION 1 Annual Council Planning Session 02/02/21 CITY COUNCIL PRESENTATION Police Department Annual Report CONSENT LICENSES CONSENT BOARDS, COMMISSIONS, &TASK FORCES CONSENT BIDS,QUOTES, CONTRACTS Approve Purchase of Fire SUV Approve Zane Ave N & Lindsay St SEH Design Service Contract (Tentative) CONSENT GRANTS& DONATIONS CONSENT MISCELLANEOUS PUBLIC HEARING Modifications to City Code Ch 22 Solid Waste (First Reading) MEETING DATE ITEM OLD BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS COVID-19 Pandemic Emergency Administrative Actions 02/09/21 HRA WORK SESSION 1 Golden Gardens Hwy 55 West (chip & putt proposal) 2 Review of TI F Districts 02/09/21 COUNCIL MANAGER MEETING 1 Section 8 Housing Ordinance 2 Facilities Study Update 3 Council Review of Future Draft Agendas 02/16/21 CITY COUNCIL PRESENTATION CONSENT LICENSES CONSENT BOARDS, COMMISSIONS, &TASK FORCES CONSENT BIDS,QUOTES, CONTRACTS Authorize MOU with Xcel Energy for PIE Phase II Plan Implementation Authorize 2021 Native Vegetation Maintenance Contract (ContractorTBD) Approve Purchase of 3 F-550's Approve Joint Water Commission Golden Valley Tank Coating Repair CONSENT GRANTS& DONATIONS CONSENT MISCELLANEOUS PUBLIC HEARING Modifications to City Code Ch 22 Solid Waste (Second Reading) Regency Hospital PUD Amendment OLD BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS Receive/Approve Energy Action Plan Zoning Text Amendment - R-2 Zoning District (Adding Rowhouses) (Tentative) COVID-19 Pandemic Emergency Administrative Actions 02/23/21 JOINT MEETING - COUNCIL WITH BOARDS/COMMISSIONS Review 2020/1-ook ahead 2021