011921 Work Session Meeting Packet
CITY COUNCIL
WORK SESSION MEETING
New Hope City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North
Civic Center Conference Room
Tuesday, January 19, 2021
6:30 p.m.
Mayor Kathi Hemken
Council Member John Elder
Council Member Andy Hoffe
Council Member Michael Isenberg
Council Member Jonathan London
Governor Walz has declared a peacetime emergency (Emergency Executive Order 20‐01). City Hall
will be open to the public for this meeting; however due to the current COVID‐19 pandemic, the
city is conducting the council meeting by electronic means in accordance with Minnesota Statutes
section 13D.021. The public may participate in this meeting by phone by calling 415‐655‐0001 and
entering meeting/access code 177 065 2502 followed by the # sign. When prompted for a password,
simply press #. If you have comments about a matter on the agenda, please submit an email to
cityhall@newhopemn.gov or call the city clerk at 763‐531‐5117.
1. CALL TO ORDER – January 19, 2021
2. ROLL CALL
11. UNFINISHED & ORGANIZATIONAL BUSINESS
11.1 Update from West Metro Fire‐Rescue District
11.2 Discuss next steps related to Phase 1 Improvements at the Public Works Facility
(Improvement Project No. 1039)
11.3 Update on city’s participation in the Minnesota GreenStep Cities Program
11.4 Discuss Just Deeds coalition
12. OTHER BUSINESS
13. ADJOURNMENT
S:\January 19, 2021 Council Work Session\11.1 Q West Metro Fire‐Rescue District Update 1.19.21.docx
Request for Action
January 19, 2021
Approved by: Kirk McDonald, City Manager
Originating Department: City Manager
By: Kirk McDonald, City Manager
Agenda Title
Update from West Metro‐Fire Rescue District
Requested Action
Staff requests the City Council receive an update from Chief Larson on West Metro Fire‐Rescue District
operations. The chief will be presenting updates to both the New Hope and Crystal city councils in the month
of January. The first portion of the update will focus on general operations and the second portion will be a
presentation of the major apparatus replacement report. Council Member Elder serves as the New Hope
council representative on the board, and Marc Berris serves as the New Hope citizen representative on the
board. The city manager also serves on the board.
Policy/Past Practice
West Metro Fire‐Rescue District was formed in 1998 as a joint powers agreement between the cities of New
Hope and Crystal. The agreement was updated and approved by both city councils in 2011 and updated in
2017 and 2019. One of the items in the board’s work plan and in the chief’s goals is for the chief to provide
periodic updates to the city councils to keep the lines of communication open between the fire district and the
two cities. The last update was provided at the August, 2020 work session.
Background
Chief Larson will be discussing two items with the City Council: General operations and the major apparatus
replacement report.
1. General Operations
Per the attached chief’s report prepared for this update, the following items will be discussed:
Calls for Service
Duty Crew Staffing
Quarantined Firefighters
Vaccinations
Santa to Senior Program
Birthday Brigade
Promotion of Apprentice Firefighters
FEMA Public Assistance Grant
Facilities
Fire Prevention Education
2. Major Apparatus Replacement Report
Over the past year the chief and West Metro Fire‐Rescue District staff have been working on a report to discuss
options for the replacement of the fleet of the four front‐line engines that were manufactured in 2011 and put
into service in 2012. The total cost of the engines at the time they were purchased was $2,313,714 and the cost
Agenda Section
Work Session
Item Number
11.1
Request for Action, Page 2
was split approximately 50/50 between the two cities, or about $1,135,000 per city. Because the acquisition of
the engines was by purchase and not lease, each city was required to pay the funds at the time of the purchase.
New Hope sold/issued equipment certificates/bonds to pay the city’s portion of the cost and the final payment
on the debt was made in 2019 and the debt was eliminated from the tax levy.
Each of the current engines was analyzed based on age, miles/hours of service, type of service, reliability,
maintenance/repair and condition via a point system utilized by the American Public Works Association.
Refurbishment considerations are taken into account vs. replacement and the timing of the replacement along
with a lease or purchase option are also discussed. The West Metro Fire‐Rescue District Board of Directors
received this report in October and after taking many factors into consideration (including the recommendation
from both city managers), unanimously voted at the December board meeting to recommend Lease Option 2
to the city councils. Option 2 recommends replacement of two engines in 2022 and two engines in 2023, as this
option would equate to the lowest annual lease cost per engine, it would avoid escalating maintenance costs
for the existing engines, and it would bring the highest resale value per engine (estimated between $125,000‐
$175,000 per engine).
Similar to when the aerial ladder truck (tower) was acquired via lease in 2017, the cost of the lease payment for
the new engines would be incorporated into the West Metro Fire‐Rescue District annual operating budget; the
cities would not have a large outlay of capital upfront as the cost would be spread over a number of years.
At the December meeting the board also voted to amend the Capital Fund Policy to reserve the proceeds from
the future sale of major apparatus to purchase/lease new major apparatus or to pay down an existing lease.
AEM has been coordinating with the District to show how the proceeds from the sale of the engines could be
utilized to offset the cities capital fund contribution.
As the council is aware, funds have been saved in the fire capital fund for the potential future purchase of major
fire apparatus and the balance of the fund as of September 30, 2020 was $767,336. If the acquisition of the new
engines is by lease, the capital funds could be used to “buy down” the impact of the new lease payments on
the general fund budget, saved for future major apparatus purchases and/or used for future capital
improvements to Station #3 that are the city’s responsibility (roof, boiler, etc.).
The feedback received from both city councils will be taken back to the February fire board meeting.
Attachments
Chief’s Report
Major Apparatus Replacement Report
Update to Capital Fund Policy Statement for WMFRD Funds
Excerpt/3rd Quarter Budget Report
I:\RFA\PUBWORKS\2020\Council\1039\8.24.20 Present Feasibility\RFA 1039 Present Feasibility Report PW Facility Expansion
Request for Action
January 19, 2021
Approved by: Kirk McDonald, City Manager
Originating Department: Public Works
By: Bernie Weber, Public Works Director
Agenda Title
Discuss next steps related to Phase 1 Improvements at the Public Works Facility (Improvement Project
No. 1039)
Requested Action
Staff is requesting that the Council receive a presentation by the city engineer regarding feedback on
questions from the August 24, 2020 council meeting, an update on the adjustments in the proposed
facility layout, and review of the next steps related to a phased approach to the proposed Public Works
Facility Expansion (Improvement Project No. 1039). Depending on Council questions or feedback, staff
is proposing to bring the authorization to proceed with preparation of plans and specifications for the
Phase 1 Improvements to the January 25, 2021 council meeting.
Policy/Past Practice
It is a past practice of staff to request direction from the City Council on potential improvement projects or
expansions to city facilities. The cost of a central garage expansion was identified in the city’s 2018 Capital
Improvement Plan. After review of the city’s long‐term plan in late 2016, the City Council postponed any
action associated with the project until at least 2020 due to the police station/city hall and pool/park
improvement projects. The Council authorized the preparation of this feasibility report at the October 28, 2019,
council meeting. The feasibility report was presented at the August 24, 2020 council meeting. Public works
and engineering staff have given tours of the existing facility. Staff has prepared updated information based
on past meeting discussions and the tours.
Background
The central garage is located at the city’s public works facility at 5500 International Parkway. Staff maintains
approximately 173 pieces of equipment, 34 police vehicles, and several heavy‐duty trucks. There are 29 vehicles
and pieces of equipment that are always stored outside and 12 vehicles and pieces of equipment that are stored
outside when not in use.
In 2016, the city solicited proposals for engineering and architectural services associated with developing a
concept plan and preparing construction plans. The request included several building and site improvements.
While the project did not move forward at that time, the present‐day space needs for the facility and site remain
unchanged. In order to store all vehicles and equipment indoors and allow for improved efficiency, the director
of public works and staff are recommending that the following building and site improvements be considered
in the feasibility report:
Public works facility expansion with approximately 20,000 square‐feet of new garage/equipment
storage
Renovation of the existing garage/equipment storage space to improve vehicle circulation and
equipment storage
Renovation of the existing parts/maintenance areas to expand/improve parts storage
Agenda Section
Work Session
Item Number
11.2
Addition of air conditioning in mechanics work bay
Renovation of some of the existing offices
Replace parking lot and storage yard pavement
Provide a new fuel dispensing system for diesel fuel and unleaded gasoline adjacent to the new
garage/equipment storage
Provide a new detached 3,000 square‐foot low temperature heated building for dirt used in patching
water main breaks
Security improvements both inside and out at the building including a new security gate and cameras
Storm water improvements as approved by the watershed
At the August 24, 2020 council meeting, the Council requested more information regarding the 30‐year fleet
replacement analysis as it relates to extending the life of vehicles, examples, and explanation of the
calculations. The Council also asked staff to provide the projected operating cost increases for the expansion.
The Council was encouraged to contact the public works director to take a tour of the public works facility.
Public works and engineering/architectural staff compiled more information to address these requests. The
additional information is included in the engineering memo and summarized below:
30‐year fleet replacement analysis – the original analysis was revised to provide more detail on the
formulas used in the calculations.
Examples from other communities – the following examples discuss the increase in vehicle life
associated with storing vehicles inside versus outside. Staff used 2.5 years in the analysis above.
o Town of Meredith, New Hampshire – Cost Benefit Analysis – Page 3 discusses 2.5 years more
life with storing vehicles indoors
o Town of Upton, Massachusetts – Public Works Facility Feasibility Study Presentation – Page 5
of 8 of the presentation discusses 3 years more life with storing vehicles indoors.
Operating Costs (can be updated after final design)
o Phase 1 – Air conditioning for mechanics bay = $1,900 per year.
o Phase 2 – Lighting, power costs (50% demand), and heating costs = $20,970.44 per year
o Total – Phase 1 + Phase 2 = $22,870.44 per year
As discussed in the feasibility report, a phased approach to the improvements is being recommended by staff.
Proceeding with the Phase 1 Improvements at this time will avoid bonding for improvements as discussed in
the funding section below. Also, including the 3,000 square‐foot, low temperature heated building with the
Phase 1 Improvements will provide immediate storage space within the existing facility until such time as the
future Phase 2 Improvements are completed.
Funding
The feasibility report identified an estimated total project cost of $6,414,066.60. The report also identified an
estimated total project cost for a reduced project scope of $1,632,852.00 (includes alternates). Since the report
was prepared, the estimated project costs were increased by 3.5% per year to reflect construction of the Phase 1
improvements in 2021 and Phase 2 improvements in 2024. The updated estimated project costs are
$1,690,001.83 for Phase 1 (includes alternates) and $5,767,592.89 for Phase 2 Improvements (including charging
stations).
The city started setting aside funds for public works building improvements through central garage charges in
2017 and continues to increase the amount set aside on an annual basis. It is anticipated that the reduced scope
public works building improvements (Phase 1) could be paid for with the funds currently saved for that
purpose along with utilizing central garage reserve funds. The availability of internal funding from the
temporary financing fund for the larger scope project will not be known until the Civic Center Park and pool
projects are completed. Funding for the improvements was discussed in a previous memo from AEM. AEM
has calculated there will be $1,650,000 in the building replacement reserve at the end of 2021. As discussed
above, the estimated pricing for the Phase 1 Improvements and alternates is $1,690,001.83. Depending upon
the final pricing the city receives on the Phase 1 Improvements, some alternates may not be able to be accepted
or additional internal financing will need to be reviewed from the central garage reserve fund.
Attachments
Engineering Memo
Feasibility Report
Updated Site plans – reduced scope (Phase 1) – elevations
Minutes – August 24, 2020 Council Meeting – Pages 2 and 3
AEM Memo – 8/19/2020
January 12, 2021
Engineering Memo
Fleet Replacement
Cost Estimate
Vehicle Life Examples
Memo
bd v:\1938\active\193804913\communications\correspondence\weber_boyum_memo_question_responses_and_update__shortened_draft_2021_01_12.docx
To:Bernie Weber From:Dan D. Boyum
New Hope Public Works Director New Hope City Engineer
File:City Project No. 1039 Date:January 12, 2021
Reference: Public Works Building Expansion
The Public Works Building Expansion Feasibility Report was presented at the August 24, 2020 Council
Meeting. At that meeting and prior to the next discussion of the work at the building, the Council requested
further information on the following items:
1. Estimated operational costs for the future building expansion and air conditioning in mechanic’s bay.
2. Breakdown of calculations for the 30-year fleet replacement cost estimate.
3. Provide more examples of vehicle life analysis.
Public Works Staff has also reviewed the layout of the proposed improvements within the existing building
and requested some adjustments to the layouts presented at the August 24, 2020 Council Meeting. Those
items are as follows:
4. Vehicle charging stations.
5. Adjustment to room layout.
The following sections provide additional feedback and details on the items listed above as well as a more
detailed breakdown on estimated architectural and engineering indirect costs.
Item 1 - Estimated Operational Costs for Future Building Expansion and Air Conditioning in Mechanics Bay
· Estimated Lighting Costs per Year = $2,156.22 (48 fixtures, 6,153.6W, $0.08/KWH, 12 hours/day)
· Estimated Power Costs per year (Depends on how the building is operated, so see range below)
Unit
25% Demand –
6 HRs Per Day
50% Demand –
12 HRs Per Day
75% Demand –
18 HRs Per Day
100% Demand
– 24 HRs Per
Day
KW 36 36 36 36
$/KWH $ 0.08 $ 0.08 $ 0.08 $ 0.08
$/Hr $ 2.88 $ 2.88 $ 2.88 $ 2.88
$/Day $17.28 $ 34.56 $ 51.84 $ 69.12
$/Year $6,307.20 $12,614.40 $18,921.60 $25,228.80
· Heating per Year = $6,200 (gas).
· Cooling for Mechanics Bay = $1,900/year (electric)
January 12, 2021
Bernie Weber
Page 2 of 3
Reference: Public Works Building Expansion
bd v:\1938\active\193804913\communications\correspondence\weber_boyum_memo_question_responses_and_update__shortened_draft_2021_01_12.docx
· Total = $2,156.22 + $12,614.22 (Assume 50% demand) + $6,200 + $1,900 = $22,870.44. It should
be noted this cost does not include any water related costs if the City chooses to irrigate green space
areas with the building expansion.
Item 2 - Breakdown of Calculations for the 30-year Fleet Replacement Cost Estimate
Appendix B in the feasibility report contained the breakdown of how Public Works Staff calculated the 30-year
Fleet Replacement Cost Estimate. That attachment is included with this memo.
Item 3 - Vehicle Life Examples
Attached to this memo are two examples of vehicle life analysis related to storing vehicles inside versus
outside. The first example uses an increase in life expectancy of 2.5 years per vehicle. The second example
discusses a 3-year increase in life expectancy. Public Works used 2.5 years in their calculation under Item 2
above.
Item 4 – Vehicle Charging Stations
Public Works Staff anticipates that with the new building expansion, 6 electric vehicle charging stations would
be recommended. The estimated costs presented in the report were updated to reflect those charging
stations as well as grouping the project into a Phase 1 and Phase 2 improvements as shown below:
Option
2020 Report -
Opinion of
Probable Cost
2021 Opinion
of Probable
Cost
2024 Opinion of
Probable Cost -
With Charging
Stations Comment
Option 1 - Large Building
Expansion $6,414,066.60
Option 2 - Reduced Scope Project
- Base $1,532,449.00 $1,586,084.72 Increase by 3.5% per year for 1 year
Option 2 - Reduced Scope Project
- Alternates (1)$100,403.00 $103,917.11 Increase by 3.5% per year for 1 year
Option 2 - Total $1,632,852.00 $1,690,001.83 Increase by 3.5% per year for 1 year
Option 3 - Phase 1 - Reduced
Scope Total in 2021 N/A $1,690,001.83
Option 3 - Phase 2 - Building
Expansion in 2024 N/A $5,767,592.89
Increase by 3.5% per year for 4 years
and include 6 charging stations
Notes:
(1) Alternates include new mechanics bay parking spaces, new translucent wall panels, reface kitchen cabinets / countertops,
and replace vinyl flooring.
January 12, 2021
Bernie Weber
Page 3 of 3
Reference: Public Works Building Expansion
bd v:\1938\active\193804913\communications\correspondence\weber_boyum_memo_question_responses_and_update__shortened_draft_2021_01_12.docx
Item 5 - Adjustment to Room Layout
Public Works Staff met in December 2020 to discuss the Phase 1 room layout. Based on that meeting, some
adjustments have been made to the Phase 1 room layout. Those adjustments are shown on the attached
drawings.
Both Bruce Paulson and I can be present at upcoming meetings to discuss this memo as well as other
aspects of the project with the Council and Staff.
Stantec
Dan Boyum ,P.E.
City Engineer
Phone: 612 712 2021
Fax: 651 636 1311
Dan.Boyum@stantec.com
Attachment:30-year Fleet Replacement Cost Estimate, Vehicle Life Examples (2), Updated Drawings
c. Bruce Paulson, Kirk McDonald
APPENDIX B -
Revised
PROJECT: New Hope Public Works Facility Expansion Feasibility Study - Revised PROJECT NO: 193804913
CLIENT: City of New Hope, MN DATE: January 13, 2021
PAGE TITLE: Vehicle Replacement Schedule30 Year Fleet Replacement Cost Estimate
Ford Pickup 1 2002 $25,237 $40,652
Ford Pickup 8 2002 $31,347 $50,493
Sterling Dump Truck 9 1999 $131,447 $228,638
Ford Dump Truck 15 1997 $29,931 $54,027
Ford F 550 17 2016 $42,968 $51,872
Sterling Dump Truck 19 1999 $100,530 $174,862
Sterling Dump Truck 20 2006 $85,767 $123,269
Ford 1 Ton Dump 21 2003 $32,407 $51,042
Tractor 5105 M 29 2009 $67,704 $83,124
Sterling Dump Truck 31 2000 $104,438 $175,725
Ford Tractor 33 1972 $7,000 $48,501
Ford Pickup 35 1999 $25,478 $44,317
Ford 1 Ton Tump 39 2010 $28,275 $69,258
Ford Pickup - Utilities 204 2008 $20,056 $26,990
Tractor 4720 226 2012 $31,062 $66,053
Ford Pickup - Streets 227 2012 $27,287 $40,481
New Holland Tractor 236 2013 $182,103 $226,490
Flail Mower 238 2014 $39,400 $48,222
Subtotal $1,012,435.64 $1,604,014.28
Trailer Roller 12 1998 $3,923 $7,437
Vermeer Chipper 14 2015 $53,100 $73,113
Trailer 22 1999 $4,225 $7,349
Trailer 23 1999 $4,225 $7,349
AgriMetal Aerator 41 2001 $5,458 $8,931
Stepp Hot Box 42 2010 $35,865 $47,655
Jon Boat 44 2012 $400 $505
Trailer 62 2001 $1,966 $6,635
Trailer 63 2001 $1,966 $6,635
Bobcat Trailer 66 2001 $4,975 $9,135
Vehicle #Model Year
Original
Purchase Price
Estimated 2020
Replacement Cost*ITEM
ITEM Vehicle #Model Year
Original
Purchase Price
Estimated 2020
Replacement Cost*
Vehicles
Equipment
1 of 3
PROJECT: New Hope Public Works Facility Expansion Feasibility Study - Revised PROJECT NO: 193804913
CLIENT: City of New Hope, MN DATE: January 13, 2021
PAGE TITLE: Vehicle Replacement Schedule30 Year Fleet Replacement Cost Estimate
Vehicle #Model Year
Original
Purchase Price
Estimated 2020
Replacement Cost*ITEM
Grader 69 2001 $8,147 $13,331
Pothole Patch Step Trailer 70 2007 $1,968 $2,750
Fertilizer Spreader 82 2014 $4,895 $6,740
Trailer Cement Forms 83 1987 $2,500 $6,375
Top Dresser 89 2016 $7,500 $9,464
Arrow Board 99 2000 $7,075 $11,904
Saw Trailer 200 2008 $2,605 $3,506
Grapple for #64 207 2010 $12,564 $15,177
Trailer for #68 209 2008 $5,949 $8,006
Stump Chipper 217 1989 $10,722 $25,060
Trailer - Utilities 224 2013 $17,165 $26,436
Message Board 228 2012 $17,580 $25,834
Mixer Trailer 235 2013 $5,272 $6,557
Bobcat Attachments 258 2018 $20,094 $21,078
Subtotal $240,138 $356,964
Total Vehicle 2020 estimated cost $1,604,014
Total Equipment 2020 estimated cost $356,963.70
Total Cost of all Fleet Stored Outside $1,960,978
Average Life of Fleet Stored Indoors (yr)13.5
Average Life of Fleet Store Outdoors (yr)11
30 Year Replacement Cost of Fleet if Stored Indoors $4,357,729
30 Year Replacement Cost of Fleet if Stored Outdoors $5,348,122
(30 years / average life of fleet if stored outdoors) * total cost of all fleet stored outside
(30 years / 11 years) * $1,960,978
Based on average life of fleet stored outdoors (11 years) + the observed extended life of vehicles stored indoors (2.5 years) for
an average life of fleet stored indoors of 13.5 years.
(30 years / average life of fleet if stored indoors) * total cost of all fleet stored outside
(30 years / 13.5 years) * $1,960,978
2 of 3
PROJECT: New Hope Public Works Facility Expansion Feasibility Study - Revised PROJECT NO: 193804913
CLIENT: City of New Hope, MN DATE: January 13, 2021
PAGE TITLE: Vehicle Replacement Schedule30 Year Fleet Replacement Cost Estimate
Vehicle #Model Year
Original
Purchase Price
Estimated 2020
Replacement Cost*ITEM
Cost Savings by Moving Fleet Indoors over 30 Years $990,393
`
Cost Savings by Moving Fleet Indoors / year (over 30 years)$33,013
*Estimated 2020 cost based on either A) amount currently budgeted in the CIP for replacement if information is available or B) Original
purchase price adjusted for inflation + 10% contingency
3 of 3
Town of Meredith, New Hampshire
Cost Benefit Analysis for Storing Vehicle and Equipment Inside versus Outside
Summary:
There is always significant discussion on whether to store DPW vehicles in a minimally heated
space or store them outside. From the perspective of employee safety and responsiveness
there is no question that interior storage is the best method. Exterior storage of vehicles is
particularly difficult during the winter where vehicles need to be cleaned and the engines
warmed up prior to performing work. During winter months, the sander bodies have a
tendency to freeze up if exposed to the elements, which can damage the spreader.
Leaving the vehicles outside also leads to additional maintenance on these vehicles and
decreases their useful life.
During the winter months, even with block engine heaters, the vehicles require increased
warm-up times, producing more exhaust and noise. The cold temperatures also lead to
incomplete fuel combustion which creates excessive amounts of exhaust and noise. The
larger amounts of exhaust, and noise, have a negative impact on the environment, as well
as the adjacent neighbors.
In addition to these reasons, it is cost effective in the long run to store vehicles inside as
opposed to outside. The cost of storing vehicles outside and saving the money to build and
operate the facility is offset by the additional costs associated with storing the vehicles
outside. There are several costs for storing vehicles outside, including, additional cost to
maintain those vehicles, the cost of replacing vehicles sooner, the cost of non-productive
labor due to vehicle preparation and non-starts, the cost of building and maintaining the
parking area, and the costs of operating the parking area including electrical costs for
engine block heaters.
The following analysis outlines the costs of building and operating a new building to house
the vehicles and the costs associated with storing the vehicles outside.
Cost Impacts to Store Vehicles Indoors
1.Cost to Construct the Facility - $1,675,000
This cost includes a base cost of $1,287,455 on a 20-year bond at 2.75%
2.Cost to Operate and Maintain the Facility - $17,503 per year
There has been no energy model performed for this 8,665 square foot space, so we
have taken previous energy models and extracted a cost for electric and gas usage.
We believe that the cost to operate will be $1.67/sf (minimally heated 45 degrees)
·Lexington $117,000 (gas+ electric)/ 70,000 sf (mezzanine not included) = $1.67
·Tisbury $57,500 (gas + electric)/ 16,000 sf (mezzanine not included) = $3.59
·Though the average is $2.63 we feel that the lower estimate would be more
accurate, though conservative, due to the space being only minimally heated.
·We have reviewed the cost to maintain this facility, which is minimal due to the
durable products selected and the type of space. We believe that the cost to
maintain will be approximately $.35/sf or $3,032.75 per year.
·The cost to operate and maintain is 1.67 + .35 x 8,665 sf =$17,503
3.Total Cost to Build and Operate the Building for 30 Years - 2,200,090
Cost Impacts to Store Vehicles Outdoors
1.Cost to Construct the Parking Area - $224,256.47
·Costs include sitework, paving, lighting and security (fence and gate)
·Cost Estimated at 8665 sf x+ (12/sf parking + 3/sf lighting + 2/sf security) x 17% cont.
and escalation= $172,346.85
·Based on a 20-year bond at 2.75%
2.Cost to operate and maintain the parking area = $4,332.50 per year
·Costs include electricity for site lighting, and gate and painting and patching $0.50/sf
3.Cost to purchase and operate block engine heaters = $1,050 + $1,310 = $2,360
·Average Cost of Block heater and timer $75.00, estimated at 14 = $1,050
·Average Wattage for block heater 1,250
·Average length of operation - 4 hours
·Cost per Kwh .17
·$11.90 per day to operate 14 vehicles x 110 days= $1,310 per year
Items of note
o Heaters would be required to be hooked up to emergency generator, which
would lead to a larger generator size and cost, not included in estimated costs
o The area needs to be secured so vandals would not unplug heaters overnight -
the addition of cameras would be ideal and an additional cost.
4.Non-productive labor spent to prepare vehicles stored outside for operations on winter
days = $922,500
·Days below 32 degree, approximately 140 (including 17 with snow)
·Estimate 110 days due to weekends or low temperatures not sufficient to
require excessive preparation.
·We estimate that it takes an additional 22 minutes to get a vehicle prepared for
service during winter conditions. This includes warming the vehicles up using block
heaters, scraping ice from windshields and mirrors, removing snow, downtime for
vehicles that will not start in the conditions and need to be brought inside.
o (22 minutes per day for 14 vehicles) x 110 days = 565 hours spent in non-
productive time per year
·In addition, it is estimated that it takes an average of an additional 15 minutes to
hook up plows that are stored outside compared to those stored inside. This
estimate is based on times when there is no discernible difference in time to the
times when employees bring hot water outside to de-ice the connections required
to hook the plow up. Though there is an average of 17 snow events plows are
hooked up more frequently due to potential events. We estimate this to total 20
time per year.
o (15 minutes per event for 10 vehicles) x 20 events = 50 hours spent in non-
productive time per year
·An hourly rate of $50.00 is used, which includes social security and benefits.
·Estimate that it costs $30,750 in non-productive labor per year to house vehicles
outside.
·Estimated that it costs $922,500 in non-productive labor for 30 years to house
vehicles outside.
5.Non-Productive Labor for securing equipment = $937.50 per year
·Equipment that is stored on vehicles outside that either cannot be outside or is
expensive, needs to be stored inside. The time associated with removing the
equipment after the shift is over and putting back on the vehicle at the beginning
of the next shift, when comparing it to vehicles that are already stored inside, has
a cost.
·Number of times per year is estimated at 73.
·Non-productive time at beginning and end of day 15 minutes
·73 x .25 minutes x $50.00 per hour = $937.50
6.Cost of decreased Vehicle Life Span = $459,596
·It is estimated that storing vehicles outside reduces the vehicles productive life by
an average of 2.5 years. The average life span of a vehicle housed inside is
§13.5 years and the average cost of the Town's vehicles is $65,000.
·By projecting that a vehicle will last 2.5 years longer, and with a fleet of 14
§vehicles over 30 years.
·30 years/ 13.5 years per vehicle x 14 vehicles x $65,000 = $2,022,222
·30 years/ 11 years per vehicles x 14 vehicles x $65,000 = $ 2,481,818
·Saving of $459,596 over 30 years.
·It should be noted that the cost of $65,000 used in this estimate is the average cost
of the existing vehicles used by the Town of Deerfield. This means replacing the
vehicle with a used piece of equipment of like size and model. If the estimate
included replacing the vehicles with new vehicles the number would be
significantly higher as a new dump truck can cost in excess of $100,000.
7.Additional Maintenance Costs = $16,800 per year
·There is an additional maintenance cost for storing vehicles outside. This is due to
the faster degrading of vehicle parts such as, electrical systems, windshield
wipers, brake lines, body repairs, air systems, and hoses.
·We estimate $1200.00 per vehicle per year for these repairs, blending the higher
costs required for old vehicles with the lower costs for newer vehicles.
·$1200/vehicle x 14 vehicles = $16,800 per year
COST ANALYSIS
30 YEARS
1. Cost to Construct the Facility $1,675,000
2. Cost to Operate + Maintain the Facility $774106
Total Cost of Interior Storage $2,449,106
1.Cost to Construct the Parking Area $172,346.85
2. Cost to operate and maintain the parking area $191,614
3. Cost to purchase and operate block engine heaters $62,937
4. Non-productive labor for winter days $1,359,981
5. Non-Productive Labor for securing equipment $41,463
6. Cost of decreased Vehicle Life Span $459,596
7. Additional Maintenance Costs $743,014
Total Cost of Exterior Storage $3,030,924
Total Cost Difference $581,818
The above costs include a conservative annual increase in cost of 2% per year, except for
vehicle life span, due to the difficulty in predicting when the vehicles would be replaced and
how the compound escalation would be assessed.
Weston & SampsonTown of UptonPublic Works Facility Feasibility StudyUpdate PresentationAugust 28, 2018
Weston & SampsonWhy put the vehicles and equipment indoors…..1. Employee Safety2. Public Safety 3. Protection of Equipment4. Stormwater Pollution Control5. Cost Effective Operations6. Efficient OperationsEmployee safety is compromised when trying to clear off large equipment in inclement weather conditions as shown aboveTown of Upton Public Works Facility
Weston & SampsonWhy put the vehicles and equipment indoors…..Vehicles which are covered by snow or ice may take longer to respond to the needs of the community which could result in unsafe conditions for the public1. Employee Safety2. Public Safety 3. Protection of Equipment4. Stormwater Pollution Control5. Cost Effective Operations6. Efficient OperationsTown of Upton Public Works Facility
Weston & SampsonWhy put the vehicles and equipment indoors…..Outdoor storage contributes to accelerated equipment deterioration1. Employee Safety2. Public Safety 3. Protection of Equipment4. Stormwater Pollution Control5. Cost Effective Operations6. Efficient OperationsTown of Upton Public Works Facility
Weston & SampsonWhy put the vehicles and equipment indoors…..Case Study for increased vehicle life expectancy associated with storage of equipment indoors•Town of Wayland purchased three large dump trucks•Town only had room to store one indoors•Remaining two vehicles were stored outdoors•Two vehicles stored outdoors were removed from service early due to equipment deterioration. Equipment conditions were so poor that they were sold as scrap.•The vehicles which was stored indoors remained in service for three more years and was in suitable condition when it reached its service life that it was able to be sold at auctionOnly room to store one (1) new dump truck indoorsTwo (2) vehicles stored outdoors due to limited availability of covered storage
Weston & SampsonWhy put the vehicles and equipment indoors…..1. Employee Safety2. Public Safety 3. Protection of Equipment4. Stormwater Pollution Control5. Cost Effective Operations6. Efficient OperationsAny drips or spills from vehicles stored inside will be collected in a closed floor drain system preventing them from reaching the environmentTown of Upton Public Works Facility
Weston & SampsonWhy put the vehicles and equipment indoors…..1. Employee Safety2. Public Safety 3. Protection of Equipment4. Stormwater Pollution Control5. Cost Effective Operations6. Efficient OperationsCost to Construct Storage Garage•Construction•Maintenance•OperationCost Associated with Exterior Storage•Increased Vehicle Maintenance•Decrease in Vehicle Life Expectancy•Non-Productive Labor•Operational impacts•Employee Safety & Environmental VERSUSTown of Upton Public Works Facility
Weston & SampsonWhy put the vehicles and equipment indoors…..Town of Upton Public Works FacilityVehicle starting outdoors results in increased exhaust emissions due to cold start conditions
Feasibility Report
2
Stantec Architecture Inc.
733 Marquette Avenue, Suite 1000, Minneapolis, MN 55402
August 24, 2020
File: 193804913
Mr. Bernie Weber
City of New Hope
5500 International Parkway
New Hope, MN 55428
Reference: Summary Report – Expansion Feasibility Study
City of New Hope
Public Works Facility
Dear Bernie,
Stantec is pleased to present this Executive Summary Report of the New Hope Public Works
Facility Expansion Feasibility Study.
The existing Public Works Facility has had several additions with the latest being the Mechanic’s
Area which was completed in 2001. Since that time, the needs of the departments housed
within the Public Works Facility have grown and it is anticipated these departments will continue
to grow into the future.
In June of 2016, the Public Works department submitted a Request for Action to the City Council.
Included in this request were the following items for the existing Public Works Facility:
1. Removal and replacement of all Public Works Facility asphalt surfaces.
2. Repair shop floors and coatings, concrete is spalling, coatings have lifted, repair, reseal
or resurface.
3. Replace tile flooring; high wear in many areas, repairs are required at minimum.
4. Cleaning/repainting of Public Works Facility interior walls regarding accumulated soot
and paint peeling.
5. Public Works Facility, garage doors and replacement of worn out overhead doors as well
to increase efficiency of building.
6. Barrier walls for spoils storage area to store materials in an organized method and to
keep contained per storm water runoff standards.
7. Installation of irrigation at Public Works Facility; esthetically appearance should be
contiguous of the industrial area.
Also included in this Request for Action was a Public Works Facility expansion to fully house Public
Works equipment inside the facility to increase longevity and reduce weathering, with upgrades
to increase efficiency of staff, including relocating/upgrading fuel tank and dispensing system.
The proposed building expansion size was 20,000 square feet with a 3,000 square foot
outbuilding with barrier walls for storage of sand, gravel, and topsoil.
3
Per our proposal dated October 4, 2019 and follow-up meetings with Public Works staff, the items
from the 2016 Request for Action were revised to include the following:
1. Public Works Facility expansion with approximately 20,000 square feet of new
garage/equipment storage.
2. Renovation of the existing garage/equipment storage space to improve vehicle
circulation and equipment storage.
3. Renovation of the existing Parts/Mechanics Bay areas to expand/improve parts storage.
4. Addition of air conditioning in Mechanics Work Bay.
5. Renovation of some of the existing offices (expanded to include re-facing all of the
kitchen cabinets and renovation/expansion of the existing Storage Room into a new
Fitness Room).
6. Replace parking lot and storage yard pavement.
7. Provide a new fuel dispensing system for diesel fuel and unleaded gasoline adjacent to
the new garage/equipment storage.
8. Provide a new detached 3,000 square low-temperature heated storage building with
concrete barrier walls for sand, gravel, and topsoil storage.
9. Security improvements both inside and outside the building including a new security
gate and cameras.
10. Storm water improvements as required by the watershed district.
Stantec performed an assessment of the existing Public Works Facility to document the current
condition of the building, and identify any critical deficiencies needing immediate attention and
improvement.
Should you have any questions regarding this report or need further detail or explanation, please
contact me at (612) 712-2108 or via email at bruce.paulson@stantec.com.
Respectfully Submitted,
STANTEC ARCHITECTURE INC.
Bruce P. Paulson, RA
Senior Project Manager/Architect
Phone: (612) 712-2108
Mobile: (651) 492-9089
Bruce.Paulson@stantec.com
4
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction and Approach ....................................................................................................... 5
2.0 Current Conditions ........................................................................................................................ 6
3.0 Expansion Feasibility Summary ................................................................................................... 8
4.0 Recommendations .................................................................................................................... 10
5.0 Expansion Feasibility Costs Summary ........................................................................................ 11
Appendix A – Opinion of Probable Project Costs – 2020
Appendix B – 30-Year Fleet Replacement Analysis
Drawings
5
1.0 Introduction and Approach
The City of New Hope contracted with Stantec to prepare an Expansion Feasibility Study
for the Public Works Facility. This study included a Condition Assessment of the existing
Public Works Facility via walk-through visual observations of the existing building
envelope, structural systems, building systems, and roof condition to identify current
deficiencies and potential needs of the building and structure.
The Stantec assessment team consisted of an architect, structural engineer, mechanical
engineer and electrical engineer performing the on-site facilities condition assessment to
document the existing conditions through visual observation and photographs. During
the on-site facilities condition assessment, we conferred with the City’s Public Works staff
to identify known issues or unseen conditions within the building.
Generally, the building and structure is in good condition, except as noted herein.
It is the intent that the items identified and described in this report will provide guidance
to improve the building and extend its’ useful life.
6
2.0 Current Conditions
Public Works Facility
Vehicle and Equipment Storage
The current Public Works Facility does not have enough interior space to accommodate
all of the city-owned vehicles and equipment.
Material Storage
Sand and gravel are currently stored inside the building in a space that could be better
used as vehicle parking with the available power and heating contained within the
building.
Flooring
The concrete floors in the Mechanics Bay and Vehicle Parking areas have areas that
have spalled and need repair. The spalled areas create a trip hazard and are showing
further signs of deterioration and wear.
The vinyl composition tile in the hallways, some office spaces, and lunchroom is showing
signs of wear from foot traffic.
Interior Walls
The exterior of the building was repainted in 2013. The interior walls of the Vehicle Parking
spaces have not been repainted and are in need of cleaning and repainting.
Overhead Doors
The exterior service doors and frames in the Vehicle Parking spaces are showing signs of
wear with rust visible on the doors and frames. Staff have indicated the overhead doors
in the Vehicle Parking spaces are also showing signs of wear with not operating as
quickly as they used to.
Mechanics Bay
Staff have indicated the current Mechanics Bay Parts Room is undersized for the
inventory they need to keep stocked for the variety of vehicles and equipment serviced.
The Mechanics Bay needs to keep the overhead doors closed to maintain building
security. In summer months this is an issue as the Shop does not have air conditioning.
The air compressor that serves the Mechanics Bay as well as the Vehicle Parking spaces is
very noisy. It has been moved a few times trying to make it less annoying, without any
real success.
Ancillary Spaces
The current fitness area is located on the mezzanine above the Parks Department space.
Staff have requested this function be relocated to the main level to allow more staff
access to the equipment.
The current Kitchen base cabinets, wall cabinets, and countertops are showing their
age. Staff have requested these be replaced and re-sized to allow each employee their
own wall or base cabinet for storage of personal food/eating items.
7
Electrical
The existing electrical service to the New Hope Public Works Facility is a 1200A, 208Y/120
Volt, Three Phase service from the electric utility. There is an existing 100kW generator and
automatic transfer switch that is used to feed the whole building when power from the
utility is disrupted. Stantec reviewed one year of utility bills and found that the existing
facility is currently using approximately 66kVA (183A @ 208Y/120V).
Outdoor Yard
Topsoil Storage
The current outdoor yard includes an area for topsoil storage that is not covered. This
allows the soil to become water-logged as well as run-off during heavy rain events.
Relocation of the soil spoils and topsoil storage from outdoor to inside the low-
temperature heated storage building will clean up the outdoor storage area as well as
eliminate the potential for soils to get into the storm drainage system during rain events.
Fuel Dispensing System
The current fuel dispensing system and underground fuel tanks are inside the security
fence south of the existing building. The building expansion will require the fuel
dispensing system to be relocated. Public Works is recommending the fueling station be
relocated outside of the security fence area for the following reasons:
1. Security gate malfunctions have affected access to the fueling station in the
past, forcing police officers to re-fuel their work vehicles at local gas stations at a
higher fuel cost.
2. Security gate malfunctions have led to the gate remaining open after normal
work hours compromising site security.
3. West Metro Fire Department would be able to use the fuel dispensing system in
the new location outside of the security fence.
4. Public Works would be able to meet security protocols with fewer vehicles
accessing their secured site.
Asphalt Pavement
The existing asphalt pavement on this site is over 20 years old, deteriorating and needs
replacement.
Site
The turf areas on this site are not currently irrigated.
8
3.0 Expansion Feasibility Summary
This Expansion Feasibility Study was requested by City staff to review existing conditions at
the Public Works Facility and determine the need and feasibility of expanding the Public
Works Facility.
A kickoff meeting with department heads was held to review the proposed
improvements from the 2016 Request for Action, as well as the updated list of
improvements included in our proposal dated October 4, 2019. At this meeting, known
issues within the existing building were also discussed.
Council Questions and Follow-up
Based on some of the questions by Council related to the expansion, one of the first tasks
performed by City staff was to check with the Public Works Departments of neighboring
cities to understand where they store their city-owned vehicles and equipment. The
table below reflects Staff’s findings.
City Vehicles/Equipment Storage Other Comments
Brooklyn Center All vehicles and equipment
stored inside except the garbage
truck
Brooklyn Park All vehicles except supervisors
vehicles stored inside. Most
equipment stored inside except
plow wings during the summer.
Coon Rapids All vehicles, trailers and some
other equipment stored outside.
Proposing next year to build new
cold storage area to store all
equipment inside
Crystal All vehicles and equipment
stored inside.
Fridley All vehicles and equipment
stored inside.
Recently built new facility. Has
underbody spray system, idea
they got from Elk River. They
predict it has an increase of 15%
on liftime of vehicle. Offered tour
if interested.
Golden Valley All vehicles and equipment
stored inside.
Maple Grove Most vehicles stored inside, some
seasonal and trailers stored
outdoors.
Have drive through wash for
vehicles.
Plymouth Everything Stored inside except
plow wings stored outside during
the summer.
9
City Council members asked if canopies could be used in lieu of an enclosed building to
save costs while offering cover and flexibility. City staff reviewed the city zoning
requirements and conferred with the city planner regarding the possibility. The public
works facility is located in the Governmental, Park & Open Space (GPO) zoning district
and is positioned within an industrial park. While the GPO district allows the city some
flexibility, staff recommends applying the City’s industrial district standards, including the
New Hope Design Guidelines. An open-air canopy would not meet the City’s
architectural standards for an accessory building nor would it meet the façade
requirements for parking structures in any zoning district. Additionally, use of an open-air
canopy would still allow snow to blow in and onto city vehicles and equipment and
would not protect either from colder temperatures. Thus, there would still be costs
associated with non-productive labor and equipment to access and use those vehicles
in the winter.
As an example, the two trucks that are used year-round for water main breaks have
diesel engines and are currently parked outside. Depending on the weather conditions,
there are times during the winter months when it will require up to two hours to get either
vehicle cleaned off, started, and loaded with the necessary equipment kept inside the
building before they can depart to address the water main break.
Electrical System Capacity
Stantec reviewed the existing switchgear and found space for nine (9) 100A breakers in
the existing switchgear P1, and it appears there is space for a future 600A breaker in the
existing switchgear P1 as well below the existing 400A and 600A breakers. These spaces
can be used to feed the proposed work described above.
It is expected that the new work would add an estimated 36kVA (100A @208Y/120V) of
load. This additional load can be added to both the electrical service and the existing
generator.
The existing electrical service has both the spare amperage capacity and the capacity
to add breakers in the existing switchgear to feed the expansion work described in this
report. New 100A or 200A breakers would be provided in the existing switchgear P1 to
feed the expansion. The expansion would be supported by the existing generator in the
event of a utility company power disruption.
Fleet Replacement Costs
Another Council question was related to the costs and equipment replacement savings
associated with storing vehicles and equipment inside versus outside. City Staff prepared
a 30-year replacement analysis in Appendix B to address these questions.
Appendix B includes a 30-year fleet replacement cost estimate and looks at the vehicle
replacement costs for vehicles stored outside versus vehicles stored inside. The estimated
costs savings to the City by moving fleet vehicles inside is $33,013.00 per year for a total
estimated savings of $990,393.00 over 30 years.
10
4.0 Recommendations
The recommendations provided below are from the comments in Section 2.0 Current
Conditions Assessment and are listed in order of importance. Estimated costs can also
be found in Appendix A at the back of this report.
1. Expand the existing Public Works Facility with a 20,000 square foot addition to
accommodate existing vehicles and equipment that cannot currently be parked
and/or stored inside during inclement weather and winter months.
2. The existing Closed Circuit TV (CCTV) system including all cameras, wiring, and head
end equipment should be removed and a new Closed Circuit TV (CCTV) system be
installed that is compatible with the new City Hall security system.
3. Relocate the fuel dispensing system and underground fuel storage tanks to the west
side of the new addition with access from International Parkway without having to go
through the security fence.
4. Add a new 3,000 square foot soils storage building to accommodate sand, class 5
gravel, and topsoil. This will clean up the outdoor storage yard and will also reduce
the potential of getting soils into the storm drainage system.
5. Replace the existing pavement for the entire site. Reconstruct to current New Hope
standard section.
6. Add air conditioning to the Mechanics Bay.
7. Add a new Mechanics Supervisor office and expand the Parts Storage Room with a
new mezzanine above to accommodate additional storage.
8. Add a new Compressor Room to contain the air compressor and its’ noise.
Relocation of the compressor moves it to be centrally located within the building for
the new expansion.
9. Renovate the existing Paint Storage Room into the relocated Fitness Room and
provide heating and air conditioning.
10. Replace the overhead and service doors into the Vehicle Parking spaces.
11. Add new translucent window panels in the exterior walls of the Vehicle Parking
spaces to bring in more natural light.
12. Clean and repaint the interior walls of the Vehicle Parking spaces.
13. Repair/replace areas of spalled concrete floors in the Mechanics Bay and Vehicle
Parking spaces. Clean all concrete floors in these areas and apply new concrete
floor sealer.
14. Replace the south two-thirds of the trench drain and sand interceptor in the main
Vehicle Parking area.
15. Renovate the current sand/gravel storage space into a new Truck Storage Space.
Remove the concrete push walls and floor slab, install a new sloped floor slab with
trench drain connected to the existing trench drain in the main Vehicle Parking area.
16. The vinyl composition tile in the hallways, some office spaces, and lunchroom, are in
need of replacement.
17. The Kitchen cabinets in the lunchroom should be re-faced and the countertops be
replaced.
18. The exterior turf areas should have an irrigation system.
11
5.0 Expansion Feasibility Costs Summary
As mentioned previously, the Public Works Facility is in generally good condition. The items
identified in this report have been reviewed with the Public Works staff to understand the
need and the summary of costs for the items included herein are as follows:
5.1 Summary of Opinion of Probable Project Costs
An opinion of probable construction and project costs is itemized in Appendix A, based
on 2020 construction costs. Recommendations are described and an opinion of
probable construction cost is provided for each recommendation. Below is the total
opinion of probable construction and project costs for the recommendations provided:
Public Works Addition $ 3,140,000.00
Security System $184,300.00
Fiber Optic Relocation $20,000.00
Fuel Dispensing System $262,000.00
Soils Storage Building $270,000.00
Pavement Replacement $734,846.00
Mechanics Bay Air Conditioning $75,000.00
Parts/Mechanics Bay Renovation $89,375.00
Relocated Fitness Room $21,900.00
Re-face Kitchen Cabinets/New Countertops $11,840.00
Replace Garage Doors/Add new windows $120,100.00
Clean/Repaint Interior Walls $71,900.00
Repair Shop Floors/New concrete sealer $147,050.50
Truck Storage Space Renovation $72,590.00
New Trench Drain $59,716.00
Replace Vinyl Tile Flooring $22,113.00
New Irrigation System $37,325.00
Subtotal Estimated Opinion of Probable Construction Cost $5,320,055,50
10% Contingency $532,005.55
10% Indirect $532,005.55
Construction Testing $30,000.00
Total Estimated Opinion of Probable Project Cost $6,414,066.60
Please note: Each line item listed in Appendix A has an opinion of probable construction
cost just for that item. The costs will vary depending on how the recommended scope of
work is packaged for this project.
Projected Project Costs (based on 3.5% annual inflation rate)
Year Total Estimated Project Cost
2021 $6,638,558.93
2022 $6,870,908.49
2023 $7,111,390.29
2024 $7,360,288.95
12
5.2 Summary of Opinion of Probable Project Costs – Reduced Project Scope
An opinion of probable construction and project costs is itemized in Appendix A, based
on 2020 construction costs. Recommendations are described and an opinion of
probable construction cost is provided for each recommendation. Below is the total
opinion of probable construction and project costs for the reduced project scope
recommendations provided:
2020 (Phase 1)
2021 (Phase
1 with 3.5%
inflation)
Security System $184,300.00 $190,750.50
New Soils Storage Building $270,000.00 $279,450.00
Pavement Replacement $498,515.00 $515,963.03
Mechanics Bay Air Conditioning $75,000.00 $77,625.00
Parts/Mechanics Bay Renovation $89,375.00 $92,503.13
Relocated Fitness Room $21,900.00 $22,666.50
New Overhead Garage Door $11,000.00 $11,385.00
Clean/Repaint Interior Walls of Mechanics Bay $21,280.00 $22,024.80
Repair Mechanics Bay Floor/New concrete sealer $24,747.50 $25,613.66
Truck Storage Space Renovation $72,590.00 $75,130.65
Subtotal Estimated Opinion of Probable Construction Cost $1,268,707.50 $1,313,112.26
10% Contingency $126,870.75 $131,311.23
10% Indirect $126,870.75 $131,311.23
Construction Testing $10,000.00 $10,350.00
Total Estimated Opinion of Probable Project Cost $1,532,449.00 $1,586,084.72
Please note: Each line item listed in Appendix A has an opinion of probable construction
cost just for that item. The costs will vary depending on how the recommended scope of
work is packaged for this project.
Potential Alternates for the Reduced Project Scope
New Mechanics Bay Parking Spaces $51,450.00 $53,250.75
New Translucent Wall Panels $15,000.00 $15,525.00
Re-face Kitchen Cabinets/New Countertops $11,840.00 $12,254.40
Replace Vinyl Flooring $22,113.00 $22,886.96
$100,403.00 $103,917.11
Total - Base + Alternates $1,632,852.00 $1,690,001.83
APPENDIX A
PROJECT: New Hope Public Works Facility Expansion Feasibility Study PROJECT NO: 193804913
CLIENT: City of New Hope, MN DATE: August 24, 2020
PAGE TITLE: Preliminary Opinion of Probable Construction Costs
Total Item
Unit Quantity Per Unit Total
New public works facility building expansion SF 20,000 $125.00 $2,500,000.00
New mechanical systems SF 20,000 $15.00 $300,000.00
New plumbing systems SF 20,000 $5.00 $100,000.00
New electrical systems SF 20,000 $12.00 $240,000.00
Subtotal $3,140,000.00
New security gates - vertical pivot operators EA 2 $35,000.00 $70,000.00
New chain link security fence LF 220 $65.00 $14,300.00
New security cameras EA 20 $5,000.00 $100,000.00
Subtotal $184,300.00
LS 1 $15,000.00 $15,000.00
LS 1 $175,000.00 $175,000.00
New concrete pavement at fuel dispensing system SF 9,000 $8.00 $72,000.00
Subtotal $262,000.00
New soils storage building; 22' clear to bottom of roof trusses SF 3,000 $80.00 $240,000.00
SF 3,000 $4.00 $12,000.00
Electrical power and lighting SF 3,000 $6.00 $18,000.00
Subtotal $270,000.00
Infrared gas-fired heating system
ITEM
Remove existing fuel dispensing system, concrete island, and
underground fuel storage tanks
New fuel dispensing system for diesel and unleaded gasoline;
concrete island with bollards; and (2) 10,000 gallon underground
fuel storage tanks; (2) fuel dispensers with two hoses per
dispenser; card reader controller for fuel dispensing; fuel tank
monitoring system; all necessary electrical conduits and wiring; all
necessary underground plumbing piping and vents
New Soils Storage Building
Security System Improvements
Public Works Facility Building Expansion
New Fuel Dispensing System
1 of 4
PROJECT: New Hope Public Works Facility Expansion Feasibility Study PROJECT NO: 193804913
CLIENT: City of New Hope, MN DATE: August 24, 2020
PAGE TITLE: Preliminary Opinion of Probable Construction Costs
Total Item
Unit Quantity Per Unit TotalITEM
LS 1 $26,300.00 $26,300.00
SY 12,422 $3.00 $37,266.00
LF 702 $10.00 $7,020.00
LF 200 $80.00 $16,000.00
LS 1 $262,500.00 $262,500.00
CY 1,450 $20.00 $29,000.00
SY 1,776 $2.00 $3,552.00
CY 890 $25.00 $22,250.00
LS 1 $3,750.00 $3,750.00
Ton 1,757 $25.00 $43,925.00
Ton 1,720 $85.00 $146,200.00
Ton 1,290 $90.00 $116,100.00
Gallon 710 $3.50 $2,485.00
LF 2,258 $1.00 $2,258.00
LF 702 $20.00 $14,040.00
LF 2,200 $1.00 $2,200.00
Subtotal $734,846.00
EA 1 $75,000.00 $75,000.00
Subtotal $75,000.00
Remove existing Parts and Parks Department spaces SF 990 $2.50 $2,475.00
New Mechanics Bay Office/Parts Storage with mezzanine SF 1,580 $55.00 $86,900.00
Subtotal $89,375.00
SF 292 $75.00 $21,900.00
Subtotal $21,900.00
Bituminous Mastic
New pavement markings
Relocated Fitness Room
Renovate and expand the existing Storage Room 120 into the
Relocated Fitness Room 120; remove existing CMU wall and
install new structural beam; add new CMU walls; add three
translucent window panels; paint walls and ceiling; provide rubber
sports flooring; add heating and cooling; add new lighting and
power receptacles
Pavement Replacement
Bituminous removal
Mobilization
Shape Aggregate Base
Mechanics Bay Office/Parts Storage Renovation
Curb and Gutter
Bituminous Tack
Bituminous Base
Aggregate Base
Bituminous Wear
New air conditioning unit with ductwork
Common Excavation (P)
Geotextile Fabric
Select Granular Borrow (CV)
New Air Conditioning System for Mechanics Bay
Remove Curb and Gutter
Storm Sewer Pipe and Structures
Storm Sewer Chamber
2 of 4
PROJECT: New Hope Public Works Facility Expansion Feasibility Study PROJECT NO: 193804913
CLIENT: City of New Hope, MN DATE: August 24, 2020
PAGE TITLE: Preliminary Opinion of Probable Construction Costs
Total Item
Unit Quantity Per Unit TotalITEM
Re-face Kitchen cabinets LF 86 $100.00 $8,600.00
Replace Kitchen countertops LF 45 $72.00 $3,240.00
Subtotal $11,840.00
Remove existing garage doors and frames EA 6 $50.00 $300.00
Remove existing overhead doors, tracks, and motor operators EA 10 $600.00 $6,000.00
Install new garage doors and frames EA 6 $2,800.00 $16,800.00
Install new overhead doors, tracks and motor operators EA 10 $7,500.00 $75,000.00
Install new overhead door, track and motor operator in east wall EA 1 $11,000.00 $11,000.00
Install new translucent window panels EA 11 $1,000.00 $11,000.00
Subtotal $120,100.00
Clean interior walls SF 28,760 $0.75 $21,570.00
Re-paint interior walls SF 28,760 $1.75 $50,330.00
Subtotal $71,900.00
Replace spalled concrete floor slab SF 2,775 $18.00 $49,950.00
Clean/prep concrete floor slabs SF 27,743 $2.00 $55,486.00
Install new concrete floor coating SF 27,743 $1.50 $41,614.50
Subtotal $147,050.50
CY 84 $325.00 $27,300.00
SF 860 $1.50 $1,290.00
LF 23 $350.00 $8,050.00
SF 2,262 $10.00 $22,620.00
SF 860 $15.50 $13,330.00
Subtotal $72,590.00
Truck Storage Space Renovation
Remove existing concrete push walls and floor slab
Install new trench drain with pipng to existing sand interceptor
Install new 8" CMU north divider wall
Remove existing north wall
Install new concrete floor slab over compacted backfill
Replace Garage Doors, Overhead Doors, and add new Translucent Wall Panels
Clean/Repaint Interior Walls of Mechanics Bay and Vehicle Parking
Repair Shop Floors and Coatings
Re-face Kitchen cabinets/new countertops
3 of 4
PROJECT: New Hope Public Works Facility Expansion Feasibility Study PROJECT NO: 193804913
CLIENT: City of New Hope, MN DATE: August 24, 2020
PAGE TITLE: Preliminary Opinion of Probable Construction Costs
Total Item
Unit Quantity Per Unit TotalITEM
SF 1,887 $11.00 $20,757.00
LF 103 $250.00 $25,750.00
SF 1,887 $7.00 $13,209.00
Subtotal $59,716.00
Remove existing vinyl tile flooring SF 2,106 $2.50 $5,265.00
Install new vinyl tile flooring SF 2,106 $8.00 $16,848.00
Subtotal $22,113.00
Install new irrigation system SF 14,930 $1.50 $22,395.00
Site restoration SF 14,930 $1.00 $14,930.00
Subtotal $37,325.00
Subtotal Estimated Opinion of Probable Construction Cost $5,320,055.50
10% Contingency $532,005.55
10% Indirect Costs $532,005.55
Construction Testing $30,000.00
Total Estimated Opinion of Probable Construction Cost $6,414,066.60
Note: Shingle Creek Watershed District will provide $50,000.00 towards the costs for the storm sewer chamber.
Projected Project Costs (based on 3.5% annual inflation rate)
Install Irrigation System
Replace Vinyl Tile Flooring
Install new concrete slab to 8' away from trench drain
New Trench Drain in Existing Building
Install new trench drain with new sand interceptor
Remove existing trench drain and sand interceptor; remove
existing concrete slab to 8' away from trench drain
2023 $7,111,390.29
2024 $7,360,288.95
Year Estimated Total Project Cost
2021 $6,638,558.93
2022 $6,870,908.49
4 of 4
PROJECT: New Hope Public Works Facility Expansion Feasibility Study PROJECT NO: 193804913
CLIENT: City of New Hope, MN DATE: August 24, 2020
PAGE TITLE: Preliminary Opinion of Probable Construction Costs-Reduced Project Scope V2
Total Item
Unit Quantity Per Unit Total
New security gates - vertical pivot operators EA 2 $35,000.00 $70,000.00
New chain link security fence LF 220 $65.00 $14,300.00
New security cameras EA 20 $5,000.00 $100,000.00
Subtotal $184,300.00
New soils storage building; 22' clear to bottom of roof trusses SF 3,000 $80.00 $240,000.00
SF 3,000 $4.00 $12,000.00
SF 3,000 $6.00 $18,000.00
Subtotal $270,000.00
LS 1 $26,300.00 $26,300.00
SY 5,647 $3.00 $16,941.00
LF 120 $10.00 $1,200.00
LF 200 $80.00 $16,000.00
LS 1 $262,500.00 $262,500.00
CY 660 $20.00 $13,200.00
SY 1,776 $2.00 $3,552.00
CY 405 $25.00 $10,125.00
LS 1 $3,750.00 $3,750.00
Ton 800 $25.00 $20,000.00
Ton 783 $85.00 $66,555.00
Ton 587 $90.00 $52,830.00
Gallon 324 $3.50 $1,134.00
LF 1,028 $1.00 $1,028.00
LF 120 $20.00 $2,400.00
LF 1,000 $1.00 $1,000.00
Subtotal $498,515.00
EA 1 $75,000.00 $75,000.00
Subtotal $75,000.00
Infrared gas-fired heating system
Electrical power and lighting
ITEM
Security System Improvements
New Soils Storage Building
Pavement Replacement
Mobilization
Bituminous removal
Remove Curb and Gutter
Storm Sewer Pipe and Structures
Storm Sewer Chamber
Common Excavation (P)
Geotextile Fabric
Select Granular Borrow (CV)
Shape Aggregate Base
Aggregate Base
Bituminous Base
Bituminous Wear
Bituminous Tack
Bituminous Mastic
Curb and Gutter
New pavement markings
New Air Conditioning System for Mechanics Bay
New air conditioning unit with ductwork
1 of 4
PROJECT: New Hope Public Works Facility Expansion Feasibility Study PROJECT NO: 193804913
CLIENT: City of New Hope, MN DATE: August 24, 2020
PAGE TITLE: Preliminary Opinion of Probable Construction Costs-Reduced Project Scope V2
Total Item
Unit Quantity Per Unit TotalITEM
Remove existing Parts and Parks Department spaces SF 990 $2.50 $2,475.00
New Mechanics Bay Office/Parts Storage with mezzanine SF 1,580 $55.00 $86,900.00
Subtotal $89,375.00
SF 292 $75.00 $21,900.00
Subtotal $21,900.00
Install new overhead door, track and motor operator in east wall EA 1 $11,000.00 $11,000.00
Subtotal $11,000.00
Clean interior walls SF 8,512 $0.75 $6,384.00
Re-paint interior walls SF 8,512 $1.75 $14,896.00
Subtotal $21,280.00
Replace spalled concrete floor slab SF 600 $18.00 $10,800.00
Clean/prep concrete floor slabs SF 3,985 $2.00 $7,970.00
Install new concrete floor coating SF 3,985 $1.50 $5,977.50
Subtotal $24,747.50
CY 84 $325.00 $27,300.00
SF 860 $1.50 $1,290.00
LF 23 $350.00 $8,050.00
SF 2,262 $10.00 $22,620.00
SF 860 $15.50 $13,330.00
Subtotal $72,590.00
Truck Storage Space Renovation
Remove existing concrete push walls and floor slab
Remove existing north wall
Install new trench drain with pipng to existing sand interceptor
Install new concrete floor slab over compacted backfill
Install new 8" CMU north divider wall
Relocated Fitness Room
Clean/Repaint Interior Walls of Mechanics Bay
Repair Mechanics Bay Floor and Coatings
Mechanics Bay Office/Parts Storage Renovation
Renovate and expand the existing Storage Room 120 into the
Relocated Fitness Room 120; remove existing CMU wall and
install new structural beam; add new CMU walls; add three
translucent window panels; paint walls and ceiling; provide rubber
sports flooring; add heating and cooling; add new lighting and
power receptacles
New Overhead Door
2 of 4
PROJECT: New Hope Public Works Facility Expansion Feasibility Study PROJECT NO: 193804913
CLIENT: City of New Hope, MN DATE: August 24, 2020
PAGE TITLE: Preliminary Opinion of Probable Construction Costs-Reduced Project Scope V2
Total Item
Unit Quantity Per Unit TotalITEM
Subtotal Estimated Opinion of Probable Construction Cost $1,268,707.50
10% Contingency $126,870.75
10% Indirect Costs $126,870.75
Construction Testing $10,000.00
Total Estimated Opinion of Probable Construction Cost $1,532,449.00
3 of 4
PROJECT: New Hope Public Works Facility Expansion Feasibility Study PROJECT NO: 193804913
CLIENT: City of New Hope, MN DATE: August 24, 2020
PAGE TITLE: Preliminary Opinion of Probable Construction Costs-Reduced Project Scope V2
Total Item
Unit Quantity Per Unit TotalITEM
POTENTIAL ALTERNATES
LS 1 $5,000.00 $5,000.00
SY 525 $5.00 $2,625.00
LF 70 $12.00 $840.00
CY 270 $20.00 $5,400.00
SY 525 $2.00 $1,050.00
CY 180 $25.00 $4,500.00
LS 1 $1,000.00 $1,000.00
Ton 425 $25.00 $10,625.00
Ton 106 $85.00 $9,010.00
Ton 85 $90.00 $7,650.00
Gallon 100 $5.00 $500.00
LF 500 $1.00 $500.00
LF 124 $20.00 $2,480.00
LF 180 $1.50 $270.00
Subtotal $51,450.00
Install new translucent window panels EA 15 $1,000.00 $15,000.00
Subtotal $15,000.00
Re-face Kitchen cabinets LF 86 $100.00 $8,600.00
Replace Kitchen countertops LF 45 $72.00 $3,240.00
Subtotal $11,840.00
Remove existing vinyl tile flooring SF 2,106 $2.50 $5,265.00
Install new vinyl tile flooring SF 2,106 $8.00 $16,848.00
Subtotal $22,113.00
New pavement markings
Aggregate Base
Bituminous Wear
Bituminous Tack
Bituminous Mastic
Curb and Gutter
Common Excavation (P)
Geotextile Fabric
Select Granular Borrow (CV)
Shape Aggregate Base
Add New Translucent Wall Panels
Re-face Kitchen cabinets
Replace Vinyl Tile Flooring
New Mechanic's Bay Parking Spaces
Mobilization
Bituminous removal
Remove Curb and Gutter
Bituminous Base
4 of 4
APPENDIX B
PROJECT: New Hope Public Works Facility Expansion Feasibility Study PROJECT NO: 193804913
CLIENT: City of New Hope, MN DATE: July 8, 2020
PAGE TITLE: 30 Year Fleet Replacement Cost Estimate
Vehicle/
Equipment No.Model Year
Original
Purchase Price
Estimated 2020
Replacement Cost*
Ford Pickup 1 2002 $25,237 $40,652
Ford Pickup 8 2002 $31,347 $50,493
Sterling Dump Truck 9 1999 $131,447 $228,638
Ford Dump Truck 15 1997 $29,931 $54,027
Ford F 550 17 2016 $42,968 $51,872
Sterling Dump Truck 19 1999 $100,530 $174,862
Sterling Dump Truck 20 2006 $85,767 $123,269
Ford 1 Ton Dump 21 2003 $32,407 $51,042
Tractor 5105 M 29 2009 $67,704 $83,124
Sterling Dump Truck 31 2000 $104,438 $175,725
Ford Tractor 33 1972 $7,000 $48,501
Ford Pickup 35 1999 $25,478 $44,317
Ford 1 Ton Tump 39 2010 $28,275 $69,258
Ford Pickup - Utilities 204 2008 $20,056 $26,990
Tractor 4720 226 2012 $31,062 $66,053
Ford Pickup - Streets 227 2012 $27,287 $40,481
New Holland Tractor 236 2013 $182,103 $226,490
Flail Mower 238 2014 $39,400 $48,222
Subtotal $1,012,435.64 $1,604,014.28
Vehicle/
Equipment No.Model Year
Original
Purchase Price
Estimated 2020
Replacement Cost*
Trailer Roller 12 1998 $3,923 $7,437
Vermeer Chipper 14 2015 $53,100 $73,113
Trailer 22 1999 $4,225 $7,349
Trailer 23 1999 $4,225 $7,349
AgriMetal Aerator 41 2001 $5,458 $8,931
Stepp Hot Box 42 2010 $35,865 $47,655
Jon Boat 44 2012 $400 $505
Trailer 62 2001 $1,966 $6,635
Trailer 63 2001 $1,966 $6,635
Bobcat Trailer 66 2001 $4,975 $9,135
Grader 69 2001 $8,147 $13,331
ITEM
ITEM
Vehicles
Equipment
1 of 2
PROJECT: New Hope Public Works Facility Expansion Feasibility Study PROJECT NO: 193804913
CLIENT: City of New Hope, MN DATE: July 8, 2020
PAGE TITLE: 30 Year Fleet Replacement Cost Estimate
Vehicle/
Equipment No.Model Year
Original
Purchase Price
Estimated 2020
Replacement Cost*ITEM
Pothole Patch Step Trailer 70 2007 $1,968 $2,750
Fertilizer Spreader 82 2014 $4,895 $6,740
Trailer Cement Forms 83 1987 $2,500 $6,375
Top Dresser 89 2016 $7,500 $9,464
Arrow Board 99 2000 $7,075 $11,904
Saw Trailer 200 2008 $2,605 $3,506
Grapple for #64 207 2010 $12,564 $15,177
Trailer for #68 209 2008 $5,949 $8,006
Stump Chipper 217 1989 $10,722 $25,060
Trailer - Utilities 224 2013 $17,165 $26,436
Message Board 228 2012 $17,580 $25,834
Mixer Trailer 235 2013 $5,272 $6,557
Bobcat Attachments 258 2018 $20,094 $21,078
Subtotal $240,138 $356,964
Total Vehicle 2020 estimated replacement cost $1,604,014
Total Equipment 2020 estimated replacement cost $356,964
Total Cost of all Fleet Stored Outside $1,960,978
Average Life of Fleet Stored Indoors (yr)**13.5
Average Life of Fleet Store Outdoors (yr) **11
30 Year Replacement Cost of Fleet if Stored Indoors $4,357,729
30 Year Replacement Cost of Fleet if Stored Outdoors $5,348,122
Cost Savings by Moving Fleet Indoors over 30 Years $990,393
Cost Savings by Moving Fleet Indoors / year (over 30 years)$33,013
** Average Life of Fleet based on staff review of various Public Works Facility Studies
* Estimated 2020 cost based on either A) amount currently budgeted in the CIP for replacement if information is available or B) Original
purchase price adjusted for inflation + 10% contingency
2 of 2
Updated
Reduced Scope
Site Plans
SHEET NUMBERDATENOSURVEYAPPROVEDDESIGNEDDRAWNPROJ. NO.WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT
AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED
UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF
PRINT NAME:
SIGNATURE:
DATE:LIC. NO.REVISIONCHECKEDPlot Date: 01/11/2021 - 1:28pmDrawing name: V:\1938\active\193804913\CAD\Dwg\193804913-C001.dwgXrefs:, PWF site plan, 193804913-BDR, PWF-X1XA THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY AND BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL DIMENSIONS. DO NOT SCALE THEDRAWING - ANY ERRORS OR OMISSIONS SHALL BE REPORTED TO STANTEC WITHOUT DELAY.THE COPYRIGHTS TO ALL DESIGNS AND DRAWINGS ARE THE PROPERTY OF STANTEC. REPRODUCTIONOR USE FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN THAT AUTHORIZED BY STANTEC IS FORBIDDEN.
CITY OF NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA
PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY EXPANSION FEASIBILITY STUDY
193804913733 Marquette Avenue, Suite 1000
Minneapolis, MN 55402
www.stantec.com
MINNESOTA
JANUARY 19, 2021C001EXISTING SITE PLAN
????BSBSG-METER??21 PARKING SPACES7 PARKINGSPACES7 PARKINGSPACESSHEET NUMBERDATENOSURVEYAPPROVEDDESIGNEDDRAWNPROJ. NO.WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT
AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED
UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF
PRINT NAME:
SIGNATURE:
DATE:LIC. NO.REVISIONCHECKEDPlot Date: 01/11/2021 - 1:40pmDrawing name: V:\1938\active\193804913\CAD\Dwg\193804913-C103.dwgXrefs:, 193804913-XSXT, 193804913-XA1XA, 193804913-XSXV, 193804913-XSNO, 193804913-XA1NA, 193804913-BDR, 193804913-XB1NA THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY AND BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL DIMENSIONS. DO NOT SCALE THEDRAWING - ANY ERRORS OR OMISSIONS SHALL BE REPORTED TO STANTEC WITHOUT DELAY.THE COPYRIGHTS TO ALL DESIGNS AND DRAWINGS ARE THE PROPERTY OF STANTEC. REPRODUCTIONOR USE FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN THAT AUTHORIZED BY STANTEC IS FORBIDDEN.
CITY OF NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA
PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY EXPANSION FEASIBILITY STUDY
193804913733 Marquette Avenue, Suite 1000
Minneapolis, MN 55402
www.stantec.com
MINNESOTA
JANUARY 19, 2021C103SITE PLAN WITH PROPOSED PHASE 1 RENOVATIONS
190'-0"1EXISTING FLOOR PLAN04'8'16'UP166'-0"VEST.101LOBBY102CONF.ROOM 2105DIRECTOR106OFFICE108OFFICE109OFFICE110OFFICE111VEST.112HALLWAY113HALLWAY107COPY104CLERICAL103WORKROOM115FILEROOM116PRINTROOM117HALLWAY124LUNCHROOM125CONF.ROOM127HALLWAY
114
OFFICE118STORAGE120HALLWAY119WOMEN121MEN122CENTRAL GARAGEOFFICE/STORAGE133LOCKERS123JAN.128WOMEN129MEN130ADATOILET131HALLWAY132KITCHEN126MECHANICSBAY134STORAGE135ELECROOM137PARTSROOM138STAIR139VEHICLEPARKING136VEHICLEPARKING142PARKSDEPT140SAND/GRAVELSTORAGE143VACTORROOM14170'-0"80'-0"12'-0"12'-0"42'-0"14'-0"46'-0"140'-0"26'-0"34'-0"16'-0"8'-0"12'-0"11'-8 1/2"AA2011AA2012AA2013AA2014SHEET NUMBERDATENOSURVEYAPPROVEDDESIGNEDDRAWNPROJ. NO.WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT
AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED
UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF
PRINT NAME:
SIGNATURE:
DATE:LIC. NO.REVISIONCHECKEDPlot Date: 01/11/2021 - 12:18pmDrawing name: V:\1938\active\193804913\CAD\Dwg\193804913-AA001.dwgXrefs:, 193804913-BDR, 193804913-XA1XA THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY AND BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL DIMENSIONS. DO NOT SCALE THEDRAWING - ANY ERRORS OR OMISSIONS SHALL BE REPORTED TO STANTEC WITHOUT DELAY.THE COPYRIGHTS TO ALL DESIGNS AND DRAWINGS ARE THE PROPERTY OF STANTEC. REPRODUCTIONOR USE FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN THAT AUTHORIZED BY STANTEC IS FORBIDDEN.
CITY OF NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA
PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY EXPANSION FEASIBILITY STUDY
193804913733 Marquette Avenue, Suite 1000
Minneapolis, MN 55402
www.stantec.com
MINNESOTA
JANUARY 19, 2021AA001EXISTING FLOOR PLAN
PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY
BPPBPPARCHITECT
MINNESOTA
BRUCE P. PAULSON
20910
VEST.LOBBY
CONF.
ROOM 2
DIRECTOR OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE
VEST.
CLERICAL
WORK
ROOM
FILE
ROOM PRINT
ROOM
LUNCH
ROOM
CONF.
ROOM
KITCHEN
STORAGE
ELEC
VEHICLE
PARKING
CENTRAL GARAGE
OFFICE/STORAGE
LOCKERS
WOMEN
MEN
OFFICE FITNESS
ROOM
PARTS
ROOM
COMPRESSOR
ROOM
HALLWAY
ADA
TOILET
190'-0"7'-4"14'-0"16'-0"3'-4"12'-0"14'-0"14'-0"14'-0"14'-8"14'-0"12'-8"14'-0"8'-8"3'-4"8'-0"14'-0"6'-0"COPY
HALLWAY
HALLWAYHALLWAY
JAN.
WOMEN
MEN
HALLWAY
HALLWAY
STAIR 'A'
1 PROPOSED EXISTING RENOVATION FLOOR PLAN
0 4'8'16'
19'-0"8"
44'-4"16'-0"72'-4"41'-8"8"4'-0"8'-8"8"3'-4"UP
166'-0"
72'-4"33'-0"4'-0"6'-8"4'-0"6'-8"4'-0"12'-0"
27'-4"8"
AA202
1
AA202
2
AA202
6
AA202
4
MECHANICS
BAY
VEHICLE
PARKING
VEHICLE
PARKING
VEHICLE
PARKING
NEW TRENCH
DRAIN8"OFFICE
STORAGE
16'-0"
10'-0"8"10'-8"8"4'-0"3'-4"
4'-0"3'-4"4'-0"12'-0"SHEET NUMBER
DATENO
SURVEY
APPROVED
DESIGNED
DRAWN
PROJ. NO.WASPREPAREDBYMEORUNDERMYDIRECTSUPERVISIONIHEREBYCERTIFYTHATTHISPLAN,SPECIFICATION,ORREPORTANDTHATIAMADULYLICENSEDUNDERTHELAWSOFTHESTATEOFPRINTNAME:SIGNATURE:DATE:LIC.NO.REVISION
CHECKED
PlotDate:01/11/2021-11:31amDrawingname:V:\1938\active\193804913\CAD\Dwg\193804913-AA106.dwgXrefs:,193804913-BDR,193804913-XA1NATHECONTRACTORSHALLVERIFYANDBERESPONSIBLEFORALLDIMENSIONS.DONOTSCALETHEDRAWING-ANYERRORSOROMISSIONSSHALLBEREPORTEDTOSTANTECWITHOUTDELAY.THECOPYRIGHTSTOALLDESIGNSANDDRAWINGSARETHEPROPERTYOFSTANTEC.REPRODUCTIONORUSEFORANYPURPOSEOTHERTHANTHATAUTHORIZEDBYSTANTECISFORBIDDEN.CITYOFNEWHOPE,MINNESOTAPUBLICWORKSFACILITYEXPANSIONFEASIBILITYSTUDY193804913MINNESOTAAUGUST24,2020AA106 PROPOSEDEXISTINGRENOVATIONFLOORPLANPUBLICWORKSFACILITYBPP
BPPARCHITECTBRUCEP.PAULSON20910
190'-0"
7'-4"14'-0"16'-0"3'-4"12'-0"14'-0"14'-0"14'-0"14'-8"14'-0"12'-8"14'-0"8'-8"3'-4"8'-0"14'-0"6'-0"
26'-8"4'-0"12'-8"4'-0"24'-0"4'-0"24'-8"4'-0"23'-4"4'-0"31'-4"4'-0"23'-4"1PROPOSED EXISITNG MEZZANINE RENOVATION FLOOR PLAN04'8'16'19'-0"8"30'-0"4'-0"8'-0"13'-8"8'-8"
8"3'-11"DN47'-4"4'-0"8'-0"4'-0"28'-0"4'-0"8'-0"4'-0"AA2021AA2022AA2026AA20244'-0"9'-4"10'-0"18'-0"
3'-11"DNUP4'-0"4'-0"8'-0"4'-0"30'-8"47'-4"OFFICE205PLANSTORAGE206STORAGEROOM201PARTSMEZZANINE203STAIR 'A'204UPPER SPACE OFVEHICLE PARKING136UPPER SPAC E OF VEHICLE PARKING143UPPER SPACE OFVEHICLE PARKING142UPPER SPACE OFVEHICLE PARKING144UPPER SPACE OFMAINTENANCE SHOP134MEZZANINE202UPPER SPACE OFELEC ROOM137SHEET NUMBERDATENOSURVEYAPPROVEDDESIGNEDDRAWNPROJ. NO.WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT
AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED
UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF
PRINT NAME:
SIGNATURE:
DATE:LIC. NO.REVISIONCHECKEDPlot Date: 01/11/2021 - 11:56amDrawing name: V:\1938\active\193804913\CAD\Dwg\193804913-AA107.dwgXrefs:, 193804913-BDR, 193804913-XA2NA THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY AND BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL DIMENSIONS. DO NOT SCALE THEDRAWING - ANY ERRORS OR OMISSIONS SHALL BE REPORTED TO STANTEC WITHOUT DELAY.THE COPYRIGHTS TO ALL DESIGNS AND DRAWINGS ARE THE PROPERTY OF STANTEC. REPRODUCTIONOR USE FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN THAT AUTHORIZED BY STANTEC IS FORBIDDEN.
CITY OF NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA
PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY EXPANSION FEASIBILITY STUDY
193804913733 Marquette Avenue, Suite 1000
Minneapolis, MN 55402
www.stantec.com
MINNESOTA
JANUARY 19, 2021AA107PROPOSED EXISTING MEZZANINE RENOVATION FLOOR PLAN
PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY
BPPBPPARCHITECT
BRUCE P. PAULSON
20910
1EXISTING NORTH ELEVATION04'8'16'2EXISTING WEST ELEVATION04'8'16'3EXISTING SOUTH ELEVATION04'8'16'4EXISTING EAST ELEVATION04'8'16'SHEET NUMBERDATENOSURVEYAPPROVEDDESIGNEDDRAWNPROJ. NO.WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT
AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED
UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF
PRINT NAME:
SIGNATURE:
DATE:LIC. NO.REVISIONCHECKEDPlot Date: 01/11/2021 - 1:14pmDrawing name: V:\1938\active\193804913\CAD\Dwg\193804913-AA201.dwgXrefs:, 193804913-BDR, 193804913-XAEXA THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY AND BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL DIMENSIONS. DO NOT SCALE THEDRAWING - ANY ERRORS OR OMISSIONS SHALL BE REPORTED TO STANTEC WITHOUT DELAY.THE COPYRIGHTS TO ALL DESIGNS AND DRAWINGS ARE THE PROPERTY OF STANTEC. REPRODUCTIONOR USE FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN THAT AUTHORIZED BY STANTEC IS FORBIDDEN.
CITY OF NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA
PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY EXPANSION FEASIBILITY STUDY
193804913733 Marquette Avenue, Suite 1000
Minneapolis, MN 55402
www.stantec.com
MINNESOTA
JANUARY 19, 2021AA201EXISTING EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY
BPPBPPARCHITECT
BRUCE P. PAULSON
20910
1RENOVATED NORTH ELEVATION04'8'16'2RENOVATED WEST ELEVATION04'8'16'3RENOVATED SOUTH ELEVATION04'8'16'4RENOVATED EAST ELEVATION04'8'16'SHEET NUMBERDATENOSURVEYAPPROVEDDESIGNEDDRAWNPROJ. NO.WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT
AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED
UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF
PRINT NAME:
SIGNATURE:
DATE:LIC. NO.REVISIONCHECKEDPlot Date: 01/11/2021 - 1:24pmDrawing name: V:\1938\active\193804913\CAD\Dwg\193804913-AA203.dwgXrefs:, 193804913-BDR, 193804913-XAENA THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY AND BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL DIMENSIONS. DO NOT SCALE THEDRAWING - ANY ERRORS OR OMISSIONS SHALL BE REPORTED TO STANTEC WITHOUT DELAY.THE COPYRIGHTS TO ALL DESIGNS AND DRAWINGS ARE THE PROPERTY OF STANTEC. REPRODUCTIONOR USE FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN THAT AUTHORIZED BY STANTEC IS FORBIDDEN.
CITY OF NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA
PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY EXPANSION FEASIBILITY STUDY
193804913733 Marquette Avenue, Suite 1000
Minneapolis, MN 55402
www.stantec.com
MINNESOTA
JANUARY 19, 2021AA203RENOVATED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY
BPPBPPARCHITECT
BRUCE P. PAULSON
20910
4'-0"50'-0"60'-0"
1'-0"18'-8"1'-0"18'-8"1'-0"18'-8"1'-0"1'-0"1'-0"3'-0"14'-0"6'-0"14'-0"6'-0"14'-0"3'-0"1PROPOSED SOILS STORAGE BUILDING04'8'16'23452PROPOSED WEST ELEVATION04'8'16'3PROPOSED SOUTH ELEVATION04'8'16'4PROPOSED EAST ELEVATION04'8'16'5PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION04'8'16'5'-0"8'-0"14'-0"124PREFINISHED METWALL PANELSUPWARD ACTINGSECTIONAL DOORSCONCRETE WALL W/SMOOTH FORM FINISHPREFINISHED METROOF PANELS5'-0"8'-0"16'-0"124PREFINISHED METWALL PANELSCONCRETE WALL W/SMOOTH FORM FINISHPREFINISHED METROOF PANELS2'-0"ROOF TRUSS BEARINGROOF TRUSS BEARING6'-0" HIGH CONCRETEWALL6'-0" HIGH CONCRETEWALLLEGENDPROPOSED NEWSTORAGE BUILDINGSHEET NUMBERDATENOSURVEYAPPROVEDDESIGNEDDRAWNPROJ. NO.WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT
AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED
UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF
PRINT NAME:
SIGNATURE:
DATE:LIC. NO.REVISIONCHECKEDPlot Date: 01/11/2021 - 1:26pmDrawing name: V:\1938\active\193804913\CAD\Dwg\193804913-AB101.dwgXrefs:, 193804913-XB1NA, 193804913-BDR, 193804913-XBENA THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY AND BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL DIMENSIONS. DO NOT SCALE THEDRAWING - ANY ERRORS OR OMISSIONS SHALL BE REPORTED TO STANTEC WITHOUT DELAY.THE COPYRIGHTS TO ALL DESIGNS AND DRAWINGS ARE THE PROPERTY OF STANTEC. REPRODUCTIONOR USE FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN THAT AUTHORIZED BY STANTEC IS FORBIDDEN.
CITY OF NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA
PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY EXPANSION FEASIBILITY STUDY
193804913733 Marquette Avenue, Suite 1000
Minneapolis, MN 55402
www.stantec.com
MINNESOTA
JANUARY 19, 2021AB101FLOOR PLAN AND ELEVATIONS
PROPOSED SOILS STORAGE BUILDING
BPPBPPARCHITECT
BRUCE P. PAULSON
20910
August 24, 2020
Council Minute
Exerpts
New Hope City Council August 24, 2020
Page 2
removed for discussion. Mr. Kirk McDonald, city manager, reviewed the consent
items.
BUSINESS LICENSE(S)
Item 6.1
Approval of business licenses(s).
FINANCIAL CLAIMS
Item 6.2
Approval of financial claims through August 24, 2020.
MOTION
Item 6.4
Motion approving appointment of Malloy, Montague, Karnowski and Radosevich
MMKR) to perform 2020 city audit.
MOTION
Item 6.5
Motion approving three-year contract renewal with AEM for professional financial
management services for years 2021-2023.
RESOLUTION 2020-83
Item 6.6
Resolution approving Change Order No. 10 in the amount of $22,744.05 with
Donlar Construction Company for the pool construction project (Improvement
Project No. 995).
Council Member London requested an update on the pool budget. City Manager
McDonald indicated the financial information will be distributed to Council.
RESOLUTION 2020-84
Item 6.7
Resolution authorizing the purchase of equipment and appropriation of funds in
the amount of $8,673 for the purchase of batteries for the 2012 Zamboni by
Midwest Industrial Battery, Inc. for the Ice Arena.
MOTION
Consent Items
Motion was made by Council Member Elder, seconded by Council Member Hoffe,
to approve the Consent items. All present voted in favor. Motion carried.
PUBLIC WORKS
FACILITY
EXPANSION
IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT NO. 1039)
Item 8.1
Mayor Hemken introduced for discussion Item 8.1, Presentation of feasibility
report for the Public Works Facility Expansion (Improvement Project No. 1039).
Mr. Dan Boyum, city engineer, along with Bruce Paulson, architect with Stantec,
presented the feasibility report for the public works facility expansion. They
described storage needs, illustrated a proposed 20,000 square foot addition, a 3,000
square foot soils storage building, addition of air conditioning to the mechanics
bay and fitness room, a new security system to tie into the city hall system,
relocation of the fuel dispensing system, addition of a mechanics supervisor office
and expansion of the parts storage room, new compressor room to contain the
compressor noise, replace overhead and service doors into the vehicle parking
spaces, repair and clean concrete floors, replace the south two-thirds of the trench
drain and sand interceptor, add irrigation system, and renovations to lunchroom
and hallway flooring.
Mr. Boyum stated a 30-year replacement analysis was prepared to identify
equipment replacement savings associated with storing vehicles and equipment
indoors versus outside. He stated the estimated cost savings to the city by moving
fleet vehicles inside is $33,013 annually or $990,393 over 30 years.
New Hope City Council August 24, 2020
Page 3
The funding for a building expansion is estimated at $6.4 million and a reduced
scope project is $1.5 million. It was noted that since 2017 funds have been set aside
through central garage charges for the project and the reduced scope
improvements could be paid for with current funds as well as central garage
reserves. The potential for internal financing from the temporary financing fund
for the larger building expansion project will not be known until the Civic Center
Park and Pool projects are completed.
Mr. Boyum recommended continuing discussions regarding a reduced scope
project at a future work session.
Mr. McDonald acknowledged that Council is reluctant to issue bonds at this time
due to the recent city hall and pool projects and that a larger public works
expansion project will have to be postponed. He asked Council to accept the report
and encouraged council members to schedule a tour of the existing facility this fall.
Council Member London requested more information regarding the 30-year
replacement analysis. He noted the garage at the new police facility will extend the
life of police vehicles. He asked staff to provide the projected opera ting cost
increase (for central garage charges) for the expansion. Mr. McDonald reported
that calculations can be prepared and distributed.
Discussion ensued regarding the location of the facility gates and the need for
increased security.
Council thanked staff for the report.
MOTION
Item 8.1
Motion was made by Council Member Elder, seconded by Council Member
Frazier, to accept the report. All present voted in favor. Motion carried.
WMFRD 2021 BUDGET
Item 10.1
Mayor Hemken introduced for discussion Item 10.1, Resolution approving West
Metro Fire-Rescue District 2021 Budget.
Mr. Kirk McDonald, city manager, stated West Metro’s 2021 budget is $2,674,050 and
New Hope’s share is $1,352,363 (an increase of $54,673 over last year for salaries,
PERA, workers comp insurance, motor fuels, equipment repairs, communications
and financial services). He stated the budget was reviewed with Council at its
August 17 work session. He stated the Fire Board approved the budget at their July
8 board meeting, and the Crystal City Council approved it at their August 18
Council Meeting. He stated Fire Chief Larson is available for any questions.
RESOLUTION 2020-85
Item 10.1
Council Member Elder introduced the following resolution and moved its
adoption: “RESOLUTION APPROVING WEST METRO FIRE-RESCUE
DISTRICT 2021 BUDGET.” The motion for the adoption of the foregoing
resolution was seconded by Council Member Frazier, and upon vote being taken
thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Hemken, Elder, Frazier, Hoffe ,
London; and the following voted against the same: None; Abstained: None;
Absent: None; whereupon the resolution was declared duly passed and adopted,
signed by the mayor which was attested to by the city clerk.
August 19, 2020
AEM Memo
I:\RFA\COMM DEV\2021\Work Session\GreenSteps\11.3 Q ‐ Minnesota GreenStep Cities Program 01‐19‐21.docx
Request for Action
January 19, 2021
Approved by: Kirk McDonald, City Manager
Originating Department: Community Development
By: Jeff Alger, Community Development Specialist;
Jeff Sargent, Director of Community Development
Agenda Title
Update on city’s participation in the Minnesota GreenStep Cities Program
Requested Action
Staff requests to provide an update on the city’s participation in the Minnesota GreenStep Cities Program.
Policy/Past Practice
Pursuing initiatives that promote sustainability and fiscal responsibility is consistent with the city’s
Comprehensive Plan as well as its values and vision. The city has made various efforts to be sustainable and
environmentally‐friendly, including joining the Minnesota GreenStep Cities Program in 2015.
Background
The city continues to participate in the Minnesota GreenStep Cities Program as it strives to promote
sustainability. The free continuous improvement program, managed by a public‐private partnership, is
based upon 29 best practices comprised of 175 best practice actions. Each best practice can be implemented
by completing one or more actions at a one, two, or three‐star level, from a list of four to eight actions. These
actions are tailored to all Minnesota cities, focus on cost savings and energy use reduction, and encourage
civic innovation. The program recognizes cities for their accomplishments by assigning one of the following
step levels:
Step 1: for cities that have passed a city council resolution to work on implementing best practices of
their own choice and at their own pace.
Step 2: for cities that have implemented any eight best practices.
Step 3: for cities that have implemented an additional eight best practices and completed a handful of
specific high‐impact actions.
Step 4: for cities that report eight core city performance metrics and five additional metrics of their
choice each year.
Step 5: for cities that report improvement upon any three eligible metric elements.
New Hope received “Step 1” recognition in the Minnesota GreenStep Cities Program by adopting a
participation resolution on January 12, 2015. After an inventory of completed best practice actions was
prepared and posted to the program’s website, it was determined that the city had completed at least eight
Best Practices, meeting the requirement to reach “Step 2” of the program. The award was presented to the
city on June 26, 2015, at the League of Minnesota Cities annual conference. The city reached “Step 3” of the
program on June 15, 2016, after completing 70 best practice actions. The city was presented the 2017 League
of Minnesota Cities Sustainable City Award on June 15, 2017, as a result of completed best practices related
to the Northwood Lake stormwater improvement project. The award is given each year to a single city that
has implemented a project, program, or initiative that is helping the city achieve its sustainability goals
through implementation of one or more of the GreenStep Cities program’s 29 best practices. In September of
2017, the city installed 14 GreenStep Cities road signs near entrances to the city. Every year city staff reviews
Agenda Section
Work Session
Item Number
11.3
Request for Action, Page 2
all new actions completed within the city and submits those that are applicable for review. The following
newly completed actions were reviewed by staff with the Minnesota GreenStep Cities Program in 2020:
Energy efficient and environmentally friendly technology, equipment, and building materials used
in the construction of the new police station/city hall.
Stormwater treatment and draintile system installed with parking lots at new police station/city hall.
Water bottle filling stations installed at new police station/city hall.
Safe Routes to School grant for temporary installation at intersection of Boone and 62nd avenues,
near Meadow Lake Elementary.
Employee initiated plastics recycling program for staff at city hall.
Reuse of appliances from EDA acquired property at 5201 Oregon Avenue North as part of
rehabilitation project at 3924 Utah Avenue North.
Establishment of solar energy system regulations allowing for roof and ground mounted solar
energy systems.
These actions resulted in the city receiving credit for the completion of one new best practice, three new best
practice actions, and increasing its star rating for an additional two best practice actions. Some of the items
that were submitted qualified as best practice actions in categories that had already been completed, thus
they did not have an impact on the number or star rating for certain best practice actions. With 91 completed
best practice actions, the city of New Hope ranks third of 141 participating cities in total number completed.
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Program Level Step 2 Step 3 Step 3 Step 3 Step 3 Step 3
Sustainable City Award ✓
Best Practices 15 18 21 24 24 25
1‐Star Actions 37 40 41 45 46 47
2‐Star Actions 19 21 26 28 31 31
3‐Star Actions 9 9 9 10 11 13
Best Practice Actions 65 70 76 83 88 91
A list of all best practice actions completed by New Hope and implementation details can be found at
https://greenstep.pca.state.mn.us/city‐detail/12307.
Steps 4 & 5
The Minnesota GreenStep Cities Program began implementing newly created “Step 4” and “Step 5” levels in
2016. The new steps challenge cities to measure and report the aggregate and quantitative results of multiple
actions taken in an attempt to present the “state of sustainability” achieved by a city. The purpose is to make
cities accustomed to gathering data annually and comparing the data over time. It gives cities the
opportunity to find out where they stand and compare to others. In order to receive “Step 4” recognition,
cities must record eight required core metrics selected by the program and five metrics of choice selected by
the city. Each metric contains multiple metric elements, all of which must be completed. In order to receive
“Step 5” recognition, over the course of one year, cities must improve upon any three of the eligible metric
elements. New Hope has not pursued either of the steps at this time.
Request for Action, Page 3
Recommendation
With 91 completed best practice actions, staff has documented all known accomplishments relating to
sustainability within the city. Staff recommends that the city continue to utilize the Minnesota GreenStep
Cities Program as it currently does, as a resource to help achieve its sustainability goals through the
implementation of best practices. Any newly completed best practice actions would continue to be recorded.
In regards to pursuing “Step 4,” staff does not believe all of the required core metric data is tracked and/or
easily attainable. If the City Council would like to pursue “Step 4” of the program, additional research can
be conducted on how best to track each of the required metrics. It is estimated that it would take between
70‐100 hours of staff time to gather and submit the required data.
Attachments
Summary of 29 Best Practices
New Hope GreenStep Cities informational sheet
2020 GreenStep Cities assessment summary
2021 GreenStep Step 4/5 City Performance Metrics
Minnesota GreenStep Cities grew out of a report to the 2009 Legislature. The program is governed by a public -private partnership of
state agencies and non-governmental organizations and is led by the MPCA.
GreenStep Cities is a free, voluntary assistance program for all Minnesota cities that
supports and recognizes implementation of 29 optional sustainability best practices.
The best practices focus on cost savings, quality of life and energy use reductions that encourage a culture of
innovation. As of December 2019, 131 cities (and three Tribal Nations), large and small, encompassing 47% of
the state’s population, have joined and been recognized as Step One cities in this voluntary program, which
was launched by the League of Minnesota Cities at their June 2010 conference.
Cities that decide to implement a minimum number of best practices will be recognized as Step Two and Step
Three GreenStep cities. Each best practice can be implemented by completing one or more specific actions
from a menu of four to eight optional actions. A city’s accomplishments are listed and recognized on the
GreenStep website. Measuring city performance metrics will garner Step Four & Step Five recognition.
Visit www.MnGreenStep.org to learn more about this program, to see what cities have accomplished, and to
understand how your city can become involved.
GreenStep’s 29 Best Practices
Buildings and Lighting
1. Efficient Existing Public Buildings: Benchmark energy usage, identify savings
opportunities, and work with utilities and others to implement cost-effective energy and
sustainability improvements.
2. Efficient Existing Private Buildings: Provide incentives for energy, water and sustainability
improvements in existing buildings and building sites.
3. New Green Buildings: Construct new buildings to meet or qualify under a green building framework.
4. Efficient Outdoor Lighting and Signals: Improve the efficiency of public lighting and signals.
5. Building Redevelopment: Create economic and regulatory incentives for redeveloping and repurposing
existing buildings before building new.
Land Use
6. Comprehensive, Climate, Energy Plans: Engage the public and adopt visionary plans.
7. Resilient City Growth: Increase financial and environmental sustainability by enabling and
encouraging walkable housing and retail land use.
8. Mixed Uses: Develop efficient and healthy land patterns that generate community wealth.
9. Efficient Highway- and Auto-Oriented Development: Adopt commercial development and design
standards for auto-oriented development corridors and clusters.
10. Natural Resource Conservation Design: Adopt development ordinances or processes that protect natural
systems and valued community assets.
Transportation
11. Living Streets: Create a network of green complete streets that improves city quality of life
and adds value to surrounding properties.
12. Mobility Options: Increase active living and alternatives to single-occupancy car travel.
13. Efficient City Fleets: Implement a city fleet investment, operations and maintenance plan.
14. Demand-Side Travel Planning: Implement Travel Demand Management and Transit-Oriented Design in
service of a more walkable city.
Environmental Management
15. Sustainable Purchasing: Adopt environmentally preferable purchasing practices and policies.
16. Urban Forests: Add city tree and plant cover that increases community health, wealth and quality of life.
17. Stormwater Management: Minimize the volume of and pollutants in rainwater runoff by maximizing
green infrastructure.
18. Parks and Trails: Support active lifestyles and property values by enhancing green
infrastructure.
19. Surface Water Quality: Improve local water bodies to sustain their long-term ecological
function and community benefits.
20. Efficient Water and Wastewater Systems: Assess and improve drinking water and wastewater systems
and related facilities.
21. Septic Systems: Implement an effective management program for decentralized wastewater systems.
22. Sustainable Consumption and Waste: Increase waste reduction, reuse and recycling.
23. Local Air Quality: Prevent generation of local air contaminants to improve community health.
Economic and Community Development
24. Benchmarks & Community Engagement: Adopt outcome measures for GreenStep and other city
sustainability efforts, and engage community members in ongoing education, discussion, and campaigns.
25. Green Business Development: Support expansion of a greener, more resilient business sector.
26. Renewable Energy: Remove barriers to and encourage installation of renewable
energy generation capacity.
27. Local Food: Strengthen local food and fiber production and access.
28. Business Synergies & EcoDistricts: Network/cluster businesses and design
neighborhoods to achieve better energy, economic and environmental outcomes.
29. Climate Adaptation & Community Resilience: Plan and prepare for extreme weather,
adapt to changing climatic conditions, and foster stronger community connectedness and social and
economic vitality.
City of New Hope – “Step 3” Minnesota GreenStep City
Program Overview
Implements sustainability via 29 proven best practices and 175 best practice actions.
Features an encyclopedic collection of best practices, links to state-of-the-art articles and free expert consultants,
and constantly updated progress reports from participating cities.
Reduces costs through building efficiency, improves overall quality of life, and provides extensive framework for
“going green” and being recognized for it.
With 91 completed best practice actions, New Hope ranks 3rd of 141 participating cities in total number completed.
New Hope - Step 1 & Step 2
Reached Step 1 in 2015 after adopting a participation resolution.
Reached Step 2 in 2015 by completing 8+ best practices. Notable best practice actions completed include:
o Complete Streets Policy.
o Energy Improvement Project through McKinstry, which included lighting auto shut-off controls, vending
machine controls, and water conservation efforts at city facilities as well as a new efficient refrigeration
system, new dehumidification system, and new roof on the north rink at the New Hope Ice Arena.
o 160,000-gallon underground water storage tank at Northwood Lake used to irrigate athletic fields.
o Programs offered through Center for Energy and Environment, including Home Energy Squad visits,
financing and rehabilitation services, and one-stop efficiency shop lighting retrofits.
o Bicycle parking requirements within commercial districts.
o Safe Routes to School grant and improvements.
o LED lighting replacements for traffic signals, streetlights, and lighting at city facilities.
Step 3
Reached Step 3 in 2016 by completing 16+ best practices, including some specific best practice actions.
Of the 129 cities that participate, 49 have reached “Step 3” or higher.
Best practice actions completed that contribute to Step 3 recognition include:
o Energy efficient and environmentally friendly technology, equipment, and building materials used in the
construction of the new police station/city hall.
o Adoption of Environmentally Preferred Purchasing Policy, which requires that the city use recycled paper,
purchase Energy Star certified equipment and appliances, purchase WaterSense certified fixtures, and use
environmentally-friendly cleaning products.
o Establishment of solar energy system regulations allowing for roof and ground mounted solar energy
systems.
o Implementation of employee plastics recycling program at city hall.
League of Minnesota Cities 2017 Sustainable City Award
The city was presented the 2017 LMC Sustainable City Award for the Northwood Park stormwater improvement
project. The award is given each year to a single city that has implemented a project, program, or initiative that is
helping the city achieve its sustainability goals through implementation of one or more best practices.
More Information
Jeff Alger, Community Development Specialist, 763-531-5119 or jalger@newhopemn.gov.
2020 Category A City: NEW HOPE
Currently a Step 3 GreenStep City as of June 2016
(joined January 2015 )
Assessor and date: Philipp Muessig, 12/31/19
Total BPs done:
Best practices (required in bold) BP implemented? Action summary by # and star level achieved
Action rules (req. actions in bold)
BUILDINGS: distribution requirement is 2 BPs ; are 2 BPs done?
1. Public
Actions 1 & 2; & one action
from actions 3-7
YES
1.1 COMPLETE @ 2 STARS -- data from 2008 to present
1.2 COMPLETE @ 3 STARS -- lighting auto shut-off controls, vending
machine controls, and water conservation efforts
1.3 COMPLETE @ 3 STARS – energy performance contract savings
realized for the first year was $96,381
1.4 COMPLETE @ 3 STARS -- upgraded 11 lift stations with new SCADA
2. Private
any two actions
YES
2.1 COMPLETE @ 3 STAR -- city & CEE offer a big array of financing,
discounts, audits, rehab services
2.4 COMPLETE @ 3 STARS – 2015 Country Kitchen LEDs; Honest-1 Auto
Care is 100% ESA Certified Eco-Friendly; The Food Group donates land
for a community farmer's garden; Now Mart car wash retains all
rainwater on-site for car wash reuse -- first known car wash in the
country to utilize such technology
2.5 COMPLETE @ 3 STARS – sprinkling ban ordinance; 2016 160,000-gal
underground rainwater cistern to irrigate nearby ball fields; 2017 city ord.
ala state law: all landscaping with auto irrigation must have moisture
sensor contoller
2.6 COMPLETE @ 2 STARS – 5 CEE commercial, non-profit, and rental
improvement programs
3. New
action 1 or 2; one from 3-5
NO 3.4 COMPLETE @ 2 STARS – loan for 1/2 the cost of a Variable Refrigerant
Flow system for the IronWood apartment building: coupled with solar
power, 50% energy cut (saving = 615,000 gal. of gasoline over 20 yrs.),
close to zero emissions
4. Lighting/Signals
2 actions with one from 5-8
YES
4.1 COMPLETE @ 2 STARS – req. for outside: light intensity at/above 90
degrees not more than 2.1% of lamp lumens, and not more than 10% of
lamp lumens at a vertical angle of 80 degrees above nadir
4.2 COMPLETE @ 3 STARS – LED lighting for all fixtures with the capability
of controlling output levels
4.3 COMPLETE @ 3 STARS -- street lights with LED fixtures
4.4 COMPLETE @ 1 STAR –2011 & 2018: 2 flashing yellow turn signals
4.5 COMPLETE @ 1 STAR -- 3 PV driver feedback signs near schools
4.6 COMPLETE @ 1 STAR
4.7 COMPLETE @ 1 STAR -- City Hall & Public Works parking lots are
Dark-Sky compliant
4.8 COMPLETE @ 3 STARS
5. Reuse
any one action
YES
5.3 COMPLETE @ 1 STAR – elementary to learning center, school district
offices, medical facility
5.4 COMPLETE @ 1 STAR
25
YES
5.5 COMPLETE @ 1 STAR – 2011 New Hope City Center Vision; Design
Guidelines; Comp Plan goal: "examine, re-evaluate, and promote proper
infill development on under-utilized parcels to ensure full land utilization."
LAND USE: 2 BPs required; are 2 BPs done?
6. Comp Plan
Actions 1 & 2
YES
6.1 COMPLETE @ 1 STAR – 2006 update
6.2 COMPLETE @ 2 STARS
6.3 COMPLETE @ 2 STARS -- Flood Control Commission, WM Tax District,
N. Metro Mayors Assoc., W. Metro Fire-Rescue District, TwinWest
Chamber, Henn. Recycling Group, 2 shared city pools, W. Metro SWAT
6. 4 COMPLETE @ 1 STAR -- 1998 comp plan reduced front/rear setbacks;
2018 plan supports redevelopment of obsolete commercial sites
YES
7.1 COMPLETE @ 2 STARS-- City Center zoning allows 10-50 DUA,
Residential Business, Residential Office allow up to 19
7.2 COMPLETE @ 2 STAR – residential density bonus for underground
parking, proximity to transit, multifamily outdoor play area
7.4 COMPLETE @ 1 STAR -- TIF for redevelopment of a K-mart
8. Mixed Uses
any two actions
YES
8.1 COMPLETE @ 2 STARS – 2-11 City Center Vision; 60-mbr. task force
on redevelopment of underutilized / marginal properties
8.2 COMPLETE @ 1 STAR
8.3 COMPLETE @ 1 STAR – city center zoning PUD encourages mixed use
8.5 COMPLETE @ 1 STAR
9. Highway Development
any one action
YES 9.1 previous participation in a Highway 169 task force
9.2 COMPLETE @ 1 STAR -- part of Connect Blue Line Now Coalition (6
cities) to make the Blue Line LRT Extension project a reality
10. Conservation Development
any one action
YES 10.3 COMPLETE @ 1 STAR – 2015 tree preservation ordinance protects
and preserves trees when new commercial, industrial, multiple family,
and institutional development takes place
TRANSPORTATION: 2 BPs required; are 2 BPs done?
11. Complete Green Streets
1; & two additional actions
YES
11.1 COMPLETE @ 2 STARS – very good policy document!
11.3 COMPLETE @ 2 STARS
11.4 COMPLETE @ 1 STAR -- Xylon Streetscape Improvements incl. bikes
11.5 COMPLETE @ 3 STARS – extensive trail connections to regional trail &
park district
11.6 COMPLETE @ 2 STARS -- 4 lanes to 3 lanes; narrowing of a
pedestrian crossing;
12. Mobility Options
any two actions
YES
12.1 COMPLETE @ 3 STARS -- bicycle parking requirements for
commercial land uses; very good public transport page on city web
12.2 COMPLETE @ 2 STARS – significant SRTS grant work over 10+ years
12.3 COMPLETE @ 2 STARS -- grocery/prescription delivery options on
web
12.6 city staff work with Metro Transit to provide feedback on Service
Improvement Plans
13. Fleets
any two actions
YES
13.1 COMPLETE @ 2 STARS -- plow trucks use vehicle tracking systems to
evaluate fuel and salt usage; city staff carpool to meetings when poss.
13.2 COMPLETE @ 2 STARS -- life cycle policy promotes replacement with
new, more fuel-efficient and sustainable vehicles
YES
YES
13.3 COMPLETE @ 1 STAR -- 2011-2012: replaced 3 inefficient inspectors
vehicles with energy-efficient Ford Fusions
14. TOD / TDM
any two actions
YES 14.1 COMPLETE @ 1 STAR -- City Center zoning sets max parking ratio;
reduction permitted based on several specifics (e.g., shared parking)
14.2 COMPLETE @ 2 STARS -- New Hope City Center Vision includes
public infrastructure incentives
14.4 COMPLETE @ 1 STAR -- Traffic studies required for some conditional
uses in the city's Industrial zoning district
ENVIRON MGT: 4 BPs required; are 4 done?
15. Purchasing
1; and one additional action
YES
15.1 COMPLETE @ 2 STARS – amended purchasing policy with paper,
EnergyStar, WaterSense, cleaning products
15.4 COMPLETE @ 1 STAR
15.5 COMPLETE @ 1 STAR – use of "Leap Asphalt" - class 5 recycled
asphalt for roadbed material
15.7 COMPLETE @ 1 STAR
16. Trees
any two actions
YES
16.1 COMPLETE @ 1 STAR -- 2018 Tree City USA
16.3 COMPLETE @ 1 STAR -- $120,000 for replacing trees in parks/blvds
16.4 COMPLETE @ 1 STAR
16.5 COMPLETE @ 2 STARS -- tree preservation ordinance of 2015
protects/preserves trees for new commercial, industrial, multiple family,
and institutional development
16.6 COMPLETE @ 2 STARS – city only plants native species; recommends
boulevard tree species to residents
17. Stormwater
any one action
YES
17.1 COMPLETE @ 2 STARS -- part of the Bassett Creek WMO, which has
adopted MIDS; city in 2018 conforming to MIDS as required
17.4 COMPLETE @ 1 STAR -- replaced its street sweeper with a waterless
MacQueen Equipment model
17.5 COMPLETE @ 2 STARS -- 2015 infrastructure projects include rain
gardens, option for residents to install rain gardens during street
reconstruction, 160,000-gallon cistern to irrigate the nearby ball fields,
permeable pavers.
17.6 we removed this action from the GreenStep program because it was giving
credit for fulfilling regulatory requirements under your NPDES MS4 permit
18. Parks & Trails
any three actions
YES
18.1 COMPLETE @ 1 STAR – good comp plan direction
18.2 COMPLETE @ 1 STAR
18.3 COMPLETE @ 1 STAR -- 11.21 acres/1,000 residents; parks comprise
7.1% of total land use within the city
18.5 COMPLETE @ 3 STARS – cistern to irrigate the nearby ball fields
18.8 COMPLETE @ 1 STAR – large “Adopt a Park" program
19. Surface Water
if state public water: 4; and
one additional action
if no state water: any one action
YES
19.2 COMPLETE @ 2 STARS – member, Bassett Creek, Shingle Creek
WMO; partnered with Metro Blooms to host workshops; 2 neighborhood
meetings; close work with Friends of Northwood Lake Association and
the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission
19.3 COMPLETE @ 2 STARS – est: Northwood Lake stormwater
improvement project will result in an average annual phosphorous
removal of 39%, or 30.48 pounds
YES
19.4 COMPLETE @ 2 STARS -- shoreland permit overlay district,
boundaries of which consist of the first tier of riparian lots abutting a
protected water body
19.5 COMPLETE @ 2 STARS -- public service program to restore native
plants, trees, and shrubs along the shoreline in Meadow Lake Park
19.6 TMDL est. for Meadow Lake; 2021 TMDL for Northwood Lake
20. Water / Wastewater
1 & 2; and one additional
NO
20.2 PW checks efficiency of collection systems and lift stations on a
regular basis
20.3 COMPLETE @ 1 STAR -- $300,000 for I&I in 2016, and an increase of
$25,000 per year thereafter
20.6 rain water storage tank at Northwood Lake reported under 17.5
20.7 COMPLETE @ 1 STAR -- $4.05/1-10K gal, $4.40/10-20K gal,
$4.95/20K+ gal; commercial $4.15/1K gal
21. Septics
any one action
22. Solid Waste
1 or 2; & one from 4-8
YES
22.1 COMPLETE @ 1 STAR – 2019 stretch/shrink plastic wrap
collection/recycling program at city buildings
22.2 COMPLETE @ 2 STARS -- new police station/city hall is equipped with
several water bottle filling stations
22.3 COMPLETE @ 1 STAR – 2017 recycling participation 93%; 520
recycling lbs./household in 2017
22.4 COMPLETE @ 2 STARS -- part of 3-city Hennepin Recycling Group
that does annual collection of products not suitable for weekly garbage
collection as well as every-other-year curbside collection of such goods
22.5 COMPLETE @ 1 STAR -- 1 city licensed hauler offers organics
recycling
22.6 COMPLETE @ 1 STAR -- code requires 8-plexes+ to provide recycling
services to residents; majority of businesses are required to recycle;
2018 Neighborhood [self] Organized Trash Collection Guide
22.7 COMPLETE @ 1 STAR – nice hauler rate sheet
22.8 COMPLETE @ 1 STAR -- practice for city staff to re-use/donate
appliances from city-owned scattered site housing properties prior to
demolition
23. Local Air Quality
any two actions
YES
23.1 COMPLETE @ 1 STAR -- recreational burning guidelines on city web
23.2 COMPLETE @ 1 STAR
23.3 COMPLETE @ 2 STARS -- 2011-2012: city replaced 3 inefficient
inspectors vehicles with energy-efficient Ford Fusions
ECON & COMM DVLP: 3 BPs required; are 3 done?
24. Benchmarks & Involvement
Actions 1 & 2
YES 24.1 COMPLETE @ 1 STAR – GreenStep/sustainability page on city web
24.2 COMPLETE @ 1 STAR -- Performance Measurement Report incl. GS
25. Green Businesses
any two actions
YES
25.2 COMPLETE @ 1 STAR – CEE offerings to businesses
25.5 Village on Quebec: city assisted developers with cleanup of the
previously contaminated industrial site
25.7 COMPLETE @ 3 STARS -- city staff led a "Shop New Hope" campaign
in 2009 (20,000 coupon books); a Business Directory now maintained
26. Renewable Energy
any two actions
YES 26.2 COMPLETE @ 1 STAR -- CEE residential solar PV loans
26.3 COMPLEE @ 1 STAR -- with CEE: various commercial, non-profit, and
rental improvement programs, loans, commissioning
YES
26.7 COMPLETE @ 1 STAR – 2019 solar energy ordinance providing a
clear regulatory path
27. Local Food
any one action
YES 27.2 COMPLETE @ 2 STARS – 2018 pollinator habitat resolution: work
toward Bee-Safe City status; BMPs on city property; educate residents.
Bees and fowl allowed by permit
27.3 COMPLETE @ 2 STARS – farmer’s market, community garden, Hope
Grows (community-based org, volunteer board, city-sponsored)
28. Business Synergies
action 2, 3 or 4
NO 28.3 2015 Hy-Vee development located within walking distance of both
transit and residential
29. Climate Adaptation
Action 1
YES 29.1 COMPLETE @ 1 STAR -- part of West Metro Fire-Rescue District
(emergency preparedness coordination agency) 2016 city update of
Hazard Mitigation Plan; part of North Suburban Emergency Planning
Group; city manager is EM coord.
NEW HOPE – notable actions
Winner of the 2017 LMC/GSC Sustainable City Award for its lake water quality improvements and savings of
over $10,000/yr. from storm water reuse
$96,000 first-year savings in city buildings improved via an energy performance contract
Density bonuses in residential districts for attributes including underground parking, proximity to public
transit, incorporating outdoor play areas in multi-family projects
A detailed complete streets policy
Bicycle parking requirements for commercial land uses
Grocery/prescription delivery options for residents listed on city website
2015 infrastructure projects include rain gardens, option for residents to install rain gardens during street
reconstruction, cistern to irrigate the nearby ball fields, permeable pavers
2018 pollinator habitat resolution: work toward Bee-Safe City status
1st known car wash in the country to utilize system that retains all rainwater on-site for car wash reuse
Neighborhood-Organized Trash Collection Guide developed by City in 2018 to assist residents living in a
contiguous area to jointly hire just one hauler; reduced costs documented by residents
Significant Safe Routes to School work over 10+ years
2021 GreenStep Step 4/5 Performance Metrics
In order to receive Step 4 recognition for a given year, communities report, by April 1 via a Snap Survey link
emailed to them, all the data elements in all of the CORE metrics listed in the table below, along with additional
metrics chosen by the city or tribal nation depending on their GreenStep Category. Category A, B and C
communities, respectively, report an additional 5, 3, or no metrics. Metric elements marked in green below are
considered “eligible metric elements” for Step 5 recognition. Communities that report, by April 1, improvement
in any three of these eligible metric elements receive recognition for Step 5. Communities that report all data for
all the metric elements in blue will have their city operational greenhouse gas number automatically calculated.
Learn more about Step 4 and Step 5 at https://greenstep.pca.state.mn.us/page/steps-4-and-5.
Metric #1: City Building & Lighting CORE METRIC
1.1 kBTU per square foot, per year: kBTU/ft2-year
1.2 Dollars spent on energy per square foot, per year: $/ft2-year
1.3 Ratio of actual energy use to predicted energy use: Actual:Predicted
A. CO2e Electricity consumption for all buildings kWh/Year
B. CO2e Natural gas consumption for all buildings Therms/Year
1.4 Street lights owned by the city & utility % LEDs
1.5 Traffic Signals: % LEDs
1.6 City buildings and property: % LEDs
C. CO2e Electricity consumption for streetlights and traffic signals kWh/Year
Metric #2: Green Buildings OPTIONAL METRIC
Public Buildings:
2.1 Number of city-owned green certified buildings: Number of
buildings
2.2
Identify specific green building frameworks that have been
used for city-owned buildings (e.g. LEED, ENERGY
STAR®, etc.):
Program
2.2a How many buildings were rated under this program? Number of
buildings
2.2b If second rating program was used, enter its name here: Program
2.2c How many buildings were rated under this program? Number of
buildings
2.2d List any other green energy building programs that were
used and how many buildings were rated under each: Program
2.3 Municipal green square footage completed last year: Square Feet
2.4 Percent of new municipal square footage that was green
building certified in the last year: %
Private Buildings:
2.5 Number of private green certified public buildings: Number of
buildings
2.6
Identify specific green building frameworks that have been
used for private buildings (e.g. LEED, ENERGY STAR,
etc.):
Program
2.6a How many buildings were rated under this program? Number of
buildings
2.6b If second rating program was used, enter its name here: Program
2.6c How many buildings were rated under this program? Number of
buildings
2.6d Enter any other green energy building programs that were
used and how many buildings were rated under each: Program
2.7 Enter the private green square footage completed last
year: Square Feet
2.8 Percent of new private square footage that was green
building certified in the last year: %
Metric #3: City Fleets CORE METRIC
3.1 Annual vehicle miles traveled (VMT) for gasoline fleet: Miles per year
3.2 Average MPG for gasoline fleet Miles per gallon
3.3 Annual vehicle miles traveled for diesel fleet Miles per year
3.4 Average MPG for diesel fleet Miles per gallon
3.5 Number of city-owned/leased electric vehicles in city fleet Number of EVs
D. CO2e Gallons of diesel consumed Gallons/Year
E. CO2e Gallons of gasoline consumed Gallons/Year
F. CO2e Gallons of e85 consumed Gallons/Year
Metric #4: Infrastructure for Walking and Biking OPTIONAL METRIC
4.1 Miles of new or reconstructed sidewalks & trails completed
in the past year
Miles of sidewalk
& trails
4.2 Percentage of housing within 1 mile of a bicycle route %
4.3a Walk Score for your city or downtown Walk score
4.3b Transit Score for your city or downtown Transit score
4.3c Bike Score for your city or downtown Bike score
Metric #5: Car, Transit and Bike Options OPTIONAL METRIC
5.1 Number of public electric vehicle charging stations: Number of
stations
5.2 Number of public alternative fueling stations (e.g. e85,
CNG):
Number of
stations
Shared Services:
5.3 Does your city have a bike sharing service? Enter yes or
no: Yes or No
5.4 Does your city enable car or ride-sharing services? Enter
yes or no: Yes or No
5.5 Number of telecommuting businesses/services: Number of
services
5.6 Is the city served by weekday transit? Enter yes or no: Yes or No
5.7 Does the city have structured transit routes? Enter yes or
no: Yes or No
5.8 Percent of housing units within 3/4 miles of transit routes: %
Metric #6: Transportation Miles & Modes CORE for Category A & B Cities;
OPTIONAL for Category C Cities
Vehicle Miles Traveled:
6.1 City population: Vehicle miles traveled/person, per
day: Miles/person/day
6.2 City employees in single occupancy vehicles: Vehicle
miles traveled per person, per day – round trip: Miles/person/day
6.3 Percent of city population commuting fewer than 20
minutes: %
6.4 Percent of city employees commuting fewer than 20
minutes: %
Transportation Mode of Commuters:
6.5 Percent who "drove alone": %
6.6 Percent using a "carpool": %
6.7 Percent using "public transportation": %
6.8 Percent who "walk": %
6.8a Percent "bicycling" %
6.9 Percent who "worked at home": %
Metric #7: Land use OPTIONAL METRIC
7.1 Percent of land within commercial/mixed zoning districts
built with a FAR at/above 1.0 %
7.2 Percent of land within residential or mixed zoning districts
with dwelling units per acre at/above 7.0 %
7.3 Market value per acre Dollars per
acre
7.4a Location affordability index number: housing +
transportation Index number
7.4b Location affordability index number: housing Index number
7.5 Acres of new development on previously developed land Acres
7.6 New affordable housing units added as a percent of all
new housing units %
Metric #8: Open Space, Parks, Trees CORE METRIC
8.1 Percent of total city acres in open space: %
8.2 Acres of parkland: Acres
8.3 Percent of housing within 1/2 mile (a 10 minute walk) of
parkland: %
8.4 Percent canopy coverage: %
8.5 Three most prevalent tree species (by percent genus): Genus
8.5a What percent of canopy coverage is made up by the most
prevalent genus? %
8.5b What percent of canopy coverage is made up by the
second most prevalent genus? %
8.5c What percent of canopy coverage is made up by the third
most prevalent genus? %
8.6 Net number of new trees planted: Number of
trees
8.6a Percent of 8.6 trees that are “likely to thrive” %
Metric #9: Storm Water CORE METRIC
9.1 Assessment number from the GreenStep Municipal
Stormwater Management Assessment %
9.2 Climate Adaptation Stormwater Score [collected with
9.1] %
Metric #10: Drinking Water OPTIONAL METRIC
10.1 Residential gallons used per person per day Gallons/person/
day
10.2 Business gallons used per job per day Gallons/job/day
10.3a Annual city operations gallons: summer (June-October) Gallons/year
10.3b Annual city operations gallons: non-summer (Nov-May) Gallons/year
10.4 Ratio of maximum day use to average daily use Peak:Average
10.5 Annual energy used per million gallons of water distributed MMBtus
10.6 Annual cost in $ spent per million gallons of water
distributed $/million gallons
10.7 Percent of annual losses in drinking water system %
10.8 Trend of source water levels: falling, stable, or rising
G. CO2e Annual electricity used to treat and distribute water MWh/Year
H. CO2e Annual Natural gas used to treat and distribute water Therms/Year
Metric #11: Waste Water CORE METRIC
11.1 Residential gallons of waste water produced/person per
day Gallons/person/day
11.2 Business gallons of waste water produced per job, per
day Gallons/ job/day
11.3 Annual energy used per million gallons treated (report
only if you own a treatment facility)
MMBtu/million
gallons
11.4 Annual operating cost in dollars per million gallons
treated (report only if you own a treatment facility) $/Million gallons
11.5 Ratio of Inflow and Infiltration volume to total volume
entering the wastewater collection system I&I:total volume
I. CO2e Annual electricity used to treat wastewater MWh/Year
J. CO2e Annual natural gas used to treat wastewater Therms/Year
Metric #12: Surface Water OPTIONAL METRIC
12.1 Percent of lake, river, and wetland shoreline with at least
50' vegetation buffer %
12.2a Percent of water bodies in the city showing at least good
clarity readings OR %
12.2b Number of citizen lake/river monitors Number of
monitors
12.3 One city-defined metric or index number concerning
surface water (ex. % impaired waters, or other)
Metric #13: Solid Waste OPTIONAL METRIC
13.1 Residential solid waste generated/city resident per
day: Lbs
13.2 Commercial solid waste generated per job, per day: Lbs
13.3 Percent of residential solid waste recycled %
13.4 Percent of residential solid waste composted %
13.5 City operations solid waste generated per year Tons per year
13.6 City operations construction & demolition waste per year Tons per year
13.6a What percent of city operations construction and
demolition waste is reused? %
13.6b What percent is recycled? %
13.6c What percent is landfilled? %
K. CO2e City operations landfilled each year Tons per year
L. CO2e City operations incinerated each year Tons per year
Metric #14: Renewable Energy CORE METRIC
14.1 Number of city-owned and private renewable energy
generation sites
Number of
sites
14.2 Generation capacity of city-owned and private
renewable energy sites kW
14.2a
Storage and off-grid capacity of renewable energy,
generated by city-owned and private renewable
energy sites
kW
M. CO2e Annual production at city-owned renewable energy
generation sites MWhr/year
14.4 Annual renewable energy purchases for city
operations MWhr/year
14.5 Number of non-city entities participating in renewable
energy purchasing/green power programs
Number of
entities
14.6 Percent of total city operations energy use that is
generated and purchased renewable energy %
14.7 Percent of total city operations energy use that is
purchased from a community solar garden %
Metric #15: Local Food OPTIONAL METRIC
15.1 Number of local food venues Number of
venues
15.2 Percent of housing within 1 mile of a local food venue %
15.3 Percent of housing within 1 mile of fresh fruits and
vegetables %
Metric #16: Jobs & Employment OPTIONAL METRIC
16.1 Jobs
16.2 Employment
16.3 Income
16.4 Poverty
Metric #17: Climate CORE METRIC for Regional Indicator Cities
17.1 Greenhouse gas emissions from travel Tonnes CO2e
17.2 Greenhouse gas emissions from waste Tonnes CO2e
17.3 Greenhouse gas emissions from (non-transportation)
energy Tonnes CO2e
17.4 Total citywide GHG emissions Tonnes CO2e
17.5 Total city operations GHG emissions Tonnes CO2e
Metric #18: Additional Metrics OPTIONAL METRICS
18.1 Social vulnerability
18.2 Livability Score
18.3
18.4
18.5
I:\RFA\City Manager\2021\Just Deeds\11.4 Q WS ‐ Just Deeds 01‐19‐21.docx
Request for Action
January 19, 2021
Approved by: Kirk McDonald, City Manager
Originating Department: Community Development
By: Jeff Alger, Community Development Specialist;
Kirk McDonald, City Manager
Agenda Title
Discuss Just Deeds coalition
Requested Action
Staff requests direction from the City Council on the city’s potential involvement with the Just Deeds
coalition.
Policy/Past Practice
The city has pursued programs that promote equity and benefit the overall community in the past.
Background
The city was contacted by a property owner in December of 2020 requesting that New Hope participate in
the Just Deeds coalition. With the help of its Human Rights Commission, the city of Golden Valley recently
formed the collation, which “is committed to acknowledging and addressing systemic racism in housing in
Minnesota.” The cities of Golden Valley and Robbinsdale have passed resolutions in support of the work
and several western and southern suburbs have expressed interest in joining the coalition. As stated in Just
Deeds’ mission statement, goals of the coalition include the following:
1. Educating Minnesotans about the racist practices perpetrated by developers, real estate agents,
lawyers, and local, state and federal governments to establish segregated housing and keep wealth
and opportunity away from communities of color.
2. Educating Minnesotans so that they understand who has directly and indirectly benefitted from
historically racist practices and how those practices have shaped access to property, homeownership
and wealth over time.
3. Taking action to dismantle the racist systems that perpetuate inequality and devoting resources to
create equity for communities of color.
In 2019, the Minnesota Legislature passed a law allowing property owners the ability to renounce covenants
on their properties. Just Deeds provides free legal and title services to help property owners find
discriminatory covenants and remove them from their property titles. In October of 2020, Hennepin
County’s Board of Commissioners passed a resolution disavowing past practices of placing discriminatory
covenants in real estate titles.
In late 2020, staff with the University of Minnesota’s Mapping Prejudice initiative determined that there are
no know discriminatory covenants recorded for properties in New Hope. The city attorney for the city of
Golden Valley also confirmed that was the case. The United States Supreme Court ruled in 1948 that the
covenants could not be enforced. Much of the housing stock in New Hope was constructed after that ruling,
in the 1950s and 1960s. As such, the legal and title services provided by Just Deeds would not be applicable
to properties in New Hope. Instead, representatives of Just Deeds have recommended that New Hope’s
involvement in the coalition be centered on the educational components. Examples might include further
Agenda Section
Work Session
Item Number
11.4
Request for Action, Page 2
exploring why the practice never occurred in New Hope, how the absence of covenants impacted
development of the city, and what barriers the city has faced, despite the absence of covenants.
The New Hope Human Rights Commission discussed the topic at their January 4, 2021, meeting and
expressed support for the initiative. It was recommended that New Hope participate in the coalition. The
City Council has the option of passing a resolution in support of the work and agreeing to have the New
Hope logo included on Just Deeds’ website, which is currently under development.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council discuss the Just Deeds coalition and direct staff on how to proceed
with the request to participate. It is recommended that the City Council consider one or several of the
following actions:
1. Pass a resolution in support of the work and allow the New Hope logo to be used on Just Deeds’
website and other promotional materials. Staff has prepared a draft resolution, modeled after Golden
Valley’s resolution, for consideration. The resolution could be adopted at a future City Council
meeting.
2. Direct the Human Rights Commission to continue researching specific aspects of the topic.
3. Direct city staff to conduct research on the topic and its relevance to and impact on New Hope.
4. Take no action.
Attachments
Draft Resolution
Just Deeds Mission Statement
Golden Valley Resolution
Hennepin County Board of Commissioners Resolution
Property owner correspondence (December 17, 2020)
City Manager correspondence (December 21, 2020)
Golden Valley City Attorney correspondence (December 21, 2020)
RESOLUTION NO. 2021-___
RESOLUTION CONDEMNING THE USE OF DISCRIMINATORY COVENANTS
AND APPROVING PARTICIPATION IN JUST DEEDS COALITION
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of New Hope as follows:
WHEREAS, discriminatory covenants were tools used by real estate developers to prevent
BIPOC and non-Christian individuals from buying or occupying property in certain areas, and they
were common throughout the United States from the early 1900s to the 1960s; and
WHEREAS, the purpose of discriminatory covenants was to racially and religiously
homogenize communities by excluding BIPOC and non-Christian individuals from surrounding
communities. These tools segregated the metro area and built a hidden system of apartheid; and
WHEREAS, in 2016, the University of Minnesota founded Mapping Prejudice to expose
the racist practices that shaped the landscape of the metro area. Mapping Prejudice researched
restrictive covenants in Hennepin County and created the first-ever comprehensive map of racial
covenants in an American city. The project mapped 24,131 covenants in Hennepin County; and
WHEREAS, the map shows no such language for properties in New Hope; and
WHEREAS, restrictive covenants are no longer enforceable. Legal efforts to eliminate
Discriminatory Covenants include Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1 (1948), in which the United
States Supreme Court prohibited courts from enforcing Discriminatory Covenants and the
Minnesota legislature in 1953 enacted statutes that prohibited new covenants, but existing
covenants were still legal in Minnesota until 1962; and
WHEREAS, as a result of these judicial and legislative actions, today, Minnesota law and
federal law prohibit discrimination in the sale or lease of housing based on race, color, creed,
religion, national origin, sex, marital status, status with regard to public assistance, disability,
sexual orientation, or familial status and those state and federal prohibitions extend to the refusal
to sell or to circulate, post or cause to be printed, circulated, or posted, any limitation, specification,
or discrimination as to race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, status with
regard to public assistance, disability, sexual orientation, or familial status; and
WHEREAS, in 2019, the Minnesota Legislature passed a law authorizing property owners
to individually discharge or renounce discriminatory covenants by recording a discharge form in
the county property records; and
WHEREAS, discriminatory covenants promoted and established residential racial
segregation, which historically and currently has impacted property ownership, accumulation of
wealth, property transfers, mortgage eligibility, rental eligibility, property values, property tax
base, internet access, and more. Discriminatory covenants fortified systemic racism and
compounded economic divestment in specific communities within Hennepin County; and
WHEREAS, discriminatory covenants benefitted White communities. For example,
homes that were racially covenanted are still predominantly owned by White people and are worth
approximately 15% more today than non-covenanted properties; and
WHEREAS, the State of Minnesota, including the city of New Hope, recognizes the harm
that Discriminatory Covenants, and the racial, religious, and other discriminatory practices that
they represent, cause to society in general and to the individuals who are adversely affected by
racial, religious, and other discrimination through the presence of discriminatory covenants in the
public land records.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the New Hope City Council disavows
and condemns the past use of discriminatory covenants and prohibits discriminatory covenants
from being used in the future and directs city staff to participate in the work of the Just Deeds
Coalition to educate the community about this and other historically discriminatory practices.
Dated the 8th day of February, 2021.
____________________________________
Kathi Hemken, Mayor
Attest: __________________________
Valerie Leone, City Clerk
Mission Statement
Just Deeds is a coalition of community stakeholders committed to acknowledging and addressing systemic
racism in housing in Minnesota. Coalition members provide free legal and title services to help property
owners find discriminatory covenants and remove them from their property titles and will provide the
foundation of education and acknowledgement necessary to pursue reconciliation and anti-racist
solutions. We represent organizations and entities who share responsibility for creating and correcting
systemic racism in housing. We acknowledge the racist systems created and perpetuated within
communities, and we will work toward dismantling these systems. Members of the Just Deeds coalition
are committed to working toward meaningful and lasting change in Minnesota. Coalition members will
achieve this goal by:
1. Educating Minnesotans about the racist practices perpetrated by developers, real estate
agents, lawyers, and local, state and federal governments to establish segregated housing and
keep wealth and opportunity away from communities of color.
2. Educating Minnesotans so that they understand who has directly and indirectly benefitted
from historically racist practices and how those practices have shaped access to property,
homeownership and wealth over time.
3. Taking action to dismantle the racist systems that perpetuate inequality and devoting
resources to create equity for communities of color.
All members of the Just Deeds Coalition recognize the following truths and principles:
• Systemic racism in housing occurs today. Black, Indigenous, and other communities of color
continue to face discrimination and lack of access to affordable housing and home ownership.
• Continued denial of opportunities to build general wealth through home ownership
perpetuates inequity within our communities.
• We will not erase or deny history. We will acknowledge it and learn from it.
• We are dedicated to honesty about institutional roles (public and private) in building and
perpetuating systemic racism.
• We commit to begin and participate in hard conversations within our communities and
institutions about our shared history of discrimination and systemic racism.
• We pledge to examine the current policies and practices of our institutions to prevent future
racist actions.
• When we identify racism in our institutions and processes, we will actively work to remove it.
RESOLUTION NO. 20 –
RESOLUTION CONDEMNING THE USE OF DISCRIMINATORY COVENANTS,
DISCHARGING DISCRIMINATORY COVENANTS ON CITY-OWNED PROPERTY,
AND APPROVING PARTICIPATION IN THE JUST DEEDS COALITION
WHEREAS, discriminatory covenants were tools used by real estate developers to prevent
BIPOC and non-Christian individuals from buying or occupying property in certain areas, and they were
common throughout the United States from the early 1900s to the 1960s; and
WHEREAS, the purpose of discriminatory covenants was to racially and religiously homogenize
communities by excluding BIPOC and non-Christian individuals from Golden Valley. These tools
segregated the metro area and built a hidden system of apartheid; and
WHEREAS, in 2016, the University of Minnesota founded Mapping Prejudice to expose the
racist practices that shaped the landscape of the metro area. Mapping Prejudice researched restrictive
covenants in Hennepin County and created the first-ever comprehensive map of racial covenants in an
American city. The project mapped 24,131 covenants in Hennepin County, including 1,604 covenants
in Golden Valley; and
WHEREAS, an example of a common covenant in Golden Valley declared that “No part of said
premises shall ever be used or occupied by or sold, conveyed, leased, rented or given to Negroes, or
Mongolians or Hebrews or any person or persons of the negro race, or Mongolian race or Hebrew race
or blood; and
WHEREAS, the discriminatory covenants in Golden Valley are concentrated along its borders
with Minneapolis and Robbinsdale, and in other desirable areas in the City, such as near downtown,
around parks and open spaces, and near the private golf course; and
WHEREAS, the City of Golden Valley owns sixty-one parcels of land that contain a
discriminatory covenant, including parcels located in the Golden Ridge Nature Area, Lakeview Park,
Seeman Park, North Tyrol Park, and South Tyrol Park; and
WHEREAS, City leaders knew about the use of discriminatory covenants and sanctioned their
use. For example, meeting minutes show that in 1938 the Planning Commission and City Council
required the developer of the West Tyrol Hills subdivision to impose discriminatory covenants on all
lots in the development as a condition of granting the required land use approvals; and
WHEREAS, restrictive covenants are no longer enforceable. Legal efforts to eliminate
Discriminatory Covenants include Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1 (1948), in which the United States
Supreme Court prohibited courts from enforcing Discriminatory Co venants and the Minnesota
legislature in 1953 enacted statutes that prohibited new covenants, but existing covenants were still
legal in Minnesota until 1962; and
WHEREAS, as a result of these judicial and legislative actions, today, Minnesota law and fed eral
law prohibit discrimination in the sale or lease of housing based on race, color, creed, religion, national
origin, sex, marital status, status with regard to public assistance, disability, sexual orientation, or
familial status and those state and federal prohibitions extend to the refusal to sell or to circulate, post
or cause to be printed, circulated, or posted, any limitation, specification, or discrimination as to race,
color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, status with regard to public assistance,
disability, sexual orientation, or familial status; and
WHEREAS, in 2019, the Minnesota Legislature passed a law authorizing property owners to
individually discharge or renounce discriminatory covenants by recording a discharge form in the
county property records; and
WHEREAS, discriminatory covenants promoted and established residential racial segregation,
which historically and currently has impacted property ownership, accumulation of wealth, property
transfers, mortgage eligibility, rental eligibility, property values, property tax base, internet access, and
more. Discriminatory covenants fortified systemic racism and compounded economic divestment in
specific communities within Hennepin County; and
WHEREAS, discriminatory covenants benefitted White communities. For example, homes that
were racially covenanted are still predominantly owned by White people and are worth approximately
15% more today than non-covenanted properties; and
WHEREAS, discriminatory covenants created demographic patterns that remain in place today.
Due in part to this historical practice, the population of the City of Golden Valley is less racially diverse
than the populations of all of its neighboring communities and has a lower percentage of minority
owned businesses than many neighboring communities; and
WHEREAS, in 2019, the City Council directed the Human Rights Commission to begin work on
the Just Deeds Project, which connects residents to pro bono attorneys who can help remove
discriminatory covenants from property titles in Golden Valley; and
WHEREAS, the State of Minnesota, including the City of Golden Valley, recognizes the harm
that Discriminatory Covenants—and the racial, religious, and other discriminatory practices that they
represent—cause to society in general and to the individuals who are adversely affected by racial,
religious, and other discrimination through the presence of discriminatory covenants in the public land
records.
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Golden Valley that:
1. The City of Golden Valley disavows and condemns the past use of discriminatory covenants and
prohibits discriminatory covenants from being used in the future.
2. The City Attorney is directed to investigate and to identify any real p roperty owned or leased by
the City that contains discriminatory covenants and to prepare and record an affidavit or
request an examiner’s directive discharging such discriminatory covenants pursuant to
Minnesota Statute § 507.18, subd. 5.
3. City staff is directed to participate in the work of the Just Deeds Coalition to educate the
community about this and other historically discriminatory practices; to identify contemporary
discriminatory systems, policies, and practices; and to take action to dismantling racist systems,
practices, and policies in the City of Golden Valley to create equity for all.
Adopted by the City Council of Golden Valley, Minnesota this 7th day of October 2020.
_____________________________
Shepard M. Harris, Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Theresa J. Schyma, City Clerk
Hennepin County, Board of Commissioners
RESOLUTION 200373R2
2020
The following resolution was moved by Commissioner Irene Fernando and seconded by Commissioner Debbie Goettel:
WHEREAS, for centuries, Americans have attempted to control the use of property by private limitations, covenants, conditions, and
restrictions, which were recorded and enforced in the public land records, both in Hennepin County and elsewhere in the United States;
and
WHEREAS, some of those private limitations, covenants, conditions, and restrictions sought to prohibit the transfer of real property to, and
use by, persons of certain races, religions, ethnicities, and other characteristics (collectively, “Discriminatory Covenants”), both in Hennepin
County and elsewhere; and
WHEREAS, Discriminatory Covenants along racial lines were particularly pervasive in Hennepin County; a common restriction in Hennepin
County property deeds declared that the “premises shall not at any time be conveyed, mortgaged, or leased to any person or persons of
Chinese, Japanese, Moorish, Turkish, Negro, Mongolian or African blood or descent” and this language is present in the County’s formal
records even today; and
WHEREAS, Discriminatory Covenants promoted and established residential racial segregation, which historically and currently has
impacted property ownership, accumulation of wealth, property transfers, mortgage eligibility, rental eligibility, property values, property tax
base, fortified systemic racism and compounded economic divestment in specific communities within Hennepin County; and
WHEREAS, Discriminatory Covenants benefitted white communities, for example, homes that were racially covenanted are still
predominantly owned by white people and are worth approximately 15% more today than noncovenanted properties; and
WHEREAS, beginning in 2017, Hennepin County provided researchers from the Mapping Prejudice initiative at the University of
Minnesota access to digital property records, which allowed Mapping Prejudice to identify more than 30,000 properties that are affected
by Discriminatory Covenants; and
WHEREAS, there is a growing movement in Hennepin County to individually remove or disavow Discriminatory Covenants from property
titles; and
WHEREAS, the State of Minnesota, including Hennepin County, recognizes the harm that Discriminatory Covenants—and the racial,
religious, and other discriminatory practices that they represent—cause to society in general and to the individuals who are adversely
affected by racial, religious, and other discrimination through the presence of Discriminatory Covenants in the public land records; and
WHEREAS, legal efforts to eliminate Discriminatory Covenants include Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S.1 (1948), in which the United States
Supreme Court prohibited courts from enforcing Discriminatory Covenants and the Minnesota legislature in 1953 enacted statutes that
prohibited new covenants, but existing covenants were still legal in Minnesota until 1962; the legislature later amended those statutes to be
consistent with the Fair Housing Act of 1968 which barring discriminatory covenants; and
WHEREAS, as a result of these judicial and legislative actions, today, Minnesota law and federal law prohibit discrimination in the sale or
lease of housing based on race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, status with regard to public assistance, disability,
sexual orientation, or familial status and those state and federal prohibitions extend to the refusal to sell or to circulate, post or cause to be
printed, circulated, or posted, any limitation, specification, or discrimination as to race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, marital
status, status with regard to public assistance, disability, sexual orientation, or familial status; and
WHEREAS, the Minnesota Legislature in 2019 enacted Minnesota Statute § 507.18, subd. 5, which permits owners of “abstract” property
—property that is within the purview of the County Recorder to record an affidavit that discharges Discriminatory Covenants from those
owners’ record title to real property upon payment of a recording fee; therefore
BE IT RESOLVED, the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners disavows the past practice of Discriminatory Covenants; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners directs the Hennepin County Recorder and the
Registrar of Titles to record this Resolution and provide for its inclusion in the tract index for properties known to be affected by such
Discriminatory Covenants, so as to provide recorded notice to affected real property owners and the public at large that Discriminatory
Covenants are unenforceable, against public policy and of no legal effect; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, in acknowledgment of past discrimination and in furtherance of the goal of eliminating future disparities, the
Hennepin County Recorder will facilitate greater accessibility and ease in the recording of a Minnesota Statute § 507.18, subd. 5, affidavit
by exempting the recording fee; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Resident & Real Estate Services Department is directed to investigate and to identify any real property
Hennepin County, Board of CommissionersRESOLUTION 200373R2 2020The following resolution was moved by Commissioner Irene Fernando and seconded by Commissioner Debbie Goettel:WHEREAS, for centuries, Americans have attempted to control the use of property by private limitations, covenants, conditions, andrestrictions, which were recorded and enforced in the public land records, both in Hennepin County and elsewhere in the United States;andWHEREAS, some of those private limitations, covenants, conditions, and restrictions sought to prohibit the transfer of real property to, anduse by, persons of certain races, religions, ethnicities, and other characteristics (collectively, “Discriminatory Covenants”), both in HennepinCounty and elsewhere; andWHEREAS, Discriminatory Covenants along racial lines were particularly pervasive in Hennepin County; a common restriction in HennepinCounty property deeds declared that the “premises shall not at any time be conveyed, mortgaged, or leased to any person or persons ofChinese, Japanese, Moorish, Turkish, Negro, Mongolian or African blood or descent” and this language is present in the County’s formalrecords even today; andWHEREAS, Discriminatory Covenants promoted and established residential racial segregation, which historically and currently hasimpacted property ownership, accumulation of wealth, property transfers, mortgage eligibility, rental eligibility, property values, property taxbase, fortified systemic racism and compounded economic divestment in specific communities within Hennepin County; and WHEREAS, Discriminatory Covenants benefitted white communities, for example, homes that were racially covenanted are stillpredominantly owned by white people and are worth approximately 15% more today than noncovenanted properties; and WHEREAS, beginning in 2017, Hennepin County provided researchers from the Mapping Prejudice initiative at the University ofMinnesota access to digital property records, which allowed Mapping Prejudice to identify more than 30,000 properties that are affectedby Discriminatory Covenants; andWHEREAS, there is a growing movement in Hennepin County to individually remove or disavow Discriminatory Covenants from propertytitles; andWHEREAS, the State of Minnesota, including Hennepin County, recognizes the harm that Discriminatory Covenants—and the racial,religious, and other discriminatory practices that they represent—cause to society in general and to the individuals who are adverselyaffected by racial, religious, and other discrimination through the presence of Discriminatory Covenants in the public land records; andWHEREAS, legal efforts to eliminate Discriminatory Covenants include Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S.1 (1948), in which the United StatesSupreme Court prohibited courts from enforcing Discriminatory Covenants and the Minnesota legislature in 1953 enacted statutes thatprohibited new covenants, but existing covenants were still legal in Minnesota until 1962; the legislature later amended those statutes to beconsistent with the Fair Housing Act of 1968 which barring discriminatory covenants; andWHEREAS, as a result of these judicial and legislative actions, today, Minnesota law and federal law prohibit discrimination in the sale orlease of housing based on race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, status with regard to public assistance, disability,sexual orientation, or familial status and those state and federal prohibitions extend to the refusal to sell or to circulate, post or cause to beprinted, circulated, or posted, any limitation, specification, or discrimination as to race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, maritalstatus, status with regard to public assistance, disability, sexual orientation, or familial status; andWHEREAS, the Minnesota Legislature in 2019 enacted Minnesota Statute § 507.18, subd. 5, which permits owners of “abstract” property—property that is within the purview of the County Recorder to record an affidavit that discharges Discriminatory Covenants from thoseowners’ record title to real property upon payment of a recording fee; thereforeBE IT RESOLVED, the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners disavows the past practice of Discriminatory Covenants; andBE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners directs the Hennepin County Recorder and theRegistrar of Titles to record this Resolution and provide for its inclusion in the tract index for properties known to be affected by suchDiscriminatory Covenants, so as to provide recorded notice to affected real property owners and the public at large that DiscriminatoryCovenants are unenforceable, against public policy and of no legal effect; andBE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, in acknowledgment of past discrimination and in furtherance of the goal of eliminating future disparities, theHennepin County Recorder will facilitate greater accessibility and ease in the recording of a Minnesota Statute § 507.18, subd. 5, affidavitby exempting the recording fee; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Resident & Real Estate Services Department is directed to investigate and to identify any real property
owned or leased by Hennepin County that contains Discriminatory Covenants and to record an affidavit disavowing such Discriminatory
Covenants pursuant to Minnesota Statute § 507.18, subd. 5.
The question was on the adoption of the resolution and there were 7 YEAS and 0 NAYS, as follows:
County of Hennepin
Board of County Commissioners
YEAS:Callison, Conley, Fernando, Goettel, Greene, Johnson, Opat
NAYS:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
RESOLUTION ADOPTED ON 10/20/2020
ATTEST:
Hennepin County Board of Commissioners
300 South Sixth Street, Minneapolis, MN 55487
hennepin.us
_________________________
Deputy/Clerk to the County Board