The URL can be used to link to this page

021820 City Council Work Session Packet CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MEETING New Hope City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North Northwood Room Tuesday, February 18, 2020 6:00 p.m. – dinner 6:30 p.m. - meeting Mayor Kathi Hemken Council Member John Elder Council Member Cedrick Frazier Council Member Andy Hoffe Council Member Jonathan London 1. CALL TO ORDER – February 18, 2020 2. ROLL CALL 11. UNFINISHED & ORGANIZATIONAL BUSINESS 11.1 Discuss professional community-wide survey in 2020 with Morris Leatherman 11.2 Receive presentation on Meadow Lake Management Plan and discuss funding information 11.3 Update on Pool/Civic Center Park/City Hall Landscaping projects by Stantec Engineering (Improvement Project Nos. 995/941/994) 11.4 Update regarding 2020 Construction Projects 11.5 Discuss Potential Changes to Tobacco Regulations 11.6 Discuss affordable scattered site housing projects 12. OTHER BUSINESS 13. ADJOURNMENT I:\RFA\COMM DEV\2020\Work Sessions\Morris Leatherman Survey\Morris Leatherman Survey RFA 2020 WS.docx Request for Action February 18, 2020 Approved by: Kirk McDonald, City Manager Originating Department: City Manager By: Brandon Bell, CD Assistant and Kirk McDonald, City Manager Agenda Title Discuss professional community wide survey in 2020 with Morris Leatherman Company Requested Action Staff requests to discuss conducting a professional community wide survey in 2020 utilizing the services of the Morris Leatherman Company. Peter Leatherman, Vice President of the Morris Leatherman Company, will be in attendance at the work session to discuss their proposal, discuss survey questions, and respond to questions from the Council. Policy/Past Practice In the past years the city has conducted a professional community wide survey every ten years since 1995, with the most recent survey being conducted in 2015. In 2015 the City Council concluded that it would be advantageous for the city to start conducting the professional community wide survey once every five years instead of ten. Attached are the survey questions and results from 2015. The cities of Golden Valley and Crystal have completed surveys in the last several years utilizing the services of this firm. Background Conducting a professional community wide survey is identified as a potential initiative in the 2020 budget narrative and the City Manager’s goals. The survey was discussed during the 2020 budget discussions and there are funds budgeted in the EDA budget to pay for the survey. In 2015, the survey consisted of approximately 134 questions and was placed via random phone conversations with 400 residents at a cost of roughly $20,500. In June, 2019 staff contacted Morris Leatherman to inquire about their rates for a 2020 survey. They indicated that their rates have not really changed since 2015, and the cost of another 134 question survey like was done in 2015 would not exceed $22,000. Over the past several years, the city has participated in the state’s performance measurement program which is based on a combination of survey questions and performance measurement statistics such as: fire response time, number of sewer backups, etc. The city receives reimbursement for participation in the program. The City Clerk has confirmed with the state that a professional survey would qualify for the survey question portion of the program, so the city would not be distributing a performance measurement survey in 2020. Staff would be submitting the base performance measures to the state along with the responses to the professional survey questions, and would be eligible for the reimbursement from the state. While the feedback from the performance measurement survey is valuable, it is not very statistically accurate. The feedback from a professionally conducted survey is much more accurate and provides great feedback about city programs, projects and facilities. Agenda Section Work Session Item Number 11.1 Request for Action, Page 2 Recommendation Staff recommends that the Council provide feedback to Morris Leatherman on specific questions you want to include in the 2020 survey. Some of the questions included in the 2015 survey regarding replacement of the City Hall and pool facility are no longer relevant. In 2019, Councilmember Frazier suggested including some questions regarding community engagement. Staff is also suggesting the Council consider a question regarding residents’ interest in receiving digital versus paper publications/communications as a potential way to reduce mailing costs. Attachments  June 3, 2019 Morris Leatherman correspondence  2015 community wide survey with feedback from residents-edited for changes to 2020  Executive summary from 2015 survey  2020 budget goals and priorities Text = Recommended for deletion/no longer relevant Text = Discuss if you would like to ask this question again THE MORRIS LEATHERMAN COMPANY CITY OF NEW HOPE 3128 Dean Court RESIDENTIAL QUESTIONNAIRE Minneapolis, Minnesota 55416 FINAL JULY 2015 Hello, I'm __________ of the Morris Leatherman Company, a nationwide polling firm located in Minneapolis. We've been retained by the City of New Hope to speak with a random sample of residents about issues facing the city. The survey is being taken because your city representatives and staff are interested in your opinions and suggestions. I want to assure you that all individual responses will be held strictly confidential; only summaries of the entire sample will be reported. (DO NOT PAUSE) 1. Approximately how many years LESS THAN TWO YEARS.....6% have you lived in New Hope? TWO TO FIVE YEARS......14% 5.1 TO TEN YEARS.......18% 10.1 TO TWENTY YRS.....23% 20.1 TO THIRTY YRS.....18% OVER THIRTY YEARS......22% REFUSED.................0% 2. What do you like MOST, if any- DON’T KNOW/REFUSED......0% thing, about living in New Hope? CONVENIENT LOCATION....13% HOUSING/NEIGHBORHOOD...21% PARKS/TRAILS............5% SMALL TOWN FEEL........21% QUIET AND PEACEFUL.....18% FRIENDLY PEOPLE........11% CLOSE TO JOB............6% SCATTERED...............5% 3. What do you think is the most DON’T KNOW/REFUSED......7% serious issue facing New Hope NOTHING................34% today? REDEVELOPMENT...........7% RISING CRIME............9% HIGH TAXES..............4% STREET MAINTENANCE.....14% GROWTH..................8% DIVERSITY...............7% POOR SPENDING...........5% SCATTERED...............5% 4. How would you rate the quality of EXCELLENT..............30% life in New Hope -- excellent, GOOD...................68% good, only fair, or poor? ONLY FAIR...............2% POOR....................0% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......0% 5. How would you rate the City of EXCELLENT..............32% New Hope as a place to raise GOOD...................60% children -- excellent, good, only ONLY FAIR...............7% fair or poor? POOR....................1% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......1% 6. And, how would you rate New Hope EXCELLENT..............23% as a place to retire -- excellent, GOOD...................60% good, only fair, or poor? ONLY FAIR...............9% POOR....................1% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......7% 7. How would you rate the general EXCELLENT..............27% sense of community among New Hope GOOD...................64% residents -- excellent, good, only ONLY FAIR...............8% fair or poor? POOR....................1% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......0% 8. All in all, do you think things in RIGHT DIRECTION........92% New Hope are generally headed in WRONG TRACK.............6% the right direction, or do you DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......2% feel things are off on the wrong track? IF “WRONG TRACK,” ASK: (N=22) 9. Could you tell me why you feel that way? TOO MUCH DEVELOPMENT, 18%; RISING CRIME, 27%; GROWING DIVERSITY, 9%; DECLINING SCHOOL QUALITY, 9%; LACK OF BUSINESS, 14%; HIGH TAXES, 20%; SCATTERED, 4%. I would like to read you a list of a few city services. For each one, please tell me whether you would rate the quality of the service as excellent, good, only fair, or poor? EXC GOO FAI POO DKR 10. Police protection? 40% 51% 8% 1% 1% 11. Fire protection? 43% 49% 5% 0% 3% 12. Building inspection? 13% 56% 11% 1% 20% 13. Sanitary sewer service? 15% 67% 8% 1% 9% 14. Accommodation and control of storm water run-off? 25% 54% 13% 0% 8% 15. Animal control? 25% 59% 12% 1% 4% 16. Park maintenance? 36% 54% 7% 1% 3% 17. Condition of trails? 28% 54% 9% 1% 9% EXC GOO FAI POO DKR 18. Recreational programs? 20% 65% 5% 1% 10% 19. Street lighting? 17% 60% 22% 1% 0% 20. Recycling service? 27% 65% 5% 0% 3% 21. Taste and quality of drinking water? 16% 65% 18% 1% 1% Roadways in the City of New Hope consist of both city and county streets and state highways. The county maintains 42nd Avenue, Bass Lake Road and Winnetka Avenue, while the state maintain Highway 169. Now, for the next two city services, please consider only city-maintained street and roads. How would you rate.... EXC GOO FAI POO DKR 22. Pavement repair and patching on city streets? 13% 57% 22% 9% 0% 23. Snowplowing of city streets? 28% 60% 12% 1% 0% 24. When you consider the property EXCELLENT..............17% taxes you pay and the quality of GOOD...................70% city services you receive, would ONLY FAIR...............9% you rate the general value of city POOR....................1% services as excellent, good, only DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......2% fair, or poor? 25. Would you favor or oppose an in- FAVOR..................65% crease in city property taxes, OPPOSE.................29% if it were needed to maintain DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......6% city services at their current level? IF “OPPOSE,” ASK: (N=116) 26. What services would you be DON’T KNOW/REFUSED.....28% willing to see cut? NONE/CUT WASTE.........54% ADMINISTRATION..........6% PARKS/RECREATION........8% PUBLIC WORKS............4% In 2015, the city of New Hope changed to a street improvement plan, focusing on less expensive “mill and overlay” improvements, to improve the driving and the appearance of the street, rather than full reconstruction and utility replacement. This new approach makes it possible for the city to make improvements to ten or more miles of city streets each construction year, rather than one or two miles if the streets were fully reconstructed and the utilities were replaced. 27. Do you support or oppose this STRONGLY SUPPORT......13% plan? (WAIT FOR RESPONSE) Do SUPPORT...............61% you feel strongly that way? OPPOSE................17% STRONGLY OPPOSE........3% DON’T KNOW/REFUSED.....6% IF “STRONGLY SUPPORT” OR “SUPPORT,” ASK: (N=295) 28. Would you support a property YES...................71% tax increase to increase the NO....................25% number of miles that can be DON’T KNOW/REFUSED.....4% completed during a construc- tion year? Most communities have one of two systems for garbage collection. In an open collection system, which the City of New Hope currently has, residents choose their hauler from several different companies serving the community. Other cities use an organized collection system, where the City contracts with a hauler or haulers for collection throughout the city. 29. Would you favor or oppose the City STRONGLY FAVOR.........15% of New Hope changing from the FAVOR..................37% current system in which residents OPPOSE.................25% may choose from several different STRONGLY OPPOSE........10% haulers to a system where the City DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....13% chooses a specific hauler or haulers for the whole community? (WAIT FOR RESPONSE) Do you feel strongly that way? IF A RESPONSE IS GIVEN, ASK: (N=347) 30. Could you tell me one or two DON’T KNOW/REFUSED......0% reasons for your decision? WANT CHOICE............32% LIKE CURRENT HAULER....18% CHOICE/COST LESS........5% ORGANIZED/COST LESS....14% ORGANIZED/LESS TRUCKS..20% ORGANIZED/STREETS......11% SCATTERED...............1% IF “OPPOSE” OR “STRONGLY OPPOSE,” ASK: (N=147) 31. Would you still oppose if YES....................42% changing to an organized sys- NO.....................49% tem would reduce truck traf- DON’T KNOW/REFUSED......9% fic in neighborhoods and save the city money on street re- pair and maintenance? Moving on.... 32. Other than voting, do you feel YES....................65% that if you wanted to, you could NO.....................27% have a say about the way the City DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......8% of New Hope runs things? 33. How much do you feel you know GREAT DEAL..............9% about the work of the Mayor and FAIR AMOUNT............52% City Council -- a great deal, a VERY LITTLE............38% fair amount, or very little? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......1% 34. From what you know, do you ap- STRONGLY APPROVE.......21% prove or disapprove of the job SOMEWHAT APPROVE.......62% the Mayor and City Council are SOMEWHAT DISAPPROVE....10% doing? (WAIT FOR RESPONSE) And do STRONGLY DISAPPROVE.....2% you feel strongly that way? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......6% 35. How much first-hand contact have QUITE A LOT.............7% you had with New Hope City SOME...................40% staff -- quite a lot, some, very VERY LITTLE............34% little, or none at all? NONE AT ALL............19% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......0% 36. From your experience, how would EXCELLENT..............14% you rate the job performance of GOOD...................66% New Hope City staff – excel- ONLY FAIR..............12% lent, good, only fair or poor? POOR....................2% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......7% 37. During the past year, have you IN-PERSON..............11% visited or contacted New Hope TELEPHONE..............18% City Hall in person, or on the NO.....................71% telephone? DON’T KNOW/REFUSED......1% IF "IN-PERSON” OR “TELEPHONE," ASK: (N=114) 38. On your last contact with the POLICE DEPARTMENT......12% City, which Department did FIRE DEPARTMENT.........4% you contact -- the Police De- PUBLIC WORKS...........16% partment, Fire Department, PARK AND RECREATION....11% Public Works, Parks and BUILDING INSPECTIONS....8% Recreation, Building Inspec- PLANNING................2% tions, Planning, Finance De- ADMINISTRATION..........5% partment, General Information,FINANCE DEPARTMENT......1% Licenses and Permits or GENERAL INFORMATION....20% Utility Billing? LICENSE PERMITS.........4% UTILITY BILLING........15% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......2% Thinking about your last contact with the City, for each of the following characteristics, please rate the service as excellent, good, only fair, or poor.... EXC GOO FAI POO DKR 39. Waiting time for a staff member to assist you? 33% 56% 10% 1% 0% 40. Courtesy of the City Staff? 44% 48% 6% 2% 0% 41. Ease of obtaining the service you needed? 38% 45% 11% 6% 0% New Hope's City Hall and Police Department are forty-six years old and have been remodeled three times. A consultant that specializes in municipal facilities and a citizen task force are currently evaluating New Hope's existing police and City Hall facilities. The consultant estimates it would cost about $17 million to correct deficiencies in the current building, as well as adding space to meet Police Department needs, or approximately $18 million to construct a new Police and City Hall facility. 42. Would you support remodeling or STRONGLY SUPPORT.......15% replacement of the current Police SUPPORT................46% and City Hall facilities if the OPPOSE.................21% City Council, with advice from the STRONGLY OPPOSE.........8% citizen task force, determine that DON’T KNOW/REFUSED.....11% it is necessary? (WAIT FOR RE- SPONSE) Do you feel strongly that way? The cost for a new or remodeled municipal building would be a property tax increase of about $10.50 per month or $126 a year for an average home in New Hope. 43. Would you support a property tax STRONGLY SUPPORT.......15% increase to pay for these building SUPPORT................44% improvements? (WAIT FOR RESPONSE) OPPOSE.................22% Do you feel strongly that way? STRONGLY OPPOSE........11% DON’T KNOW/REFUSED......8% Thinking about your neighborhood for a moment.... 44. How would you rate the overall EXCELLENT..............28% general appearance of your nei- GOOD...................66% ghborhood -- excellent, good, only ONLY FAIR...............5% fair, or poor? POOR....................1% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......0% IF "ONLY FAIR" OR "POOR," ASK: (N=25) 45. Why do you feel that way? ROAD CONSTRUCTION, 16%; MESSY YARDS, 24%; LITTER, 16%; VACANT HOMES, 12%; JUNK CARS, 24%; RUNDOWN PROPERTIES, 8%; 46. Do you feel the City is too tough, TOO TOUGH...............1% about right, or not tough enough ABOUT RIGHT............82% in enforcing the City Code on such NOT TOUGH ENOUGH.......14% nuisances as animal control, gar- DON’T KNOW/REFUSED......4% bage disposal, junk cars, messy yards, and noise? IF "TOO TOUGH” OR "NOT TOUGH ENOUGH," ASK: (N=58) 47. Could you tell me one or two reasons why you feel that way? MESSY YARDS, 19%; LOOSE ANIMALS, 7%; BARKING DOGS, 17%; TALL GRASS, 17%; LOUD NEIGHBORS, 9%; JUNK CARS, 9%; GARBAGE CANS LEFT OUT, 7%; LOUD MUSIC IN CARS, 3%; RUNDOWN PROPERTIES, 3%; SCATTERED, 9%. I would like to read you a list of characteristics of a community. For each one, please tell me if you think New Hope currently has too many or too much, too few or too little, or about the right amount. (ROTATE LIST) MANY FEW/ ABOUT D.K./ MUCH LITT RIGHT REF. 48. Apartments? 32% 12% 55% 1% 49. Starter homes? 8% 21% 69% 3% 50. Move-up housing? 7% 19% 71% 4% 51. Condominiums and townhouses? 19% 17% 62% 2% 52. Affordable housing, defined by the Metropolitan Council as a single family home costing less than $177,500? 9% 24% 64% 4% 53. Assisted living for seniors? 6% 23% 63% 8% 54. Nursing homes? 5% 21% 67% 7% 55. One-level housing for seniors maintained by an association? 4% 19% 67% 9% 56. Parks and open spaces? 4% 9% 86% 2% 57. Trails and bikeways? 3% 13% 80% 5% 58. Service and retail establishments? 4% 34% 60% 3% 59. Entertainment opportunities? 3% 34% 59% 5% 60. Fine dining restaurants? 3% 34% 60% 4% 61. Family sit-down restaurants? 3% 29% 65% 3% 62. Are there any types of development you would like to see in the city? (IF "YES," ASK:) What are they? (PROBE) NONE, 16%; STARTER HOMES, 4%; MOVE-UP HOUSING, 3%; CONDOMINIUMS/TOWNHOUSES, 4%; AFFORDABLE HOUSING, 2%; ASSISTED LIVING, 7%; NURSING HOMES, 3%; PARKS/OPEN SPACE, 2%; RETAIL, 25%; ENTERTAINMENT, 10%; FINE DINING, 7%; FAMILY DINING, 8%; BARS/CLUBS, 2%; RECREATION FACILITIES, 4%; SCATTERED, 3%. 63. Are there any types of development you would strongly op- pose? (PROBE) NONE, 46%; APARTMENTS, 20%; CONDOMINIUMS/TOWNHOUSES, 5%; NURSING HOMES, 2%; RETAIL, 3%; LOW INCOME HOUSING, 6%; BARS/CLUBS, 7%; SCATTERED, 11%. As the City of New Hope continues development and redevelop- ment.... 64. Do you support or oppose the City STRONGLY SUPPORT.......17% providing financial incentives to SUPPORT................60% attract specific types of develop- OPPOSE.................12% ment? (WAIT FOR RESPONSE) Do you STRONGLY OPPOSE.........6% feel strongly that way? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......6% I would like to ask about a specific redevelopment sites.... The first redevelopment is currently underway on the former K-Mart site. It will include a new Hy-Vee grocery store, a convenience store with gas station and possibly a North Memorial medical clinic. Discussions are underway about potential redevelopment of the shopping center on the southwest corner of Winnetka and 45th avenues, just east of the new Hy-Vee. For each of the following types of development, please tell me if you would strongly support it, support, oppose or strongly oppose it. (ROTATE) STS SUP OPP STO DKR 65. High-density residential, such as townhouses or apartments? 11% 33% 29% 27% 1% 66. Retail stores? 34% 49% 11% 5% 1% 67. Medical office space? 26% 49% 17% 8% 1% 68. Senior housing? 18% 45% 21% 14% 3% The second redevelopment is the site the city purchased and demolished the apartment complex adjacent to the golf course, on the northeast corner of Bass Lake Road and Yukon avenues. 69. Are you familiar with this site? YES....................66% NO.....................34% DON’T KNOW/REFUSED......1% IF “YES,” ASK: (N=262) For each of the following types of development, please tell me if you would strongly support it, support, oppose or strongly oppose it. (ROTATE) STS SUP OPP STO DKR 70. A sports dome? 19% 34% 26% 19% 3% 71. High-end single family homes? 19% 32% 21% 27% 1% 72. Senior housing? 14% 42% 22% 20% 2% 73. High-end apartments? 10% 21% 33% 34% 2% Continuing.... The City of New Hope has continued to purchase deteriorating and blighted properties, demolish them and resell the lots for new home construction. 74. Do you favor or oppose the City STRONGLY FAVOR.........17% purchasing deteriorating and FAVOR..................65% blighted properties for redevelop- OPPOSE..................8% ment? (WAIT FOR RESPONSE) Do you STRONGLY OPPOSE.........5% feel strongly that way? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......6% 75. Have you done any remodeling or YES....................27% home improvements in the past five NO.....................73% years? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......0% IF "YES," ASK: (N=109) 76. What remodeling or home im- DON’T KNOW/REFUSED......0% provements have you under- KITCHEN................20% taken? BATHROOM...............13% FINISHED BASEMENT......17% WINDOWS/DOORS..........13% ROOF...................13% DECK/LANDSCAPING.......16% INSULATION..............3% SIDING..................3% SCATTERED...............2% Moving on... 77. During the past two years, has INCREASED..............21% crime increased, decreased, or DECREASED...............5% remained about the same in your REMAINED ABOUT SAME....73% area of the city? DON’T KNOW/REFUSED......1% 78. Do you generally feel safe YES....................94% walking in your neighborhood alone NO......................5% at night? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......1% IF "NO," ASK: (N=19) 79. In which areas do you not feel safe? REFUSED, 5%; EVERYWHERE, 21%; PARKS, 16%; SIDE STREETS, 11%; MY NEIGHBORHOOD, 32%; MAJOR STREETS, 16%. 80. What makes you feel unsafe? REFUSED, 5%; RISING CRIME, 26%; DRUGS, 5%; NO PEOPLE AROUND, 5%; LOITERING PEOPLE, 48%; UNRULY PEOPLE, 5%; DON’T KNOW NEIGHBORS, 5%. 81. During the past twelve months, YES....................12% were you or a member of your NO.....................88% household been the victim of a DON’T KNOW/REFUSED......0% crime in New Hope? 82. Are you a member of a Neighborhood YES....................16% Watch? NO.....................83% DON’T KNOW/REFUSED......1% I would like to read you a short list of public safety concerns. 83. Please tell me which one you consider to be the greatest concern in New Hope? If you feel that none of these problems are serious in New Hope, just say so. (ROTATE AND READ LIST) VIOLENT CRIME...............................3% TRAFFIC SPEEDING...........................25% DRUGS......................................19% YOUTH CRIMES AND VANDALISM.................22% BUSINESS CRIMES, SUCH AS SHOPLIFTING AND CHECK FRAUD........................5% RESIDENTIAL CRIMES, SUCH AS BURGLARY AND THEFT..............................6% IDENTITY THEFT..............................1% ALL EQUALLY.................................2% NONE OF THE ABOVE..........................13% DON’T KNOW/REFUSED..........................5% 84. Is speeding in your neighborhood YES....................32% a serious traffic problem? NO.....................68% DON’T KNOW/REFUSED......0% 85. Are stop sign and traffic signal YES....................31% violations a serious problem in NO.....................69% your neighborhood? DON’T KNOW/REFUSED......0% Continuing.... 86. Do you leave the City of New Hope YES....................37% on a regular or daily basis to go NO.....................38% to work? NOT EMPLOYED/RETIRED...25% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......0% IF "YES," ASK: (N=151) 87. In what city is your job DON’T KNOW/REFUSED......1% located? MINNEAPOLIS............24% SAINT PAUL.............19% MINNETONKA..............2% PLYMOUTH................9% MAPLE GROVE............17% BLOOMINGTON.............4% CRYSTAL................13% GOLDEN VALLEY...........4% HOPKINS.................2% SCATTERED...............5% 88. How many minutes does it take FIVE MINUTES OR LESS....1% you to get to work? SIX TO TEN MINUTES.....13% 11 TO 15 MINUTES.......25% 16 TO 20 MINUTES.......23% 21 TO 25 MINUTES.......10% 26 TO 30 MINUTES.......13% OVER 30 MINUTES........15% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......1% 89. How would you rate the ease EXCELLENT..............15% of getting to and from work GOOD...................76% -- excellent, good, only fair ONLY FAIR...............7% or poor? POOR....................1% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......1% 90. Do you or anyone in your YES....................17% household ride public transit NO.....................82% on a regular basis? DON’T KNOW/REFUSED......1% IF “NO,” ASK: (N=123) 91. Why don’t you use public DON’T KNOW/REFUSED......0% transit? NEED CAR...............10% PREFER TO DRIVE........69% UNSAFE..................2% INCONVENIENT...........15% DOESN’T GO WHERE NEED...3% SCATTERED...............2% 92. How would you rate the ease of EXCELLENT..............15% getting from place to place within GOOD...................75% the City of New Hope – excellent, ONLY FAIR...............9% good, only fair or poor? POOR....................1% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......0% Turning to parks and recreation.... 93. How would you rate park and rec- EXCELLENT..............21% reation facilities in New Hope GOOD...................69% – excellent, good, only fair or ONLY FAIR...............9% or poor? POOR....................1% DON’T KNOW/REFUSED......1% The New Hope Park and Recreation system is composed of larger community parks and smaller neighborhood parks, community ballfields, the New Hope Outdoor Theater, the New Hope Swimming Pool, the Ice Arena, New Hope community gyms, the Golf Course and trails. For each of the following facilities, first, tell me if you or members of your household have used it during the past year. Then, for those you have used, please rate them as excellent, good, only fair or poor. If you have no opinion, just say so.... NOT EXC GOO FAI POO DKR 94. City parks? 19% 35% 43% 4% 0% 0% 95. Community ballfields? 41% 19% 34% 4% 2% 0% 96. New Hope Outdoor Theater? 42% 20% 32% 5% 0% 1% 97. New Hope Swimming Pool? 45% 10% 22% 17% 5% 2% 98. New Hope Ice Arena? 58% 15% 18% 5% 1% 4% 99. New Hope Village Golf Course? 47% 20% 27% 4% 0% 3% 100. Trails? 24% 20% 48% 7% 0% 2% 99. New Hope Community Gyms 101. Have you or members of your house- YES....................23% hold participated in any city NO.....................77% sponsored recreational programs DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......0% during the past year? IF "YES," ASK: (N=91) 102. Which ones? DON’T KNOW/REFUSED......0% BASEBALL/SOFTBALL.......9% BASKETBALL..............4% ADULT SPORTS...........13% YOUTH SPORTS...........53% YOUTH ENRICHMENTPROGRAMS........4% SWIMMING...............13% SCATTERED...............3% ADULT TRIPS ADULT PROGRAMS 103. Were you satisfied or dis- SATISFIED..............98% satisfied with your exper- DISSATISFIED............2% ience? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......0% 104. Does the current mix of recrea- YES....................92% tional programming in the city NO......................2% adequately meet the needs of your DON’T KNOW/REFUSED......6% household? IF “NO,” ASK: (N=8) 105. What additional recreational programs would you like to see offered? FITNESS, 13%; PRESCHOOL PROGRAMS, 25%; DISABLED, 13%; SENIOR, 13%; TEEN, 25%; ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PROGRAMS, 13%. 106. How likely would you or members of VERY LIKELY............10% your household be to use trails SOMEWHAT LIKELY........38% during the winter if they were NOT TOO LIKELY.........21% plowed – would you be very likely, NOT AT ALL LIKELY......31% somewhat likely, not too likely, DON’T KNOW/REFUSED......1% or not at all likely? The city’s outdoor swimming pool is over fifty years old. The pool needs extensive repair and maintenance. The cost to replace the swimming pool would be about five million dollars. 107. Do you support or oppose replacing STRONGLY SUPPORT......18% the outdoor pool? (WAIT FOR RE- SUPPORT...............41% SPONSE) Do you feel strongly that OPPOSE................25% way? STRONGLY OPPOSE........8% DON’T KNOW/REFUSED.....8% IF “STRONGLY SUPPORT” OR “SUPPORT,” ASK: (N=236) 108. Would you support a property YES...................84% tax increase for this pur- NO....................11% pose? DON’T KNOW/REFUSED.....6% Moving on.... 109. What is your primary source of in- DON’T KNOW/REFUSED......0% formation about city government NOTHING.................5% and its activities? CITY NEWSLETTER........39% LOCAL NEWSPAPER........29% CABLE TELEVISION........7% CITY WEBSITE............9% WORD OF MOUTH...........6% STAR TRIBUNE............3% PIPELINE INSERT.........3% 110. How would you prefer to receive DON’T KNOW/REFUSED......0% information from the city? NOTHING.................3% CITY NEWSLETTER........48% LOCAL NEWSPAPER........23% CABLE TELEVISION........6% CITY WEBSITE...........11% WORD OF MOUTH...........3% STAR TRIBUNE............2% E-MAIL..................2% PIPELINE INSERT.........3% The City publishes a quarterly newsletter, “In Touch,” which is mailed to all residents. 111. Do you receive and regularly read NO.....................14% the City newsletter? (IF “YES,” YES/EXCELLENT..........26% ASK:) How would you evaluate the YES/GOOD...............58% newsletter overall – excellent, YES/ONLY FAIR...........3% good, only fair or poor? YES/POOR................0% DON’T KNOW/REFUSED......0% The City publishes a monthly news brief in utility bills, called “In the Pipeline.” 112. Do you receive and regularly read NO.....................27% “In the Pipeline”? (IF “YES,” YES/EXCELLENT..........22% ASK:) How would you evaluate the YES/GOOD...............48% news brief overall – excellent, YES/ONLY FAIR...........3% good, only fair or poor? YES/POOR................0% DON’T KNOW/REFUSED......1% 113. Does your household currently sub- CABLE..................56% scribe to cable television, satel- SATELLITE..............28% lite television or neither? NEITHER................15% DON’T KNOW/REFUSED......0% IF "CABLE," ASK: (N=225) As you may know, the City currently cablecasts City Council and Planning Commission meetings. 114. How often do you watch City FREQUENTLY..............6% Council or Planning Commis- OCCASIONALLY...........28% sion meetings -- frequently, RARELY.................22% occasionally, rarely, or NEVER..................44% never? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......0% 115. Have you accessed the City's web- YES....................32% site? NO.....................68% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......0% IF "YES," ASK: (N=127) 116. Were you able to find what YES....................96% you were looking for? NO......................4% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......0% 117. What information were you looking for? REFUSED, 2%; GENERAL INFORMATION, 13%; CITY EVENTS, 17%; PARKS AND RECREATION, 17%; DEVELOPMENT NEWS, 7%; CODES AND ORDINANCES, 6%; COUNCIL MEETING INFORMATION, 20%; CITY SERVICES, 5%; CRIME STATISTICS, 5%; SCHOOL INFORMATION, 4%; ROAD CONSTRUCTION, 4%. The city webstreams its City Council and other public meetings on its website. Meetings are archived and can also be viewed anytime after their original airing. 118. Have you ever viewed meetings YES....................27% from the city's website? NO.....................72% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......1% 119. How interested would you be VERY INTERESTED........12% in subscribing to receive SOMEWHAT INTERESTED....31% e-mails containing city in- NOT TOO INTERESTED.....22% formation and news – very in- NOT AT ALL INTERESTED..31% terested, somewhat interested,DON’T KNOW/REFUSED......5% not too interested or not at all interested? I would like to ask you about social media sources. For each one, tell me if you currently use that source of information; then, for each you currently use, tell me if you would be likely or unlikely to use it to obtain information about the City of New Hope. NOT USE USE DK/ USE LIK NLK REF 120. Facebook? 29% 48% 23% 0% 121. Twitter? 69% 15% 16% 1% 122. Next Door? 70% 19% 9% 2% 123. How would you rate the City's EXCELLENT.............15% overall performance in communicat- GOOD..................71% ing key local issues to residents ONLY FAIR.............13% in its publications, website, POOR...................1% mailings, and on cable television DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....1% -- excellent, good, only fair, or poor? Now, just a few more questions for demographic purposes.... Could you please tell me how many people in each of the following age groups live in your household. Let's start oldest to young- est.... 124. First, persons 65 or over? 0......................75% 1......................12% 2 OR MORE..............13% 125. Adults under 65? 0......................19% 1......................18% 2......................55% 3 OR MORE...............8% 126. School-aged children or pre- 0......................70% schoolers? 1......................14% 2......................12% 3 OR MORE...............5% 127. Do you own or rent your present OWN....................59% residence? RENT...................41% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......0% 128. What is your age, please? 18-24...................5% 25-34..................15% 35-44..................19% 45-54..................20% 55-64..................20% 65 AND OVER............21% 129. Which of the following categories WHITE..................70% represents your ethnicity -- AFRICAN-AMERICAN.......15% White, African-American, Hispanic- HISPANIC-LATINO.........6% Latino, Asian-Pacific Islander, ASIAN-PACIFIC ISLANDE...4% Native American, or something NATIVE AMERICAN.........2% else? (IF "SOMETHING ELSE," ASK:) SOMETHING ELSE..........4% What would that be? MIXED/BI-RACIAL.........0% DON'T KNOW..............0% REFUSED.................0% 130. What is the primary language REFUSED.................0% spoken in your home? ENGLISH................94% SPANISH.................3% SCATTERED...............3% 131. Does anyone in this household have YES....................19% a physical limitation that makes NO.....................81% it difficult to access City ser- DON’T KNOW/REFUSED......0% vices? And now, for one final question, keeping in mind that your answers are held strictly confidential.... 132. Is your pre-tax yearly household UNDER $35,000..........19% income over or under $50,000? $35,000-$50,000........25% IF "OVER," ASK: $50,001-$75,000........25% Is it over $75,000? (IF “YES,” $75,000-$100,000.......15% ASK:) Is it over $100,000? OVER $100,000...........4% IF "UNDER," ASK: DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....13% Is it under $35,000? 133. Gender MALE...................49% FEMALE.................51% 134. ZONE PRECINCT 1..............9% PRECINCT 2.............14% PRECINCT 3.............15% PRECINCT 4.............15% PRECINCT 5.............10% PRECINCT 6..............6% PRECINCT 7.............18% PRECINCT 8.............14% I:\RFA\PUBWORKS\2020\Work Session\2-18 Discuss Meadow Lake Management Plan Request for Action February 18, 2020 Approved by: Kirk McDonald, City Manager Originating Department: Public Works By: Megan Hedstrom, Storm Water Specialist; Bernie Weber, Director of Public Works Agenda Title Receive presentation on Meadow Lake Management Plan and discuss funding information Requested Action Staff is recommending Council receive a brief presentation from the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission engineer and discuss the schedule and funding of this project. Policy/Past Practice The city has previously partnered with local watershed organizations for lake projects. Background In the spring of 2019 Shingle Creek Watershed Commission (SCWC) engineers met with the Meadow Lake Watershed Association (MLWA) to discuss the status and health of Meadow Lake, and to see if there was any interest from MWLA in an in-lake management project. The lake association expressed interest in a lake management plan and project, and city staff began discussions with watershed engineers about the potential project. On July 30, 2019 an open house was held to present information regarding the potential project and answer any questions that area residents had. The project was placed on the Shingle Creek CIP for funding to be levied 2021. Project resources, information from the open house, and timeline information can all be found on the city’s website, www.newhopemn.gov/MeadowLakeStudy. SCWC engineer’s applied for a Clean Water Fund grant which would allow the project to begin in 2020. The grant funding was not awarded. A major component of this project is a draw down, which involves 75% of the lake shore landowners agreeing to the project. City and SCWC staff have been working to educate homeowners about the project and the process. Delaying this project to 2021 would potentially lose the momentum that has been gained in this process. In order to begin the project in 2020, the city would need to fund the first year of this project. All funds would be reimbursed in 2021 by SCWC once they levee the County for the project funds. Funding SCWC engineers are currently working to identify a 2020 cost for this project. Originally the SCWC estimated that “Phase 1” costs would be $187,000. Phase 1 includes the first 3 years of the lake management plan, the 2020 cost would only be a portion of this estimate. There is $100,000 available for storm water projects. In 2020 this funding will likely need to be split between a treatment project in the Northwood area and the Meadow Lake area. Agenda Section Work Session Item Number 11.2 Attachments  MLWA Letter to City Council (2-11-20)  Original Open House Notice  Project Summary Meadow Lake In-Lake Treatment Project Open House July 30, 2019 THANK YOU FOR YOUR INTEREST AND PARTICIPATION The City will be holding an open house at 7 P.M. on Tuesday, July 30th at the New Hope Golf Course to discuss a potential project on Meadow Lake. Weather depending, the meeting will be held outside on the pavilion attached to the golf course club house. Representatives from the city, the city engineer and the watershed engineer will be presenting information regarding the potential project and answer any questions residents may have. This potential project is still in the early planning stages. At the moment, based on the currently available data, the watershed engineers believe a winter draw down of Meadow Lake followed by extensive monitoring for at least 2 years, followed by a potential alum or other chemical treatment would achieve the desired effect on the lake ecology. A wildlife management plan will be determined by the DNR prior to any work occurring, and the effects on lake plant habitat will be evaluated by experts who work for the Shingle Creek Watershed Commission engineer. This project would require 75% of lakeshore property owners to agree to a draw down prior to moving forward. If you are unable to attend this meeting, information and meeting materials will be posted on the project website. Please visit www.newhopemn.gov/MeadowLakeStudy to see more information about the potential project, or contact the city’s storm water specialist, Megan Hedstrom, at 763.592.6765 or mhedstrom@newhopemn.gov. MEADOW LAKE MANAGEMENT PLAN SUMMARY The Meadow Lake Management Plan would be comprised of two phases: Phase 1 would be focused on reestablishing a balanced biology by removing the fathead minnow population and limiting recolonization, reducing curly-leaf pondweed to non-nuisance levels, and restoration of a healthy native aquatic vegetation community through a series of temporary drawdowns. Phase 2 is focused on reducing phosphorus loading from the sediments. Annual monitoring would be conducted and would guide adaptive management until the desired outcome – a clear water lake with a healthy biologic community – is achieved. PHASE 1 This phase would be completed over 3-5 years, depending on the lake’s response to the proposed actions. Adaptive management would use a decision-tree approach to determine the most appropriate actions to take based on monitoring results. Year 1 Conduct a fall-winter drawdown to consolidate sediments, eliminate fathead minnows and prevent recolonization, and reduce curly-leaf pondweed growth This phase would span spring 2020 (spring 2021 if the request grant is not awarded and funding cannot be provided by the city) to spring 2021 and has two primary activities: engineering and water quality and biological monitoring. Engineering would focus on 1) designing, permitting, and implementing the fall drawdown, which would be expected to occur in late August to early-September to accommodate migration of wildlife such as turtles and amphibians to a refuge such as the adjacent golf course ponds. with pumps estimated to be in place 2-3 months until freezeover; 2) determining whether it is necessary to connect the lake and golf course ponds; 3) if the connection is to remain, undertake any desired pipe and outfall improvements; and 4) design and install fish barriers on the lake outlet structure and if necessary the outfall from the pond. When conducting the drawdown, the pump must be appropriately sized so that it can remove the runoff from a storm within 24 hours of its occurrence. Meadow Lake is an 11.8 ac lake in a 96.6 ac drainage area. According to the New Hope climate station, 2016 had the largest amount of precipitation in the August-October period of any year since 1990. The greatest amount of precipitation of any of the storms occurring in this period of 2016 was 2.70”. A precipitation event of this size would result in 6.2 ac-ft of runoff to Meadow Lake, which, in order to be drained within 24 hours, requires a pump rate of 1400 GPM. This rate would also allow the full lake volume to be drained in 155 hours. Once the water has been removed from the lake, it would be transported to a storm sewer catch basin on the adjacent street. The water surface elevation of the lake is 893.5’ and the elevation of the street where the basin is located is 912’. The lake also reaches a maximum depth of roughly 4 ft. This will require less than 500 ft of horizontal displacement and 20 ft of static discharge head. The pump will likely be gas-powered, and because the site is located in a residential area, noise-control measures would be required. Year one monitoring would include monthly water quality sampling (TSS, chl-a, SD, and surface and bottom TP and OP) and DO/ temperature profiles, a fish survey, spring and summer aquatic vegetation surveys, and monthly phyto- and zooplankton surveys. Four pre-drawdown sediment cores would be taken and tested for bulk density and loss-onignition (a test for organic content) while an additional core would also be tested for phosphorus fractionation. Years 2-3-4 Evaluate impact of drawdown on fish and aquatic vegetation. Chemical treatment of curly-leaf pondweed and/or fish if necessary. This phase would begin in spring 2021 (or 2022) and includes water quality and biologic monitoring as in year one and fish and aquatic vegetation management as necessary if the drawdown has not eradicated curly-leaf pondweed or the fathead minnows. In year three, spring 2022 (or 2023), if native vegetation response is not satisfactory, a summer drawdown may be completed to encourage additional native plant growth. Four pre-drawdown sediment cores would be taken and tested for bulk density and loss-onignition (a test for organic content) while an additional core would also be tested for phosphorus fractionation. When the desired fish and vegetation response has been achieved (in year 3 or 4), then the Plan will turn to Phase 2. PHASE 2 This phase would be completed over 2-3 years. Treat the lake sediments with alum or other chemical treatment to bind phosphorus in the water column and limit release from the sediments. Years 4-5-6 Apply alum in two doses one or two years apart. Two factors are considered when calculating an alum dose: redox-P concentration and the depth of anoxia. Anoxic depth is defined as the sediment area that is exposed to dissolved oxygen lower than 2 mg/L, which is represents the area that will be treated with alum. The second factor is the depth of sediment that will be treated with alum. DO data indicates that the average anoxic depth in Meadow Lake is approximately 3.4 feet. Since the maximum depth of Meadow Lake is about four feet, the one foot contour was selected as the alum treatment area, or about 9 acres of the lake’s 11 acres. Lab results determined that the 0- 10 cm sediment sample contained 0.140 mg/g redox P, which provides us the total amount of redox-P in the uppermost 10 cm of sediment. Sediment chemistry data indicates that an alum application of approximately 11,180 gallons is required to convert redox-P in the uppermost 10 cm to aluminum bound P. Alum should be applied in two doses. Between the doses, sediment cores will be taken to verify second dose application rates. Monitoring will include water quality sampling as in year one. Monitoring may also include aquatic vegetation and fish and zoo- and phytoplankton surveys as warranted. I:\RFA\P&R\Pool and Civic Center Pk Projects\2020\WS Updates\Feb WS\Q- February Landscaping, Pool and Park Update.docx Request for Action February 18, 2020 Approved by: Kirk McDonald, City Manager Originating Department: Parks & Recreation By: Susan Rader, Director Agenda Title Update on Pool/Civic Center Park/City Hall Landscaping projects by Stantec Engineering (Improvement Project Nos. 995/941/994) Requested Action Staff requests that the City Council receive an update on the pool, Civic Center Park and city hall landscaping construction projects. City engineer, Dan Boyum will be in attendance. The last update was provided at the January 21, 2020 work session. Policy/Past Practice Past policy and practice has been to provide the Council with updates on projects and receive input and feedback. Background The city began discussing plans for the pool, Civic Center Park and city hall landscaping in January 2017 when the City Council approved the new police station/city hall being located on the former pool site. In June 2018, an agreement was approved with Stantec to provide engineering and planning services for the pool, Civic Center Park and city hall landscaping projects. As was recommended, a staff committee and the Mayor worked with the engineers regarding the final design plans for each of these projects. On December 10, 2018, the City Council approved plans and specifications and authorized advertisement for bids. Bids were reviewed with the Council at the March work session and on March 25, 2019 all five contracts were approved:  Demolition of theater, shelter building, hockey rink and city hall  Pool  Park amenities, parking lots and landscaping for the city hall and park  Theater and picnic shelter  Skatepark Update The city engineer is waiting for details on the installation of the safety bollards, monument sign and flagpole lights. Meanwhile, the work remaining for the rest of the city hall landscaping and park items will resume in the spring. We are requesting the contractor on this project provide an update on his schedule for finishing the pool parking lot, trails, and other landscaping items on the city hall and park sites. In the bathhouse, work continues on flooring finishes on the north end by the showers. Site meetings were held with the Hennepin County Health Department to review the concessions area on the south side of the bathhouse. In the mechanical building, work continues on roof steel and getting prepped for the slide deck columns by the end of February. Soffits are complete. A couple of stoops have been poured outside the doors. Agenda Section Work Session Item Number 11.3 Request for Action, Page 2 Interior pool equipment and piping has been installed. Duct work for exhaust pool heaters is installed. Surge tank piping is complete. Electrical will be starting soon to connect pool pump equipment. Also, the contractor is installing the trash gate on the trash enclosure. Concrete placement and additional exterior site improvements will start up again this spring. The contractor will continue on interior work in the bathhouse and mechanical building. In early January, staff submitted the first reimbursement request for the State grant funds. The request was for $1,911,229.81 and payment is expected within the week. The remaining grant amount of $88,770 will be requested later this spring, once additional reporting has been completed. Updates will continue to be provided in the Friday Updates. With the slowdown of work for the winter months, the construction meetings are being held less regularly. Change Orders There are identified change orders that will be coming forward in the next couple of months for formal approval. Many of these items have been previously discussed with Council. Unknown Foundation: When Donlar Construction was working on the soil corrections near the bathhouse, they uncovered unknown foundation along the west side of the current city hall. Since it did not affect their work at the time, it was determined to have it removed as part of the Phase 2 of the demolition contract with Veit. However, due to the location of the old city hall transformer, it was determined to have Donlar remove the foundation. Funding will come from the city hall contingency fund. Donlar change order and extension: Donlar has submitted the following letters and costs:  October 25, 2019 Letter and Costs – The October 25, 2019 information was shared with the Council via an email on November 1, 2019 and discussed at the November 16, 2019 worksession. This information was not an actual claim, but a letter retaining their right to submit a claim. Due to rainfall above average as documented by the contractor and delays due to Xcel Energy’s timeline, the contractor is claiming additional costs for labor, material, and equipment to prepare the site for construction and complete the project work. The contractor’s request also included an extension of the completion date by 30 days to July 3, 2020. The city engineer and construction staff have reviewed the information provided by Donlar and have met with city staff and the city attorney on several occasions.  November 18, 2019 Winter Construction Costs - A meeting was held with Donlar to discuss options to keep construction moving forward at a rate that will meet the original completion date. Following that meeting, Donlar provided the Winter Construction Costs dated November 18, 2019. The October 25 and November 18 information was discussed at the December 2, 2019 special work session and December 16, 2019 worksession. A decision was made to not incur the additional costs.  January 24, 2020 Letter and Costs – The January 24, 2020 Letter and Costs includes several of the items from the October 25, 2019 Letter as well as additional items under the following categories: Rainfall and Delay Costs, Winter Shelter/Inefficiency Costs, CenterPoint Utility Delay, and Extended General Conditions. Donlar provided a detailed schedule and is requesting an extension of the completion date to July 10, 2020. A copy of the information received is attached. The city engineer and Request for Action, Page 3 construction staff have reviewed the information provided by Donlar and met with city staff on February 12, 2020 to discuss. A meeting with Donlar will be held within in the next couple of weeks. Rock: When doing excavation work this fall, Donlar Construction uncovered a large 10’ x 10’ granite rock that is estimated to weigh between 100,000 to 125,000 pounds. Discussions are ongoing on what to do with the rock. The contractor is estimating $2,500-$5,000 to jack hammer the rock and then remove it. Staff’s preference would be to locate it somewhere on site, so options are being considered. Any work would be done on a time and material basis. Framing and Supports for Interior Metal Ceiling Panels – Bathhouse: Restroom's A103, A104, A116, and A117 have sheet metal ceiling panels overhead. The drawings indicate the ceiling height should be installed at 9' in these areas. There is no detail how these ceiling panels should be fastened in these rooms. Duct work is in place so ceiling panels cannot be moved. It was intended that the metal panel ceiling in these rooms would be secured to 4" metal stud framing @ 16" OC secured to the perimeter CMU walls. It is proposed that 1x2 wood strips @ 16" OC will secure the poly and insulation in place with ductwork already in place. Staff is reviewing the supplied pricing. CenterPoint Gas Service: Donlar forwarded a letter on January 8, 2020, discussing delays in getting gas service to the bathhouse and mechanical building. CenterPoint indicated in April 2019 that plans needed to be set up two months before installation. Donlar contacted them in October related to wanting gas service installed in December. Due to the delay, Donlar had to purchase three 1,000 gallon LP tanks. City staff and the city engineer contacted CenterPoint regarding the delay and the installation was completed in January. Donlar included these costs in their January 24, 2020 Letter. Added Area Drain and Storm Structure Modifications: The city engineer is reviewing adding an area drain by the slide area and possible adjustments to a storm sewer structure. Discussions continue if the area drain should be done by Donlar and the structure adjustment by Sunram. More feedback will be given at a future meeting. Thicker Grade Beam at Shade Structure: Six (6) concrete footings were proposed for three (3) shade structures around the north and east side of the 50- meter pool. After further review of the existing soils in this area and during shop drawing review, there were concerns the proposed concrete footings could move and that additional helicals would need to be added. The design team identified that the concrete footings could be eliminated by adjusting the helical layouts, thus avoiding the need for additional helicals, as well as the thickening up the concrete on the grade beams in this area. The costs for the added labor and materials associated with thickening up the grade beam is $671. Additional Engineering Costs: As discussed at previous work sessions, staff and the city engineer have discussed additional engineering services on the projects including restaking for the park/parking lot contractor, coordination with and field staking for Xcel, deck pour analysis, and delay claim/winter construction analysis. Some of these additional services will be reimbursed by contractors (restaking and deck pour analysis), but others need further review with the staff and council as it relates to project contingencies. Engineering staff is also reviewing the effects Request for Action, Page 4 of project delays and completion dates on the engineering budget. The updated schedule from the contractor will help with this review. Also as noted in previous discussions, an addendum still needs to be processed for design and construction administration for the storm water chamber. Funding for that work will come from the Shingle Creek Watershed and the City Storm Water Fund. Soil Correction Additions: At the January work session, the city engineer updated the Council on the overages for soil corrections on the pool project. To date, an additional $157,000 has been spent on removal of poor soils and importing of needed sand. This will be a line item overage instead of a change order. The city engineer expects this amount to increase approximately $100,000 this spring when the outdoor site work continues. Miscellaneous City Hall Costs: The insulation for the heated sidewalks in front of both entrances was inadvertently omitted from the Terra construction documents. This item will be paid with city hall contingency dollars. And as mentioned previously, additional charges may be seen from Sunram for the park amenities, landscaping, and parking lots contract because of their delay at the new city hall site due to restricted access from the city hall contractor. Schedule Many items are on hold until spring. Staff continues with the plan to open the 50-meter pool on June 6, with the remaining areas (shallow water area, current channel, vortex pool and body slides) opening when they are complete. Donlar is currently estimating July 10 for the remaining areas to be complete. Key dates include: February-March Installation of transformers Installation of beams and roofing for the picnic shelter Pool construction continues (bathhouse interior; mechanical building interior) Interviews for seasonal staff Purchasing of miscellaneous pool equipment (guard chairs, lounge chairs, concession equipment, etc.) The City Council will be kept updated on the progress of the projects and after this update, the next update is scheduled for the April work session. Attachments  Donlar 1.24.20 email and attachments Quad E Companies, Inc. 23130 Woodland Ridge Dr Lakeville, MN 55044 612-462-0629 QuadECompanies@gmail.com 1.7.2020 Please see the following request for compensation for work completed at the New Hope Pool in New Hope, MN by Quad E Companies, Inc. Summer/Fall 2019: $82,700 • $19,500 - 6 weeks CAT 336 machine rental due to delays from rain • Extended rental period due to unsuitable site conditions • NOTE - We had up to 5 other pieces of equipment on site that we own that is not being charged • $36,000 - 40 Days @ 3Hrs each @ $100/piece for 3 pieces of equipment to rework site • Wage, fuel, and insurance compensation • 99 work days impacted by work - 25 days without work - 34 days limited work or pumping only = 40 Days • $27,200 - 34 Day @ $100/Hr for 4Hrs/Day for 2 laborer for pumping or limited work • Wage, fuel, and insurance compensation • 34 Days of showing up on site to not be able to work NOTE: This does not include added costs, including but not limited to the below items, incurred by Quad E Companies, Inc due to the history breaking rain accumulation in the 2019 season. These costs are easily hundreds of thousands of dollars. -Overall efﬁciency loss due to site conditions as well as continual starting, stoping, and reworking of project -Added disposal costs due to wet materials -Machine time and costs for reworking of the site -Continuous pumping and working to direct water -Down time for trucks waiting for reworking of site to be completed -Overtime to keep site moving on limited good days Potential Additional Impacts -Cost impacts for Spring 2020 to ﬁnish project due to delays - yet to be realized Enclosures: Original Letter regarding rain impact Daily rain calendar from NOAA data Season Summary of rain data NOAA historical graph Quad E Companies, Inc is an afﬁrmative action, equal opportunity employer Quad E Companies Inc is a certiﬁed DBE/WBE Business, MN Targeted Group Wmn Owned Business (0000950860) & Central Cert Wmn Owned Business (2016-20436449) Quad E Companies, Inc. 23130 Woodland Ridge Dr Lakeville, MN 55044 612-462-0629 QuadECompanies@gmail.com Oct 22, 2019 RE: New Hope City Pool Project Since May 2019, Quad E Companies, Inc has consistently worked towards the necessary deadlines for ﬁnal completion of the New Hope City Pool. When bid, the project timeline, necessary working days, and costs were sufﬁcient to complete the project on-time and within budget in a normal weather year. Due to the excessive amounts of rain that has continued to accumulate, the impacts to the schedule and costs have increasingly been compounding and have reached levels beyond foreseeable conditions. Quad E Companies, Inc has consistently worked overtime and been onsite to support the overall project and the other subcontractors even when others are not there. The constant regrading, rebuilding of access roads, pumping, and overall reworking of the site has been well above and beyond normal site work per the bid and contract. Weather Data gathered from NOAA.gov shows an above average rain fall almost every month in the working season. Quad E Companies, Inc would argue that the rain total was actually higher onsite than reported at the weather station based on the rain gauge that was used to measure precipitation onsite. The excessive volume of rain coupled with the actual number of rain days (non-working) and impacted days (reworking site and/or working in poor working conditions) has greatly impeded Quad E Companies, Inc’s ability to efﬁciently and effectively complete work on-time and within budget. Based on the data and historical knowledge, Quad E Companies, Inc has had double the actual rain days at 22 days (Through Oct 15, 2019) vs a normal year of approx 11 (same time period). In addition, the existing site conditions have been impacted almost every single day of the project even with the smallest rain and has continued to compound and deteriorate as the weather has ceased to improve further impeding work to be produced on-time and within budget. Quad E Companies, Inc requests compensation for partial lost days as well as impacted working days due to rain for rework and lost productivity. The request is extremely conservative based on the work performed and the actual time and costs incurred by Quad E Companies, Inc to keep the project moving forward, added costs for things like disposal of excessively wet materials, and providing access for other contractors to do their work. Compensation Requested: $126,300 Breakout as follows: $48,000 - 12 Rain Days off @ $500/Hr for 8 Hours $100/Hour avg of 5 pieces of equipment lost time NOTE: Equipment Rates average $135-$265/Hr $78,300 - 87 Days impacted by rework @ $300/Hr for 3 Hours $100/Hr avg 3 pieces of equipment reworking NOTE: This does not include down time for trucks or any other considerations for things like excessive pumping or overall site condition impacts to efﬁciencies In addition, reworking access roads, regrading site, dewatering for other contractors, and overall work in unfavorable conditions due to the compounding weather and deteriorating site condition cannot continue without compensation. Quad E Companies, Inc is requesting a proactive conversation with consent for compensation, on an as needed basis, as agreed to between Donlar, the Owner, and Quad E Companies, Inc to continue supporting the site for work impacted by weather. Quad E Companies, Inc will continue to partner and support this project to its fullest extents, however, cannot continue to bear the ﬁnancial burden of the continued rework of in scope and out of scope for work being complete outside the contract. Quad E Companies, Inc Thanks Donlar and the City of New Hope for the continued partnership and understanding of the impacts due to the weather and looks forward to completing this project in the Spring of 2020. Respectfully, Elizabeth Ennenga CEO Quad E Companies, Inc Enclosures: Calendar with daily recap of rain from May 2019 - Oct 2019 Summary of Data Ma y 2 0 1 9 Su n d a y M o n d a y T u e s d a y W e d n e s d a y T h u r s d a y F r i d a y S a t u r d a y 1 - R a i n .0 2 2 - R a i n .0 3 3 - R a i n .0 6 4 5 6 7 8 - R a i n 1. 7 2 9 - R a i n .1 1 10 11 - Rain .05 12 Mo t h e r ’ s D a y 13 14 R a i n T 15 - R a i n .2 0 16 - R a i n .3 4 17 - 18 - Rain .77 19 - Ra i n .6 6 20 R a i n T 21 - R a i n .5 8 22 - R a i n .9 4 23 24 - R a i n .1 1 25 26 27 - R a i n 1. 8 2 Me m o r i a l D a y 28 2 9 3 0 31 - R a i n .1 8 MO N T H TT L : 7 . 5 9 20 1 9 C a l e n d a r T e m p l a t e © c a l e n d a r l a b s . c o m Ju n e 2 0 1 9 Su n d a y M o n d a y T u e s d a y W e d n e s d a y T h u r s d a y F r i d a y S a t u r d a y 1 - Rain .04 2 3 4 - R a i n .4 1 5 6 7 8 9 Ra i n T 10 11 - R a i n .0 9 12 - R a i n .1 0 13 1 4 15 - Rain .04 16 Fa t h e r ’ s D a y 17 R a i n T 18 1 9 20 - R a i n .2 7 21 22 Rain T 23 - Ra i n .4 2 24 - R a i n .5 1 25 - R a i n .0 2 26 27 - R a i n .4 0 28 29 30 - Ra i n .4 1 MO N T H TT L : 2 . 7 1 20 1 9 C a l e n d a r T e m p l a t e © c a l e n d a r l a b s . c o m Ju l y 2 0 1 9 Su n d a y M o n d a y T u e s d a y W e d n e s d a y T h u r s d a y F r i d a y S a t u r d a y 1 - R a i n 1. 1 8 2 - R a i n .2 5 3 4 - R a i n .2 0 In d e p e n d e n c e Da y 5 - R a i n .1 4 6 Rain T 7 8 9 - R a i n .4 7 10 - R a i n .0 2 11 1 2 13 14 15 - R a i n 2. 4 8 16 - R a i n .1 0 17 1 8 1 9 20 - Rain .59 21 22 2 3 2 4 2 5 26 - R a i n .1 0 27 28 - Ra i n .6 5 29 3 0 3 1 MO N T H TT L : 6 . 1 8 20 1 9 C a l e n d a r T e m p l a t e © c a l e n d a r l a b s . c o m Au g us t 2 0 1 9 Su n d a y M o n d a y T u e s d a y W e d n e s d a y T h u r s d a y F r i d a y S a t u r d a y 1 2 3 4 5 - R a i n .6 8 6 7 8 9 10 - Rain .72 11 12 13 - R a i n .9 4 14 1 5 16 - R a i n .4 1 17 18 - Ra i n 2. 0 19 20 - R a i n .6 8 21 2 2 2 3 24 25 - Ra i n .0 6 26 - R a i n .9 9 27 R a i n T 28 R a i n T 29 3 0 31 MO N T H TT L : 6 . 4 8 20 1 9 C a l e n d a r T e m p l a t e © c a l e n d a r l a b s . c o m Se p te m b e r 2 0 1 9 Su n d a y M o n d a y T u e s d a y W e d n e s d a y T h u r s d a y F r i d a y S a t u r d a y 1 - Ra i n .0 6 2 - R a i n .0 9 La b o r D a y 3 - R a i n .4 7 4 5 6 7 8 - Ra i n .1 8 9 - R a i n .2 4 10 11 - R a i n .9 8 12 - R a i n 1. 2 6 13 - R a i n .0 2 14 15 16 1 7 18 - R a i n .1 9 19 2 0 21 - Rain .25 22 - Ra i n .0 1 23 2 4 2 5 2 6 27 - R a i n .0 1 28 29 - Ra i n .4 6 30 - R a i n .1 7 MO N T H TT L : 4 . 3 9 20 1 9 C a l e n d a r T e m p l a t e © c a l e n d a r l a b s . c o m Oc t o b e r 2 0 1 9 Su n d a y M o n d a y T u e s d a y W e d n e s d a y T h u r s d a y F r i d a y S a t u r d a y 1 - R a i n 1. 2 5 2 - R a i n .4 2 3 - R a i n .1 5 4 5 - Rain 1.06 6 7 8 9 10 - R a i n .5 1 11 - R a i n .3 0 12 - Rain/Snow .25 13 Ra i n .0 2 14 Co l u m b u s D a y 15 R a i n .3 6 16 1 7 1 8 19 - Rain 20 21 - R a i n 22 - R a i n 2 3 2 4 2 5 26 27 28 2 9 3 0 3 1 Ha l l o w e e n Th r u 1 0 / 1 5 TT L : 4 . 2 2 20 1 9 C a l e n d a r T e m p l a t e © c a l e n d a r l a b s . c o m Ne w H o p e R a i n D a t a TO T A L M a y J u n e J u l y A u g u s t S e p t O c t o b e r O c t N o t e s To t a l R a i n a c c u m u l a t i o n ( i n ) * 30 . 6 7 . 5 9 2 . 7 1 6 . 1 8 6 . 4 8 4 . 3 9 3 . 2 5 10/1-10/15 w/o snow mix Av g 1 0 y r s ( i n ) * 22 . 5 4 4 . 5 4 . 4 3 4 . 3 3 3 . 8 6 2 . 9 4 2 . 4 8 TTL for Oct # o f R a i n D a y s p e r m o n t h * 79 1 8 1 4 1 2 1 0 1 4 1 1 Through 10/15/19 # o f W o r k D a y s p e r m o n t h 11 9 2 3 2 0 2 3 2 2 2 0 1 1 Through 10/15/19 # o f W o r k D a y R a i n D a y s 54 1 5 8 9 7 8 7 Through 10/15/19 # o f D a y n o t a b l e t o w o r k * * 21 . 5 2 1 6 . 5 6 3 3 Through 10/15/19 # o f D a y s i m p a c t e d b y r a i n * * * 95 2 0 1 5 2 0 1 7 1 2 1 1 Through 10/15/19 # o f D a y w i t h o u t r a i n r e l a t e d a c t i v i t i e s * * * * 24 3 5 3 5 8 0 Through 10/15/19 * D a t a r e p o r t e d b y N O A A ** S c h e d u l e d w o r k i n g d a y s w h e r e w e a t h e r w a s t o o b a d t o b e o n s i t e s t o o b a d t o b e o n s i t e ** * E i t h e r d i r e c t r a i n d a y s o r d a y s i m p a c t e d b y t h e r a i n a n d t h e r e f o r e c a u s i n g r e w o r k o r u n f a v o r a b l e c o n d i t i o n s t he r a i n a n d t t he r e f o r e c a u s i n g r e w o r k o r u n n fa v o r a b l e c o n d d it i o n s ** * * E i t h e r d a y s t h a t I d i d n o t h a v e s p e c i ﬁ c n o t e s a b o u t w o r k i n g c o n d i t i o n s o r w e r e n o t d i r e c t l y a f t e r a r a i n d a y e s a b o u t w o r k k in g c o n d i t i o n s s o r w e r e n o t d i r e e ct l y a f t e r a r a a in d a y 1 Ma y 2 0 1 9 Su n d a y M o n d a y T u e s d a y W e d n e s d a y T h u r s d a y F r i d a y S a t u r d a y 1 - R a i n 2 - R a i n 3 - R a i n 4 5 6 7 8 - R a i n 9 - R a i n Pu m p a n d wo r k g r a d e s 9. 5 h r s 2 g u y s 5 pi e c e s o f 10 Du g o u t s l o p fr o m r a i n 1 2 h r 4 gu y s 5 p i e c e s o f eq u i p m e n t 11 - Rain 12 Mo t h e r ’ s D a y 13 1 4 ( T ) R a i n 1 5 - R a i n 1 6 - R a i n 17 - R a i n Ha u l e d i n e x t r a ro c k d u e t o h o w we t s i t e w a s 18 - Rain 19 - R a i n 20 ( T ) R a i n Ha u l e d i n e x t r a ro c k d u e t o h o w we t s i t e w a s f o r de w a t e r i n g 21 - R a i n Pu m p i n g o u t o f 50 M p o o l 22 - R a i n No w o r k 23 Pu m p i n g w a t e r - li m i t e d o t h e r wo r k 24 - R a i n Pu m p i n g w a t e r - li m i t e d o t h e r wo r k 25 26 27 - R a i n Me m o r i a l D a y 28 No w o r k 29 Pu m p i n g o u t o f 50 M - n o o t h e r wo r k 30 Pu m p i n g o u t o f 50 M - L i m i t e d ot h e r w o r k 31 - R a i n 20 1 9 C a l e n d a r T e m p l a t e © c a l e n d a r l a b s . c o m Ju n e 2 0 1 9 Su n d a y M o n d a y T u e s d a y W e d n e s d a y T h u r s d a y F r i d a y S a t u r d a y 1 - Rain 2 3 4 - R a i n Pu m p i n g - c o u l d no t f i n i s h d u e t o we t c o n d i t i o n s 5 Pu m p i n g - cl e a r e d o u t mu c k - e x t r a sa n d a n d r o c k i n 6 cl e a r e d o u t mu c k 7 8 9 ( T ) R a i n 10 1 1 - R a i n 1 2 - R a i n 1 3 1 4 15 - Rain 16 Fa t h e r ’ s D a y 17 ( T ) R a i n 1 8 1 9 2 0 - R a i n No w o r k 21 22 (T) Rain 23 - R a i n 24 - R a i n No w o r k 25 - R a i n Li m i t e d W o r k 26 Li m i t e d W o r k 27 - R a i n Li m i t e d W o r k 28 Li m i t e d W o r k 29 30 - R a i n 20 1 9 C a l e n d a r T e m p l a t e © c a l e n d a r l a b s . c o m Ju l y 2 0 1 9 Su n d a y M o n d a y T u e s d a y W e d n e s d a y T h u r s d a y F r i d a y S a t u r d a y 1 - R a i n No w o r k 2 - R a i n No w o r k 3 Re w o r k 5 0 M Po o l - L i m i t e d Wo r k 4 - R a i n In d e p e n d e n c e Da y 5 - R a i n No w o r k 6 (T) Rain 7 8 No w o r k 9 - R a i n 1/ 2 d a y 10 - R a i n Re w o r k 5 0 M Po o l - L i m i t e d Wo r k 11 Re w o r k 5 0 M Po o l - L i m i t e d Wo r k 12 13 14 15 - R a i n 1 6 - R a i n Pu m p a n d d i g su m p h o l e s 17 Pu m p o n l y 18 1 9 20 - Rain 21 22 Ha u l e d i n s a n d to g e t o u t o f wa t e r 23 Li m i t e d W o r k 24 Li m i t e d W o r k 25 Re w o r k e d 5 0 M po o l - 26 - R a i n No w o r k 27 28 - R a i n 29 Re w o r k e d 5 0 M po o l 30 Re w o r k e d 5 0 M po o l 31 No w o r k 20 1 9 C a l e n d a r T e m p l a t e © c a l e n d a r l a b s . c o m Au g us t 2 0 1 9 Su n d a y M o n d a y T u e s d a y W e d n e s d a y T h u r s d a y F r i d a y S a t u r d a y 1 No w o r k 2 No w o r k 3 4 5 - R a i n No w o r k 6 Pu m p a n d b u i l d ne w r o a d 78 9 10 - Rain 11 12 1 3 - R a i n In s t a l l e d t r e n c h bo x 14 No w o r k 15 Dr a i n e d l o t Li m i t e d w o r k 16 - R a i n No w o r k 17 18 - R a i n 19 No w o r k 20 - R a i n Re b u i l t d r i v e w a y Li m i t e d W o r k 21 Re g r a d e d l o t 22 2 3 Re g r a d e d l o t 24 25 - R a i n 26 - R a i n Go t r a i n e d o u t mi d d a y 27 ( T ) R a i n Re b u i l t d r i v e w a y Li m i t e d W o r k 28 ( T ) R a i n 2 9 3 0 31 20 1 9 C a l e n d a r T e m p l a t e © c a l e n d a r l a b s . c o m Se p te m b e r 2 0 1 9 Su n d a y M o n d a y T u e s d a y W e d n e s d a y T h u r s d a y F r i d a y S a t u r d a y 1 - R a i n 2 - R a i n La b o r D a y 3 - R a i n Pu m p o n l y 4 Fi x w e t a r e a s 56 7 8 - R a i n 9 - R a i n 1 0 1 1 - R a i n No w o r k 12 - R a i n No w o r k 13 - R a i n No w o r k 14 15 16 1 7 1 8 - R a i n 1 9 2 0 21 - Rain 22 - R a i n 23 2 4 2 5 2 6 2 7 - R a i n 28 29 - R a i n 30 - R a i n 20 1 9 C a l e n d a r T e m p l a t e © c a l e n d a r l a b s . c o m Oc t o b e r 2 0 1 9 Su n d a y M o n d a y T u e s d a y W e d n e s d a y T h u r s d a y F r i d a y S a t u r d a y 1 - R a i n No w o r k 2 - R a i n No w o r k 3 - R a i n No w o r k 4 5 - Rain 6 R a i n ( T ) 7 8 9 R a i n ( T ) 1 0 - R a i n 1 1 - R a i n 12 - Rain/Snow 13 R a i n ( T ) 14 Co l u m b u s D a y 15 R a i n 1 6 1 7 1 8 19 - Rain 20 21 - R a i n No w o r k 22 - R a i n No w o r k 23 2 4 2 5 26 27 28 2 9 3 0 3 1 Ha l l o w e e n 20 1 9 C a l e n d a r T e m p l a t e © c a l e n d a r l a b s . c o m I:\RFA\PUBWORKS\2020\Work Session\2-18 2020 Public Works Construction Projects Update Request for Action February 18, 2020 Approved by: Kirk McDonald, City Manager Originating Department: Public Works By: Bernie Weber, Director Agenda Title Update regarding 2020 construction projects Requested Action Staff would like to update Council on the 2018 Crack Fill and Seal Coat Project (Improvement Project No. 1017), the signal replacement at Boone and 42nd Avenue (Improvement Project No. 1029), and the 2020 Infrastructure Improvement Project (Improvement Project Nos. 1034, 1035, and 1044). Background The majority of work on the 2018 Crack Fill and Seal Coat project was completed in 2018 as planned. In late fall of 2018 staff began to notice some material failure on Boone Avenue, and determined that retainage needed to be held over the winter so the contractor was motivated to return and fix the issues. Retainage is still held on this project. The replacement of the signal at Boone and 42nd avenues has been in the planning stages in 2019. Originally this project was to be constructed in 2019, but due to the time it took the county to complete the review on the signal justification information sent by city engineers, the project was delayed until 2020. Staff have been working with the county to determine the type of new system installed, and to determine the best method for the city to be reimbursed by the county for applicable costs. The 2020 Infrastructure Improvement Project has been in the planning stages throughout 2019. If approved, construction is anticipated to begin in spring of 2020. Council approved the plans and specifications for this project at the February 10, 2020 Council Meeting. Staff wants to discuss a potential temporary access during construction for the properties on Northwood Parkway with the Council. Attachments:  2020 Construction Projects Update Presentation Agenda Section Work Session Item Number 11.4 Ci t y o f N e w H o p e Pr o j e c t U p d a t e Ci t y C o u n c i l W o r k S e s s i o n Fe b r u a r y 1 8 , 2 0 2 0 20 1 8 C r a c k F i l l a n d S e a l C o a t 2 3 Ph o t o t a k e n i n Se p t e m b e r o f 2 0 1 8 Ma t e r i a l w a s a l r e a d y st r i p p i n g i m m e d i a t e l y af t e r t h e f o g s e a l pr o d u c t w a s a p p l i e d 4 Ph o t o t a k e n i n l a t e O c t o b e r o f 2 0 1 8 Co n t r a c t o r r e t u r n e d t o c r a c k f i l l t h e d a m a g e d ar e a s Sh o r t l y a f t e r r e p a i r s w e r e m a d e , p r o d u c t w a s al r e a d y s t r i p p i n g 5 Ph o t o t a k e n i n A u g u s t o f 2 0 1 9 Co n t r a c t o r r e t u r n e d o n c e i n t h e s p r i n g o f 20 1 9 , a n d o n c e i n e a r l y S e p t e m b e r t o c r a c k fi l l t h e d a m a g e d a r e a s Sh o r t l y a f t e r r e p a i r s w e r e m a d e , p r o d u c t w a s al r e a d y s t r i p p i n g a g a i n . 6 Ph o t o t a k e n i n F e b r u a r y o f 2 0 2 0 Co n t r a c t o r h a s r e t u r n e d 3 t i m e s t o m a k e r e p a i r s $1 4 , 0 0 0 c u r r e n t l y b e i n g h e l d i n r e t a i n a g e St a f f p l a n t o r e p a i r t h e i s s u e i n h o u s e t h i s S p r i n g an d a n y c o s t i n c u r r e d w i l l b e p a i d f r o m r e t a i n a g e . *P h o t o o f B o o n e w i l l b e ta k e n t o m o r r o w a n d i n s e r t e d he r e . T h e r o a d i s r e a l l y w e t to d a y a n d d i d n ’ t ph o t o g r a p h w e l l . 42 n d a n d B o o n e S i g n a l L i g h t R e p l a c e m e n t 7 Si g n a l R e p l a c e m e n t a t i n t e r s e c t i o n o f Bo o n e a n d 4 2 nd 50 / 5 0 c o s t s h a r e p r o j e c t b e t w e e n t h e c i t y an d H e n n e p i n C o u n t y Si g n a l s n e e d t o b e u p g r a d e d p r i o r t o 1 6 9 br i d g e r e p l a c e m e n t Si g n a l s , p o s t s , w i r i n g a n d c a b i n e t a l l n e e d to b e r e p l a c e d 8 Hy d r a n t w a s r e l o c a t e d t h i s s u m m e r t o m a k e ro o m f o r t h e n e w s i g n a l s A r o u n d a b o u t i n t h i s l o c a t i o n w a s b r i e f l y di s c u s s e d , b u t t h e r e i s n o t e n o u g h r i g h t - o f - w a y wi t h o u t s i g n i f i c a n t a c q u i s i t i o n Fl a s h i n g y e l l o w a r r o w s c a n b e a d d e d t o t h e Ea s t b o u n d a n d W e s t b o u n d s i g n a l l i g h t s Pr o t e c t e d l e f t t u r n p h a s e a n d f l a s h i n g y e l l o w ar r o w s c a n b e a d d e d t o t h e N o r t h b o u n d a n d So u t h b o u n d s i g n a l l i g h t s 20 2 0 I n f r a s t r u c t u r e I m p r o v e m e n t s 9 Fu l l R e c o n s t r u c t - B a s e B i d Mi l l & O v e r l a y , R e c l a i m & Ov e r l a y – B a s e B i d Mi l l & O v e r l a y , R e c l a i m & O v e r l a y – A l t e r n a t e 1 Pr o j e c t L o c a t i o n – A l t e r n a t e 2 - 4 10 Pa r k i n g L o t t o Z e a l a n d – Alternate 3Civic Center Trails –Alternate 4 Er i c k s o n D r i v e S i d e w a l k – Al t e r n a t e 2 Te m p o r a r y R o a d f o r 3 6 ½ C i r c l e A c c e s s 11 Ci v i c C e n t e r S t o r m I m p r o v e m e n t s 12 Co u n c i l a p p r o v e d t h i s pr o j e c t a s a c h a n g e o r d e r to t h e “ g r e e n ” c i v i c c e n t e r pr o j e c t . Or i g i n a l c o s t e s t i m a t e d a t $1 0 8 , 0 0 0 . S h i n g l e C r e e k Wa t e r s h e d C o m m i s s i o n ag r e e t o c o s t - s h a r e p r o j e c t up t o $ 5 0 , 0 0 0 . Cu r r e n t p r o j e c t c o s t a t ~$ 9 5 , 0 0 0 . S t a f f w o r k i n g wi t h S h i n g l e C r e e k t o re c e i v e r e i m b u r s e m e n t a t Ma r c h C o m m i s s i o n M e e t i n g . I:\RFA\COMM DEV\2020\Work Sessions\Tobacco Use Prevention\Tobacco Use Prevention - WS.docx Request for Action February 18, 2020 Approved by: Kirk McDonald, City Manager Originating Department: Community Development By: Brandon Bell, Community Development Assistant & Kirk McDonald, City Manager Agenda Title Discuss Potential Changes to Tobacco Regulations Requested Action At the December 2019 work session staff presented options that the Council had regarding potential changes to New Hope’s tobacco ordinances. Staff recommended that these options be presented to the Citizen Advisory Commission (CAC) at a public input meeting and that they make recommendations to the City Council regarding what steps they think should be taken next. The topic was presented at the February 2020 CAC meeting and staff would like to discuss the results of that meeting and the CAC’s recommendations with Council. Policy/Past Practice It is the past practice of the city to provide regulations to govern general and various activities and situations which actually or may occur or exist in the city, and which will or may affect the general welfare and safety of residents of the city; with the intention of promoting and protecting the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the city. Background At the February 2020 CAC meeting, staff and Gretchen Garman from Hennepin County Public Health presented the options the city had regarding tobacco use prevention ordinances and the reasoning behind some them. Ms. Garman and staff then took questions from the CAC and the meeting was opened to public input. Four members from the public spoke at the hearing: three were owners of gas stations that sold tobacco, and one was a resident. The resident stated they would like to see the city adopt measures similar to Golden Valley. The tobacco license holders stated that they are fully supportive of any across the board state or federal regulations and greatly appreciate attempts at trying to keep nicotine and tobacco out of the hands of the city’s youth. However, they are worried that any dramatic changes to the city’s tobacco ordinances, mostly any ban on menthol, mint and wintergreen; would be extremely harmful to their businesses as their customers would simply drive a few blocks (or in one case across the street) to a different city that does not have a total ban on tobacco flavors. The five CAC members present gave some differing recommendations on what changes they felt could be made to the city’s tobacco ordinances, but there were three options that were almost unanimously agreed upon: 1. Ban all flavored tobacco products from being sold in the city except for menthol, mint and wintergreen. 2. Set a cap on the number of tobacco licenses sold in the city. 3. Raise the age of those legally allowed to sell tobacco products to 18. Agenda Section Work Session Item Number 11.5 Request for Action, Page 2 The fourth most popular option, but was not echoed with a majority, was banning the sales of tobacco products in pharmacies. All three of the majority recommended options were also received well by the three tobacco license holders that attended the CAC meeting. Approving these options would be fairly similar to the actions that Robbinsdale took, although all flavored tobacco pro ducts are allowed in adult only tobacco stores. One of the issues that was not discussed very much by the CAC last night that Council might want to look at a little further, is the elimination of possession, use and purchase laws (PUP). With the increase in the legal age to 21, public health groups highly encourage eliminating PUP laws because they would be potentially penalizing people that were of legal age to purchase and are now addicted to tobacco; but are no longer of the legal age to purchase these products do to the new regulations. Recommendation Staff agrees with the Citizen Advisory Commission’s recommendations that were made by a majority, and would also recommend that the Council pursue changing the current tobacco ordinance to reflect the new federal regulations as well. This would include raising the age for a person that can be sold tobacco products, from 18 years of age to 21 years of age; and a ban on all flavored cartridge-based e-cigarettes except for menthol and tobacco flavors. Staff would also recommend making some of the changes advised by the Mitchell Hamline Public Health Law Center that would update some of the verbiage in the current code that would mostly be adding definitions such as “electronic delivery device” to bring the city’s tobacco ordinance more up to date. Lastly, staff would recommend that Council consider the removal of the city’s PUP laws. Staff recommends that the City Council direct staff on how to proceed with the issue of tobacco prevention ordinances and have the City Attorney make the appropriate changes which could be brought forward to a future Council meeting for approval. Attachment  Mitchell Hamline Public Health Law Center Ordinance Assessment  List of 2019 Tobacco Licenses  City of Robbinsdale Tobacco Ordinance November 16, 2019 Brandon Bell Community Development Assistant City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Ave N. New Hope, MN 55428 (763) 531-5114 bbell@newhopemn.gov RE: New Hope Tobacco Retail Ordinance Analysis Dear Brandon: Thank you for reaching out to the Public Health Law Center for an assessment of the New Hope licensing code. First, I must note that the Public Health Law Center does not lobby, nor does it provide legal representation or advice. Based on our experiences with retail licensing and sales restrictions, we are able to provide our observations and other educational information for your own evaluation of these issues. This information is for educational purposes only; we do not request that a policymaker take any specific action in regard to our comments, nor should our comments be considered a replacement for legal advice. If you or the City of New Hope require a legal opinion, we encourage you to consult with local legal counsel. I have reviewed New Hope’s current tobacco code language (Tobacco Ordinance – Section 8-7). Below, please find a summary of my key findings from New Hope’s tobacco licensing regulations, along with a list of amendments the City may be interested in making in the interest of aligning with federal and state law, protecting the public’s health, protecting youth and young adults, and reducing health disparities. The regulations were compared to licensing laws from other jurisdictions in Minnesota and across the U.S. The City of New Hope’s Retail Tobacco Regulations Minnesota municipalities have the authority to license retailers and regulate the sale of tobacco and related devices and products within their jurisdictions. Regulating tobacco retailers through licensing is considered a best practice. While New Hope’s tobacco licensing code is quite stark compared to other licensing municipalities, it contains some good commercial tobacco control practices. They include:  The sale of commercial tobacco products is prohibited by means of vending machines and unattended self-service methods, with the exception of machines and self-service displays in adult-only tobacco retail shops.  License holders are responsible for the conduct of their employees on the licensed premises; employee violations are considered acts of the licensee for penalty purposes. Despite these strengths, there is much room for improvement. There are elements that could be clarified, strengthened, or added, including the following: Clarity & Readability o For clarity, the City might consider including a “Findings and Purpose Section,” which supplies the evidentiary basis for the proposed commercial tobacco control policies and demonstrates the City’s reasoning for adopting specific provisions. This Purpose and Findings section reflects language appropriate for all of the provisions included in the Ordinance. The Public Health Law Center can provide support for communities to determine which Findings and Purpose statements and references should be retained in a final ordinance, depending on which provisions the City chooses to adopt. o The City might also consider including a “Definitions” section (alphabetically ordered), with definitions for the key terms employed in the Ordinance. The City does not define any terms in its currently published Ordinance. A strong definitions section helps make all terms used throughout the Ordinance clear and unambiguous. This increases the likelihood of compliance, helps with enforcement, and reduces the likelihood of successful litigation if any portion of the Ordinance were challenged. In addition to a comprehensive definition for “tobacco” which takes into account new and emerging tobacco products, the City could consider including, at a minimum, the following definitions: 1) “Electronic delivery devices”; 2) “Nicotine or lobelia delivery products;” 3) “Licensed Product” – which is a catch-all term that encompasses all the products covered by the licensing regulation, and can be employed throughout the Ordinance in lieu of enumerating all the products; 4) “Child-Resistant Packaging”; 5) “Loosies;” 6) “Tobacco-related device”; 7)”Vending machine”; 8) “Self-service display.” Additional terms may also be defined depending on which tobacco control provisions the City choses to adopt. For example, the City would need a definition for “Flavored Product” if it decides to adopt a sales prohibition or restriction on flavored tobacco products. Note that state law, as discussed below, requires local licensure for “electronic delivery devices” and “nicotine or lobelia delivery products.” These products are not explicitly covered by the City’s current Ordinance. They could be explicitly covered and included in any definitions section. The Public Health Law Center can assist in supplying sample language for all the terms that should be included in the definitions section. Align with minimum standards in state and federal law o Minnesota law requires a local license to sell:  “Electronic delivery devices” (EDD)– a broad term used to describe what are more commonly referred to as “e-cigarettes” (e.g., Juul). These products (whether they contain nicotine or not) are subject to the same sales regulations that apply to more conventional tobacco products and tobacco-related devices, like cigarettes, cigars, and pipes. The regulation of these products are even more important as they are increasingly popular among youth. The current City code does not require a license to sell EDDs.  Nicotine or lobelia delivery products”– a broad “catch-all” term that covers other “non- tobacco” or “non-electronic delivery device” products that contain nicotine and/or lobelia. These products are also subject to the same licensing and sales regulations and really should be specifically addressed in the licensing Ordinance. The current Ordinance does not require a license for nicotine or lobelia delivery products. o State and federal law requires that any liquids sold for use in an electronic delivery device must be in child-resistant packaging. This requirement–as well as guidance to retailers on how they will demonstrate compliance—could be incorporated as well. A definition of child-resistant packaging would also be needed if this is adopted, such as: Child-resistant packaging. Packaging that meets the definition set forth in Code of Federal Regulations, title 16, section 1700.15(b), as in effect on January 1, 2015, and was tested in accordance with the method described in Code of Federal Regulations, title 16, section 1700.20, as in effect on January 1, 2015. o State and federal law prohibits the distribution of most free samples. Local jurisdictions can prohibit the distribution of all free or nominally priced samples. For more information on the policy options for addressing tobacco product sampling, see our publication: “Policy Options to Address Tobacco Product Samples and Sampling.” o State law prohibits licensure of moveable places of business, like kiosks. New Hope’s current Ordinance does not include that as a disqualification of licensure. Effective Administration and Enforcement o The City may consider adding provisions detailing the application, approval/denial, and appeal process for licensure. Also, the City does not dictate how long the license term is. As it currently stands, licensure could be indefinite after just one application and payment of the licensing fee. This is an important piece of consideration. Typically, local licenses in Minnesota are valid for one year from the date of issuance. This ensures that local governments are aware of all tobacco retailers in their jurisdiction, receive revenue through licensing fees to administer and enforce the local licensing regulations, and have an opportunity to connect with retailers about new regulations. o Minnesota law requires at least one youth access compliance check per retailer each year. The City of New Hope sets a minimum number of compliance checks each year based on state requirements(one), but allows for more. A city can require multiple checks, as well as re- inspections after violations. Performing additional compliance checks per year can help promote better compliance with youth access laws. Costs for additional-mandated compliance checks can be incorporated into the license fee, with the costs absorbed by the license holders themselves. Our publication, Compliance and Local Enforcement Programs, supplies additional information on this issue. o Some municipalities require retailers to train their employees on youth access laws and other licensing requirements. The City of New Hope could require training as a preventive measure for all licensees and/or as a consequence for underage and other illegal sales and violations. o Increase the minimum retail clerk age to the minimum legal sales age (18). For more information on this policy option, see our publication: Raising the Age to Sell Tobacco: Establishing a Minimum Clerk Age.” o Compliance and enforcement of the ordinance could be clarified and strengthened if language was included to set requirements for age verification and for signage. The ordinance may be amended with language such as:  Age verification. Licensees must verify by means of government-issued photographic identification that the purchaser is at least 21 years of age. Verification is not required for a person over the age of 30. That the person appeared to be 30 years of age or older does not constitute a defense to a violation of this subsection.  Signage. Notice of the legal sales age and age verification requirement must be posted at each location where licensed products are offered for sale. The required signage, which will be provided to the licensee by the city, must be posted in a manner that is clearly visible to anyone who is or is considering making a purchase. Fees & Penalties o The current license fee for the City of New Hope, based on the city’s fee schedule is $250.00. Fees should be periodically reviewed to ensure they cover all administration, implementation and enforcement costs, including compliance checks. Fees that do not reflect actual costs should be adjusted. For more information on licensing fees, our publication, Retail License Fees, includes information about retail licensing fees and a license fee checklist. o The City of New Hope’s licensing code penalizes persons under age 18 who attempt to purchase tobacco products. Possession, use and purchase (PUP) laws may be unlikely to reduce youth smoking significantly. They may undermine other conventional avenues of youth discipline, divert attention from more effective tobacco control strategies, and relieve the tobacco industry of responsibility for its marketing practices. Some communities are concerned that PUP provisions may be enforced inconsistently with respect to youth from certain racial and ethnic groups, resulting in their introduction into the criminal justice system. Nicotine is more addictive than heroin and other drugs. Many public health groups suggest focusing instead on the retailer, especially since this is a licensing code. Should the City of New Hope seek to increase its legal sales age to 21 (i.e. a “T21” policy), there is an even stronger case for these arguments, as 18-20-year-olds who were previously able to legally purchase tobacco products and are likely now addicted may continue to attempt to purchase these products in the retail setting. For these reasons, the City of New Hope may consider removing this provision/language which establishes penalties for underage violators of the tobacco licensing ordinances. Removal of this provision puts responsibility on the licensee, seller, or provider of the covered products. Alternatively, the City could assess only alternative penalties (e.g., education, community service) for underage PUP, although still not a best public health practice. o The Ordinance allows for misdemeanor prosecution for all violations of the law. For the reasons outlined above regarding PUP provisions, the City may consider limiting the use of criminal penalties, particularly for underage persons. o The current ordinance establishes an incremental administrative fine and suspension period structure for violations by retailers and employees. The City could strengthen this section by raising the penalty amount and extending the suspension period. Strong consequences, like high administrative fines against violating licensees and shorter timeframes for violations can help promote compliance. Establishing longer suspension terms, providing suspensions for first or second violations, and incorporating mandatory licensing revocations into the penalty structure can help encourage voluntary compliance and provide stronger tools to address repeat violators. While the current ordinance has a flexible administrative civil penalties structure, it could be further strengthened to ensure sufficient monetary penalties against violating retailers, especially repeat offenders. Our publication on Violations and Penalties discusses some of these policy issues. Additional Licensing Options Through licensing regulations, Minnesota cities and counties also have the opportunity to: o Raise the minimum legal sales age to 21. For more information on T21 policy, our Point-of-Sale Policy Toolkit includes a Tobacco 21 Ordinance Checklist, which addresses the various considerations that should be taken into account when drafting a T21 ordinance. o Restrict or prohibit the sale of flavored tobacco products (this includes the sale of the menthol flavor). For more information on this policy, see our publication: “Regulating Flavored Tobacco Products.” For some examples of jurisdictions that have adopted this policy, including Minnesota jurisdictions such as Mendota Heights, Duluth, Lilydale and Arden Hills, see our publication: U.S. Sales Restrictions on Flavored Tobacco Products.” o Prohibit the sales of imitation tobacco products. Imitation tobacco products, such as candy cigarettes and smokeless chew, may lead youth to use commercial tobacco by desensitizing them to the dangers of tobacco and by advancing the idea that commercial tobacco use is socially acceptable. o Reduce or restrict the number, location, density, and types of retailers. A high prevalence of tobacco retailers is associated with increased use of tobacco; and a higher concentration of tobacco retailers in low income neighborhoods or around schools has negative consequences for public health. Retail outlets are also a source of exposure to tobacco marketing, which is designed to encourage initiation and use. These changes may be accomplished through the licensing code or the zoning code. For more information on this policy option, see our publications: “Regulating the Location, Density, and Type of Tobacco Retailers;” and “Location, Location, Location: Tobacco & E-cig Point of Sale..” o Increase product costs through non-tax approaches (such as prohibiting coupon redemption or other price discounting). Our publication, “Coupons and Other Price Discounting Policy Options” discusses this policy option. o Prohibit the sale of cigars unless packaged with a minimum number of cigars and/or sold for a minimum price (as a package and individually). Federal law prohibits the sale of individual cigarettes, but the City may also ban the sale of “loosies” as we define them— single or individually packaged cigars or any other licensed product that has been removed from its intended retail packaging (e.g., Juul pods) and offered for sale. Local governments can prohibit the sale of these products unless the price of the cigar is at or above a certain price. Pricing is an incredibly effective tool for tobacco use reduction and has been shown to reduce youth tobacco use initiation. The line between cheap products that appeal to children and the more expensive cigars that are intended for this exception is an important consideration. For more information on this policy, see our publication: “Setting a Minimum Price and Package Size for Cigars.” o Prohibit pharmacies from selling tobacco products. As pharmacies are considered health supporting institutions, it is inconsistent for them to sell tobacco products. Our publication, “Prohibiting Pharmacy Sales of Tobacco Products,” discusses this policy option. o Prohibit the indoor use of licensed products for the purpose of sampling to protect patrons and employees from the health harms of secondhand and thirdhand smoke exposure. See our publication “Policy Options to Address Tobacco Product Samples and Sampling” for more information on product sampling and the policy considerations. o Prohibit the transfer of a license to another person or location. For more information on the procedural considerations involved when adopting or amending a retail tobacco licensing ordinance, see our publication: Retail Tobacco Licensing Ordinances: Procedural Requirements.” The City of New Hope may choose to adopt all or any of these policies, which the PHLC considers to be the best practice for public health. The City of New Hope may also consider: o Adding, as discussed, a “Purpose and Intent” section, and expanding it if any new policy is adopted to support that policy. o Adding a definitions section and updating it to support any new policies adopted. o Adding a severability clause. An ordinance with a severability clause protects and upholds other components of the law if a successful legal challenge prevails against any part of the law. I hope this is helpful. I would be happy to provide sample language for any policy change discussed in this memo. Please let us know if we can assist you further. Sincerely, Julie O. Amajuoyi Staff Attorney Public Health Law Center Desk: 651-695-7697 Julie.Amajuoyi@mitchellhamline.edu Re p o r t N a m e : B u s i n e s s S e a r c h Printed: 10/22/2019 Page: 1 Bu s i n e s s S e a r c h Ci t y o f N e w H o p e Ad d r e s s Complex Li c e n s e # ID Council Li c e n s e T y p e Co m p a n y St a t u s Is s u e d Ex p i r e s DB A Ta p d a E n t e r p r i s e s To b a c c o Pr o d u c t s 12/10/2018 00 0 1 2 4 0 1 94 0 0 4 9 t h A v e N New Hope Fuel & Wash 14 9 A 1 2 / 1 1 / 2 0 1 8 1 2 / 3 1 / 2 0 1 9 Ne w H o p e F u e l & W a s h (S h e l l ) Wa l g r e e n C o m p a n y To b a c c o Pr o d u c t s 12/10/2018 00 0 1 2 4 1 5 42 0 0 W i n n e t k a A v e N Walgreens #05882 15 4 A 1 2 / 1 1 / 2 0 1 8 1 2 / 3 1 / 2 0 1 9 Wa l g r e e n s # 0 5 8 8 2 Ja d e I n c To b a c c o Pr o d u c t s 12/10/2018 00 0 1 2 4 0 2 79 0 0 B a s s L a k e R d Winnetka Shell 17 7 A 1 2 / 1 1 / 2 0 1 8 1 2 / 3 1 / 2 0 1 9 Wi n n e t k a S h e l l No r t h e r n T i e r R e t a i l L L C To b a c c o Pr o d u c t s 12/10/2018 00 0 1 2 4 0 3 61 4 4 W e s t B r o a d w a y Speedway #4375 19 1 A 1 2 / 1 1 / 2 0 1 8 1 2 / 3 1 / 2 0 1 9 Sp e e d w a y # 4 3 7 5 Br o o k l y n C e n t e r S e r v i c e , I n c . To b a c c o Pr o d u c t s 12/10/2018 00 0 1 2 4 0 4 94 0 0 3 6 t h A v e N Brooklyn Center Service 21 7 A 1 2 / 1 1 / 2 0 1 8 1 2 / 3 1 / 2 0 1 9 Br o o k l y n C e n t e r S e r v i c e (S u p e r A m e r i c a ) Ne d d a T o b a c c o To b a c c o Pr o d u c t s 12/10/2018 00 0 1 2 4 0 5 27 6 7 W i n n e t k a A v e N New Hope Smoke Shop 82 3 A 1 2 / 1 1 / 2 0 1 8 1 2 / 3 1 / 2 0 1 9 Ne w H o p e S m o k e S h o p AM R I T L L C To b a c c o Pr o d u c t s 12/10/2018 00 0 1 2 3 8 1 79 1 0 B a s s L a k e R d New Hope Liquor 12 7 5 A 1 2 / 1 1 / 2 0 1 8 1 2 / 3 1 / 2 0 1 9 Ne w H o p e L i q u o r JB K E n t e r p r i s e s To b a c c o Pr o d u c t s 12/10/2018 00 0 1 2 4 0 7 78 0 0 2 7 t h A v e N New Hope BP 18 4 7 A 1 2 / 1 1 / 2 0 1 8 1 2 / 3 1 / 2 0 1 9 Bi g B ' s B P BC D H O L D I N G S L L C To b a c c o Pr o d u c t s 12/10/2018 00 0 1 2 4 1 0 71 8 0 4 2 n d A v e N Holiday Stationstore #3586 18 9 5 A 1 2 / 1 1 / 2 0 1 8 1 2 / 3 1 / 2 0 1 9 Ho l i d a y S t a t i o n s t o r e # 3 5 8 6 Ho l i d a y S t a t i o n s t o r e s , L L C To b a c c o Pr o d u c t s 12/10/2018 00 0 1 2 4 1 8 94 5 6 2 7 t h A v e N Holiday Stationstores, Inc. 19 6 2 A 1 2 / 1 1 / 2 0 1 8 1 2 / 3 1 / 2 0 1 9 Ho l i d a y S t a t i o n s t o r e LM Q H o l d i n g s L L C To b a c c o Pr o d u c t s 12/10/2018 00 0 1 2 4 1 2 71 4 1 4 2 n d A v e N V i k i n g L i q u o r W i n e & Tobacco 19 6 6 A 1 2 / 1 1 / 2 0 1 8 1 2 / 3 1 / 2 0 1 9 Vi k i n g L i q u o r W i n e & To b a c c o M & M G r o c e r y C o r p o r a t i o n To b a c c o Pr o d u c t s 12/10/2018 00 0 1 2 4 2 2 79 1 4 B a s s L a k e R d LaPicante Market & Meat 20 6 8 A 1 2 / 1 1 / 2 0 1 8 1 2 / 3 1 / 2 0 1 9 La P i c a n t e M a r k e t & M e a t Fa m i l y D o l l a r I n c To b a c c o Pr o d u c t s 12/10/2018 00 0 1 2 4 2 3 27 3 3 W i n n e t k a A v e N Family Dollar #27676 21 3 0 A 1 2 / 1 1 / 2 0 1 8 1 2 / 3 1 / 2 0 1 9 Fa m i l y D o l l a r # 2 7 6 7 6 / 29 3 0 6 Fa m i l y D o l l a r I n c To b a c c o Pr o d u c t s 12/10/2018 00 0 1 2 4 2 8 80 0 1 B a s s L a k e R d Family Dollar #29306 21 3 0 A 1 2 / 1 1 / 2 0 1 8 1 2 / 3 1 / 2 0 1 9 Fa m i l y D o l l a r # 2 7 6 7 6 / 29 3 0 6 E- C I G V A P E L O U N G E L L P To b a c c o Pr o d u c t s 12/10/2018 00 0 1 2 4 2 7 94 3 0 3 6 t h A v e N E-Cig Vape Lounge 22 0 6 A 1 2 / 1 1 / 2 0 1 8 1 2 / 3 1 / 2 0 1 9 E- C i g V a p e L o u n g e Hy - V e e , I n c . To b a c c o Pr o d u c t s 12/10/2018 00 0 1 2 4 3 5 83 0 0 4 2 n d A v e N Hy-Vee Gas 23 9 1 A 1 2 / 1 1 / 2 0 1 8 1 2 / 3 1 / 2 0 1 9 Hy - V e e Hy - V e e , I n c . To b a c c o Pr o d u c t s 12/10/2018 00 0 1 2 4 3 6 82 0 2 4 2 n d A v e N Hy-Vee Wine & Spirits 23 9 1 A 1 2 / 1 1 / 2 0 1 8 1 2 / 3 1 / 2 0 1 9 Hy - V e e Hy - V e e , I n c . To b a c c o Pr o d u c t s 12/10/2018 00 0 1 2 4 3 7 82 0 0 4 2 n d A v e N Hy-Vee Grocery 23 9 1 A 1 2 / 1 1 / 2 0 1 8 1 2 / 3 1 / 2 0 1 9 Hy - V e e Ne w H o p e P u m p & M u n c h To b a c c o Pr o d u c t s 12/10/2018 00 0 1 2 4 5 6 35 3 5 W i n n e t k a A v e N New Hope Pump & Munch 24 8 7 A 1 2 / 1 1 / 2 0 1 8 1 2 / 3 1 / 2 0 1 9 Ne w H o p e P u m p & M u n c h 72 0 1 B a s s L a k e I N C To b a c c o Pr o d u c t s 12/10/2018 00 0 1 2 7 4 7 72 0 1 B a s s L a k e R d Now Mart 25 8 2 A 1 2 / 1 1 / 2 0 1 8 1 2 / 3 1 / 2 0 1 9 No w M a r t GN S E n t e r p r i s e , L L C To b a c c o Pr o d u c t s 04/08/2019 00 0 1 2 7 6 9 35 4 4 W i n n e t k a A v e N Winnetka Liquor 25 9 6 A 0 4 / 1 1 / 2 0 1 9 1 2 / 3 1 / 2 0 1 9 Wi n n e t k a L i q u o r Robbinsdale City Code 1132.01 (Rev. 2019) Section 1132 - Tobacco and Related Products (Added, Ord. No. 96-08) 1132.01. Definitions. Where used in this section, the following terms have the following meanings: (a) “Child-resistant packaging” means packaging that meets the definition set forth in Code of Federal Regulations, title 16, section 1700.15(b), as in effect on January 1, 2015, and was tested in accordance with the method described in Code of Federal Regulations, title 16, section 1700.20, as in effect on January 1, 2015. (Added, Ord. No. 17-14) (b) “Cigar” means any roll of tobacco that is wrapped in tobacco leaf or in any other substance containing tobacco, with or without a tip or mouthpiece, which is not a cigarette as defined in Minnesota Statutes, section 297F.01, subdivision 3, as may be amended from time to time. (Added, Ord. No. 17-14) (c) “Compliance checks” means the system the city uses to investigate and ensure that those authorized to sell licensed products are following and complying with the requirements of this section. Compliance checks involve the use of persons under the age of 21 who purchase or attempt to purchase licensed products. Compliance checks may also be conducted by the city or other units of government for educational, research, or training purposes or for investigating or enforcing federal, state, or local laws and regulations relating to licensed products. (Added, Ord. No. 17-14; Amended, Ord. No. 19-03) (d) “Electronic delivery device” means any product containing or delivering nicotine, lobelia, or any other substance, whether natural or synthetic, intended for human consumption through the inhalation of aerosol or vapor from the product. Electronic delivery device includes, but is not limited to, devices manufactured, marketed, or sold as e-cigarettes, e- cigars, e-pipes, vape pens, mods, tank systems, or under any other product name or descriptor. Electronic delivery device includes any component part of a product, whether or not marketed or sold separately. Electronic delivery device does not include any product that has been approved or certified by the United States Food and Drug Administration for sale as a tobacco-cessation product, as a tobacco-dependence product, or for other medical purposes, and is marketed and sold for such an approved purpose. (Added, Ord. No. 17-14; Amended Ord. No. 19-03) (e) “Flavored product” means any licensed product that contains a taste or aroma, other than the taste or aroma of tobacco, menthol, mint or wintergreen, that is distinguishable by an ordinary consumer either prior to or during consumption of the licensed product, including, but not limited to, tastes or aromas of chocolate, vanilla, honey, cocoa, or any candy, dessert, alcoholic beverage, fruit, herb, or any spice. A public statement or claim made or disseminated by the manufacturer of a licensed product, or by any person authorized or permitted by the manufacturer to make or disseminate such statements or claims concerning such products, that a product has or produces a taste or aroma other than tobacco may be one of the methods used to determine that the product is a flavored tobacco product and creates a rebuttable presumption that the product is a flavored product. (Added, Ord. No. 17-14; Amended Ord. No. 19-03) Robbinsdale City Code 1132.01(f) (Rev. 2019) (f) “Licensed products” collectively refers to any tobacco product, tobacco-related device, electronic delivery device, or nicotine or lobelia delivery product. (Added, Ord. No. 17- 14) (g) “Movable place of business” means any form of business operated out of a kiosk, truck, van, automobile, or other type of vehicle or transportable shelter and not a fixed address store front or other permanent type of structure authorized for sales transactions. (Added, Ord. No. 17-14) (h) “Nicotine or lobelia delivery product” means any product containing or delivering nicotine or lobelia intended for human consumption, or any part of such a product, that is not tobacco or an electronic delivery device as defined in this section. Nicotine or lobelia delivery product does not include any product that has been approved or otherwise certified for legal sale by the United States Food and Drug Administration for tobacco use cessation or for other medical purposes, and is being marketed and sold solely for that approved purpose. (Amended, Ord. No. 17-14) (i) “Retail establishment” means any place of business where licensed products are available for sale to the general public. The phrase includes but is not limited to grocery stores, tobacco products shops, convenience stores, gasoline service stations, bars, and restaurants. (Added, Ord. No. 19-03) (j) “Self-service merchandising” means a method of displaying licensed products so that they are accessible to the public without the intervention of an employee. (Amended, Ord. No. 17-14) (k) “Tobacco dealer” means a retail establishment that has a tobacco department or section of an individual business establishment where smokeless tobacco, hookah, loose tobacco, cigarettes and/or cigars are available for sale over the counter. (Added, Ord. No. 19-11) (l) “Tobacco product” means any product containing, made, or derived from tobacco that is intended for human consumption, whether chewed, smoked, absorbed, dissolved, inhaled, snorted, sniffed, or ingested by any other means, or any component, part, or accessory of a tobacco product, including, but not limited to cigarettes, cigars, cheroots, stogies, perique, granulated, plug-cut, crimp-out, ready-rubbed, and other smoking tobacco; snuff, snuff flower, cavendish, plug and twist tobacco; fine cut or other chewing tobaccos; shorts, refuse scraps, clippings, cuttings, and sweepings of tobacco; and other kinds and forms of tobacco. Tobacco product does not include any product that has been approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration for sale as a tobacco- cessation product, as a tobacco-dependence product, or for other medical purposes, and is being marketed and sold solely for such an approved purpose. (Amended, Ord. No. 98- 07; Amended, Ord. No. 17-14) Robbinsdale City Code 1132.01(m) (Rev. 2019) (m) “Tobacco products shop” means a retail establishment that (1) Prohibits persons under 21 from entering at all times; (2) Derives at least 90 percent of its gross revenues from the sale of licensed products; and (3) Meets all of the following building or structural criteria: (i) Shares no wall with, and has no part of its structure adjoined to any other business or retailer, unless the wall is permanent, completely opaque, and without doors, windows, or pass-throughs to the other business or retailer; (ii) Shares no wall with and has no part of its structure directly adjoined to another licensed tobacco retailer; and (iii) Is accessible by the public only by an exterior door. (Added, Ord. 19-11) (n) “Tobacco-related device” means any pipe, rolling papers, wraps, or other device intentionally designed or intended to be used with tobacco products. Tobacco-related device includes components of tobacco-related devices which may be marketed or sold separately. Tobacco-related devices may or may not contain tobacco. (Added, Ord. No. 17-14; Amended Ord. No. 19-03) (o) “Vending machine” means any mechanical, electrical or electronic, or other type of device which, upon inserting money, tokens or any other form of payment, dispenses licensed products. (Amended, Ord. No. 98-07; Amended, Ord. No. 17-14). 1132.03. License required/limitation on number of licenses. No person shall directly, by coin machine, or otherwise, keep for retail sale, sell at retail, or otherwise furnish, any licensed products at any place in the city unless they have obtained a license therefore as provided herein. (Amended, Ord. No. 13-08; Amended, Ord. No. 17-14; Amended, Ord. No. 19-11) The total number of Tobacco Products Shop licenses issued by the city shall be limited to two (2). The total number of Tobacco Dealer licenses shall be limited to eleven (11). Establishments or locations holding licenses on the effective date of this ordinance shall not be affected by these limitations subject to conditions under which a license would be revoked. (Added, Ord. No. 19-11) 1132.05. Application and issuance. Application for such license shall be made to the city clerk and shall state the full name and address of the applicant, the location of the building to be occupied by the applicant in the conduct of the business, the kind of business to be conducted, and such other information as the city clerk may require. The application shall be presented to the city council for its consideration, and if granted by the council, a license will be issued by the city clerk upon payment of the required fee. Robbinsdale City Code 1132.06 (Rev. 2019) 1132.06. Basis for denial of license. (Added, Ord. No. 17-14) (a) Grounds for denying the issuance or renewal of a license include, but are not limited to, the following: (Added, Ord. No. 17-14) (1) The applicant is under 21 years of age. (Added, Ord. No. 17-14) (2) The applicant has been convicted within the past five years of any violation of a federal, state, or local law, ordinance provision, or other regulation relating to licensed products. (Added, Ord. No. 17-14) (3) The applicant has had a license to sell licensed products suspended or revoked within the preceding 12 months of the date of application. (Added, Ord. No. 17- 14) (4) The applicant fails to provide any information required on the application, or provides false or misleading information. (Added, Ord. No. 17-14) (5) The applicant is prohibited by federal, state, or other local law, ordinance, or other regulation from holding a license. (Added, Ord. No. 17-14) (6) Applicant is acting as an agent or pass through for another person or entity whose prior acts violated subsections (a) 1, 2, 3, or 4 above or who is otherwise prohibited from holding a license under any applicable rule or law. (Added, Ord. No. 17-14) (b) However, except as may otherwise be provided by law, the existence of any particular ground for denial does not mean that the city must deny the license. (c) If a license is mistakenly issued or renewed to a person, it may be revoked upon the discovery that the person was ineligible for the license under this ordinance. Notice of the revocation will be given to the person along with information on the right to appeal. 1132.07. License fee. The fee for a license is set by Appendix B. 1132.09. Term. The issuance of license is a privilege and does not entitle the holder to an automatic renewal of the license. Licenses expire annually on December 31. Licenses are not transferable. License renewal is subject to the license provisions described in section 1005 Licensing Procedures. (Amended, Ord. No. 02-05; Amended Ord. No. 17-14) 1132.11. License displayed. The license must be kept conspicuously posted on the premises for which the license is issued and must be exhibited to any person upon request. 1132.13. Location. (Amended, Ord. No. 17-14; Amended, Ord. No. 19-11)) (a) A license will not be issued to a movable place of business. Only fixed location businesses are eligible to be licensed and separate licenses are required for each location. Robbinsdale City Code 1132.13(b) (Revised 2019) (b) Zoning: Tobacco Products Shops must be located in a B4 Community Business Zoning District. Tobacco Dealers must be located in B3 Highway Commercial or B4 Community Business Zoning Districts. (Added, Ord. 19-11) (c) Proximity to other tobacco products shops. No license shall be granted to any person for a tobacco products shop that is within one half mile of any other tobacco products shop, as measured by the shortest distance measured from front entrance to front entrance along normal pedestrian routes along sidewalks and streets. This restriction does not apply to an applicant who has been licensed to sell licensed products in the same location for at least one year before the date this section was enacted into law. (Added, Ord. 19-11) 1132.15. Prohibited acts. (a) In general. No person shall sell or offer to sell any licensed product: (1) Containing opium, morphine, jimson weed, bella donna, strychnia, cocaine, marijuana, or any other controlled substance or deleterious or poisonous drug, except nicotine. (Amended, Ord. No. 17-14) (2) By means of any type of vending machine. (Amended, Ord. No. 17-14) (3) By means of any type of self-service merchandising whereby the customer may have access to those items without having to request the item from the licensee or licensees employee and whereby there is not a physical exchange of the licensed product between the licensee or licensee’s employee and the customer. All licensed products must be stored behind the sales counter or other area not freely accessible to customers, or in a case or other storage unit not left open and accessible to the general public. Any retailer selling licensed products at the time this subsection is adopted must comply with this subsection within 90 days of its effective date. (Added, Ord. No. 17-14) (4) By any other means, to any other person, or in any other manner or form prohibited by federal, state, or other local law, ordinance provision, or other regulation. (Added, Ord. No. 17-14) (b) Legal age. No person shall sell any licensed product to any person under the age of 21. (Added, Ord. No. 17-14; Amended Ord. No. 19-03) (1) Age verification. Licensees must verify by means of proof of age described in Minnesota Statues, section 340A.503, subdivision 6, paragraph (a) that the purchaser is at least 21 years of age. That the person appeared to be 30 years of age or older does not constitute a defense to a violation of this ordinance. (Added, Ord. No. 17-14; Amended Ord. No. 19-03) Robbinsdale City Code 1132.15(b)(2) (Revised 2019) (2) Signage. Notice of the legal sales age and age verification requirement must be posted prominently and in plain view at all times at each location where licensed products are offered for sale. The required signage, which will be provided to the licensee by the city, must be posted in a manner that is clearly visible to anyone who is or is considering making a purchase. (Added, Ord. No. 17-14; Amended, Ord. No. 19-03) (c) Flavored products. No person shall sell or offer for sale any flavored products. This restriction does not apply to Tobacco Products Shops. (Amended, Ord. No. 19-03; Amended, Ord. No. 19-11) Any retailer that sells flavored products must provide to the city, upon request, such financial records that document annual total sales and sales of licensed products. (Added, Ord. No. 17-14; Amended, Ord. No. 19-11) (d) Electronic Delivery Device Sales. No person shall sell or offer for sale any electronic delivery device or e-liquid to any person unless the sale is on the premises of Tobacco Products Shops. (Added, Ord. No. 19-03; Amended, Ord. No. 19—11) Any retailer that sells electronic delivery products must provide to the city, upon request, such financial records that document annual total sales and sales of licensed products. (Added, Ord. No. 19-03) (e) Cigars. No person shall sell, offer for sale, or otherwise distribute cigars in original packages containing three or fewer cigars for a sale price, after any coupons, multipack or buy-one-get-one promotions, or any other discounts are applied prior to applicable sales taxes being imposed of less than $2.60 per cigar contained within. In addition, no person shall sell, offer for sale or otherwise distribute cigars in original packages of four or more cigars for a sale price, after any coupons, multipack or buy-one-get-one promotions, or any other discounts are applied prior to applicable sales taxes being imposed, of less than $10.40 per package. (Added, Ord. No. 17-14) (f) Liquid packaging. No person shall sell or offer for sale any liquid, whether or not such liquid contains nicotine, which is intended for human consumption and use in an electronic delivery device, that is not contained in child-resistant packaging. Upon request, a licensee must provide a copy of the certificate of compliance or full laboratory testing report for the packing used. (Added, Ord. No. 17-14) (g) Responsibility. All licensees are responsible for the actions of their employees in regard to the sale, offer to sell, and furnishing of licensed products on the licensed premises. The sale, offer to sell, or furnishing of any licensed product by an employee shall be considered an act of the licensee. Nothing in this section shall be construed as prohibiting the city from also subjecting the employee to any civil penalties that the city deems to be appropriate under this ordinance, state or federal law, or other applicable law or regulation. (Added, Ord. No. 19-03) Robbinsdale City Code 1132.17 (Rev. 2019) 1132.17. Other illegal acts. (Amended, Ord. No. 17-14) (a) Illegal procurement. It shall be a violation of this section for any person 21 years of age or older to purchase or otherwise obtain licensed products on behalf of a person under the age of 21. (Amended, Ord. No. 13-08; Amended Ord. No. 17-14; Amended Ord. No. 19-03) (b) Use of false identification. It shall be a violation of this section for any person to attempt to disguise their true age by the use of a false form of identification, whether the identification is that of another person or one on which the age of the person has been modified or tampered with to represent an age older than the actual age of the person. (Amended Ord. No. 19-03) 1132.19. Violations. (a) Misdemeanors. Any person aged 21 years or older, who violates this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. (Amended Ord. No. 19-03) (b) Administrative civil penalties; individuals. Any person, other than individuals regulated by paragraph (c) of this subsection, found to be in violation of this section is subject to an administrative penalty. No penalty shall be imposed until the individual has received notice, served personally or by mail, of the alleged violation and an opportunity for a hearing before the city manager or the city manager’s designee. Notice is deemed received when sent to last known address. A decision that a violation has occurred shall be in writing. The city council may impose administrative penalties as follows: (Amended, Ord. No. 17-14) First violation: The city council may impose a civil fine of not less than $50 nor more than $500. Second violation within 12 months: The city council may impose a civil fine of not less than $50 nor more than $750. Third violation within 12 months: The city council may impose a civil fine of not less than $50 nor more than $1,000. (Amended, Ord. No. 98-07, Amended, Ord. No. 13-08) (c) Persons under the age of 21. Persons under 21 years of age who use false identification to purchase or attempt to purchase licensed products may be subject to tobacco-related education classes, diversion programs, community services, or another penalty that the city believes will be appropriate and effective. The city council will consult with the courts, educators, parents, addicted youth, and other interested parties to determine an appropriate penalty for underage violations. The penalty may be established by resolution and amended from time to time. (Added, Ord. No. 17-14; Amended Ord. No. 19-03) Robbinsdale City Code 1132.19(d) (Rev. 2019) (d) Administrative civil penalties; licensee. If a licensee or an employee of a licensee is found to have violated this section, the licensee shall be subject to an administrative penalty as follows: (Amended, Ord. No. 17-14) First violation: The city council shall impose a civil fine of not less than $75 nor more than $500. The licensee’s license may also be suspended for a period of not more than ten days. Second violation within 24 months: The city council shall impose a civil fine of not less than $200 nor more than $750. The licensee’s license shall also be suspended for a period of not more than 20 days. Third violation within 24 months: The city council shall impose a civil fine of not less than $250 nor more than $1,000. The licensee’s license shall also be suspended for a period of not less than seven nor more than 30 days. No suspension or penalty shall take effect until the licensee has received notice, served personally or by mail, of the alleged violation and an opportunity for a hearing before the city manager or the city manager’s designee. A decision that a violation has occurred shall be in writing. (Amended, Ord. No. 98-07, Ord. No. 13-08) (e) Defense. It is a defense to an alleged violation of this section, that the licensee or individual reasonably and in good faith relied upon representation of proof of age as shown on one of the acceptable forms of identification as described in Minnesota Statutes, section 340A.503, subdivision 6, paragraph(a). (Amended, Ord. No. 13-08; Amended Ord. No. 17-14) (f) Compliance Checks. All licensed premises must be open to inspection by law enforcement or other authorized city officials during regular business hours. From time to time, but at least twice per year, the city will conduct compliance checks. In accordance with state law, the city will conduct at least one compliance check that involves the participation of a person between the ages of 15 and 17 and at least one compliance check that involves the participation of a person between the ages of 18 and 20 to enter licensed premises to attempt to purchase licensed products. Prior written consent from a parent or guardian is required for any person under the age of 18 to participate in a compliance check. Persons used for the purpose of compliance checks will be supervised by law enforcement or other designated personnel. (Amended Ord. No. 13-08; Amended Ord. No. 17-14; Deleted and replaced, Ord. No. 19-03) (g) Revocation. A license may be revoked or suspended by the city council for a violation of the provisions of this subsection after notice and hearing. 1132.21 Severability. If any subsection or provision of this section is held invalid, such invalidity will not affect other subsections or provisions that can be given force and effect without the invalidated subsection or provision. (Added, Ord. No. 17-14) I:\RFA\COMM DEV\2020\Work Sessions\Scattered Site Housing\WS - Affordable Scattered Site Housing 02-18-20.docx Request for Action February 18, 2020 Approved by: Kirk McDonald, City Manager Originating Department: Community Development By: Jeff Alger, Community Development Specialist; Jeff Sargent, Director of Community Development Agenda Title Discuss affordable scattered site housing projects Requested Action The public hearing regarding the allocation of the 2020 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds will be held at the February 24 City Council meeting. Staff requests that the City Council conduct a discussion on affordable scattered site housing projects and the use of the CDBG funds prior to that meeting. At the November 12, 2019, City Council meeting, Councilmember Frazier requested that the city broaden its scattered site housing program to include affordable housing projects for first time homebuyers. Policy/Past Practice Since the scattered site housing program was reinstituted in 2014, the city has focused on removing deteriorated homes and increasing property values through new construction. Staff has been directed to target distressed single-family properties throughout the city, with the goal of improving residential neighborhoods. It is understood that potential losses are incurred on each project, as the cost to acquire and redevelop distressed properties often exceeds the value of the new or rehabilitated home. Prior to 2014, the city coordinated on a variety of housing projects that included both affordable and market-rate housing, and the city has partnered in the past with organizations such as Habitat for Humanity and Homes Within Reach. Background Since 2014, the city has coordinated the rehabilitation of two single-family homes and the construction of 20 new single-family homes on 16 lots (four were large enough to be split) through the scattered site housing program. With demolition and rebuild projects, a Request For Proposals is sent to several builders. Staff evaluates the proposals based on various criteria and makes a recommendation to the Economic Development Authority (EDA). The criteria includes purchase price, projected sale price, style of home, finished square footage, number of bedrooms, bathrooms, and garage stalls, façade, and interior finishes. Builders have been instructed that the city desires the largest possible home with the nice st possible finishes in order drive the sale price as high as possible. Recently completed projects include 3856 Maryland Avenue North, which sold for $414,000, and 5201 Oregon Avenue North, which is listed for sale at $407,000. In regards to rehabilitation projects, if it is determined that a home can be salvaged and does not need to be demolished, the c ity has focused on attempting to break even while making significant improvements to the homes. At the November 12, 2019, City Council meeting, CM Frazier requested that the city broaden its scattered site housing program to include affordable housing projects for first time homebuyers. As a result, staff met with representatives from Habitat For Humanity and Homes Within Reach in January of 2020. The city has worked with both organizations in the past on affordable scattered site housing projects, most re cently in 2012. The city manager’s goal for 2020 relating to scattered site housing states, “Continue with a variety of scattered site housing projects, with a goal of six acquisitions/new construction or rehabilitations per year, and consider affordable housing partnerships.” Opportunities to collaborate with both Habitat For Humanity and Homes Agenda Section Work Session Item Number 11.6 Request for Action, Page 2 Within Reach exist; however, staff is requesting that the City Council provide direction on the future and goals of the scattered site housing program before exploring specific opportunities. Habitat For Humanity Habitat for Humanity is a global nonprofit housing organization working in local communities across all 50 states in the United States and in approximately 70 countries. They work in communities to help build or improve homes and advocate for affordable housing. Habitat For Humanity homeowners help build their own homes alongside volunteers and pay an affordable mortgage. A family selection committee selects homeowners based on the applicant’s level of need, their willingness to partner with the organization, and their ability to repay a mortgage through an affordable payment plan. Homes Within Reach Homes Within reach is a non-profit, community-based organization that creates and preserves affordable homeownership opportunities for working households in suburban Hennepin County. Since 2002, Homes Within Reach has helped over 164 workforce families earning less than 80% Area Median Income (AMI) become homeowners by acquiring, remodeling and selling properties through a Community Land Trust practice (CLT) that allows qualified clients to purchase a home and lease the land at a nominal fee and reduces mortgage, down payment, and closing costs. Affordable Housing Units & Housing Performance Score A large percentage of New Hope’s housing stock is currently considered “affordable,” although that number has decreased in recent years. According to the Metropolitan Council, the percentage of affordable units (30%- 80% AMI) available in the city has decreased from 92% in 2015 (as reported in 2017) to 75% in 2017 (as reported in 2019). Affordable Housing in New Hope – 2015 Incomes at or Below: Number of Units % of Total New Hope Housing Units 30% of AMI 630 7% 31-50% of AMI 1,674 18% 51-80% of AMI 6,113 67% Total Affordable Units 8,417 92% Total New Hope Units 9,129 Source: Metropolitan Council Existing Housing Assessment, New Hope, 2015; published in 2017 https://www.newhopemn.gov/UserFiles/Servers/Server_9826625/File/New%20Hope%202040%20Comp%20Plan%20June%202 9%202018.pdf Affordable Housing in New Hope – 2017 Incomes at or Below: Number of Units % of Total New Hope Housing Units 30% of AMI 598 6% 31-50% of AMI 1,404 15% 51-80% of AMI 4,870 53% Total Affordable Units 6,872 75% Total New Hope Units 9,203 Source: Metropolitan Council Existing Housing Assessment, New Hope, 2017; published in 2019 https://metrocouncil.org/Housing/Planning/Affordable-Housing-Measures.aspx Request for Action, Page 3 The city’s “Housing Performance Score,” as assigned by Metropolitan Council, increased from 80 in 2016 to 86 in 2018 (maximum score is 100). The scoring system assesses and recognizes local efforts in developing and maintaining housing affordable to low- and moderate-income households through a variety of programs and services. The score is based on a community’s activities in the following categories:  New affordable or mixed-income housing completed in the last ten years.  Preservation projects completed in the last seven years and/or substantial rehabilitation projects completed in the last three years.  Housing policies and ordinances.  Characteristics of the existing housing stock. The score affects a city’s competitiveness for regionally allocated federal transportation funding and funding through Livable Communities Grant programs. It is based on information collected through Metropolitan Council’s Affordable Housing Production Survey. In comparison to the 116 other cities included in the assessment, New Hope’s score was higher than 85 other cities, lower than 27 other cities, and tied with four other cities. Community Development Block Grant Funds The city will be receiving $91,000 in Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds to be utilized between July 1, 2020, and June 30, 2021. The funds can be used for Habitat For Humanity and Homes Within Reach projects, including acquisition, rehabilitation, and in some cases, demolition. Owners of the new and/or rehabilitated homes would need to adhere to income restrictions specific to the program(s), equating to 60% of the AMI levels. The city has a couple of options to use the CDBG funds for 2020. The two areas the city has historically dedicated the funds towards include the single-family housing rehabilitation program and the scattered site housing program. The home rehab program enables income-qualified residents to request loans to make needed improvements to their homes. The scattered site housing program funds would have to be used towards acquisition/rehabilitation, where the home would be sold to an income-qualified individual or family. The city could pursue this option on its own, or help support outside organizations such as Habitat for Humanity or Homes Within Reach. Hennepin County staff recently informed the city that the city has approximately $61,000 that it still needs to allocate from the 2019 CDBG funding cycle. In 2019, the city allocated $30,000 towards the single-family housing rehabilitation program, however that money was quickly used up, and there are still 11 people on the waiting list in need of these resources. In 2019, no money was allocated towards the scattered site housing Program, since Hennepin County indicated that funds may no longer be used for acquisition/demolit ion of structures. For 2020, the city can disperse the CDBG funds in a couple ways. First, the city could allocate the total $91,000 towards the single-family housing rehabilitation program, along with the $61,000 left over from 2019. This would fund the program with $152,000, which would most likely be able to help all 11 people on the waiting list. Second, the city could divide the funds between the housing rehab and scattered site housing programs. Staff is seeking direction from the City Council on how the funds should be used. Request for Action, Page 4 Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council discuss affordable scattered site housing projects and provide direction on future goals of the scattered site housing program, and how the 2020 CDBG funds should be allocated. Attachments  Economic Development Authority minutes (November 12, 2019)  Excerpt from “City Manager Goals for 2020” document  Hennepin Housing Consortium HOME Investment Partnerships Program 2019 Limits  Homes Within Reach background  2018 Housing Performance Scores  Scattered site housing master list EDA Meeting Page 1 November 12, 2019 City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, Minnesota 55428 EDA Minutes November 12, 2019 Regular Meeting City Hall CALL TO ORDER President Hemken called the meeting of the Economic Development Authority to order at 7:22 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Kathi Hemken, President John Elder, Commissioner Cedrick Frazier, Commissioner Andy Hoffe, Commissioner Jonathan London, Commissioner Staff Present: Kirk McDonald, City Manager Jeff Alger, Community Development Specialist Tim Fournier, Police Chief Valerie Leone, City Clerk Jeff Sargent, Director of Community Development Stacy Woods, Assistant City Attorney APPROVAL OF MINUTES Item 3 Motion was made by Commissioner Frazier, seconded by Commissioner Elder, to approve the minutes of October 28, 2019. Voted in favor thereof: Hemken, Frazier, Hoffe, London; and the following voted against the same: None; Abstained: Elder; Absent: None. Motion carried. IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1018 Item 4 President Hemken introduced for discussion EDA Item 4, Resolution approving purchase and redevelopment agreements with Great Buy Homes, Inc. for the sale of both lots contained within the plat of Lammle Addition (Improvement Project No. 1018). Mr. Jeff Alger, community development specialist, stated the city acquired 5355 Oregon Avenue North in April of 2018 and the site has been re -platted as two buildable lots. He noted West Metro Fire completed training exercises at the site. Mr. Alger explained the Request for Proposals (RFP) marketing proposal that was conducted for the scattered site lots located at 5353 and 5355 Oregon Avenue North. Stipulations of the RFP included a minimum lot sales price of $60,000 and that the proposed houses must be owner-occupied, single-family homes (for two years). Mr. Alger stated the city received proposals submitted by Great Buy Homes, Houston Homes, My Home Source, and Novak -Fleck. He stated staff’s recommendation is to sell the lots to Great Buy Homes for $130,000 ($65,000 per lot). He reviewed the characteristics of the house plans (total finished square footage, number of bedrooms, garage size and interior/exterior finishes) along with the cost and tax impact of the improvements, the return on investment, and tax benefit associated with the increased property value. EDA Meeting Page 2 November 12, 2019 Mr. Alger commented one of the main goals of the scattered site housing program is to improve neighborhoods. President Hemken opened the floor for comments from the audience. There was no one present desirous of addressing the EDA for the publ ic hearing. Mr. Glen Hammer, owner of Great Buy Homes, was recognized. He thanked the EDA for the opportunity to work with the city again. Commissioner Frazier expressed support for the program as it revitalizes neighborhoods. He mentioned past projects that involved Habitat for Humanity and recommended pursuing some affordable housing projects for first time homebuyers in the future. CLOSE HEARING Item 4 Motion was made by Council Member Elder, seconded by Council Member Frazier, to close the public hearing. All present voted in favor. Motion carried. RESOLUTION 2019-11 Item 4 Commissioner London introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption “RESOLUTION APPROVING PURCHASE AND REDEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS WITH GREAT BUY HOMES, INC. FOR THE SALE OF BOTH LOTS CONTAINED WITHIN THE PLAT OF LAMMLE ADDITION (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1018)”. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Commissioner Elder, 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 president which was attested to by the executive director. ADJOURNMENT Motion was made by Commissioner Frazier, seconded by Commissioner Elder, to adjourn the meeting. All present voted in favor. Motion carried. The New Hope EDA adjourned at 7:37 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Valerie Leone, City Clerk City Manager Goals for 2020 1. Redevelopment will remain a high priority with continued focus on City Center and redevelopment opportunities throughout the city; continue coordination on Windsor Ridge development and coordinate with St. Therese Nursing Home to facilitate potential expansion and/or renovation of existing campus. Continue with a variety of scattered site housing projects, with a goal of six acquisitions/new construction or rehabilitations per year, and consider affordable housing partnerships. Implement affordable housing protection ordinance by 1/31/20 if Council is supportive. Assist with promotion of 2020 census and discuss multi-family census bureau enumerator access ordinance by 1/31/20. Continue participation in GreenStep Cities program and complete or improve ratings for three or more best practice activities. Continue to address code enforcement issues and discuss enforcement policies with Community Development staff. 2. Finalize Police Station/City Hall construction project with Wold Architects and Terra General Contractors and coordinate with Sunram Construction on landscaping, monument sign, final wear course and other exterior amenities by 9/1/20. 3. Conduct three elections (Presidential Nomination Primary on 3/3/20, Primary on 8/11/20, and General on 11/3/20), recruit and train election judges, coordinate with Hennepin County on ballots and equipment compliance, and provide training and orientation if there are newly elected council members. 4. Complete construction on Civic Center Park and pool projects and open pool for 2020 season, replace playground equipment at Begin Park by 8/31/20 and complete tennis court resurfacing and lighting improvements at Civic Center Park by 6/30/20. At ice arena replace radiant heaters at north rink, scoreboard at south rink, replace compressors/relief valves and add security cameras. Golf course improvements to include painting maintenance shop and adding security cameras. Scoreboards to be replaced at community gyms, and dance, gymnastics and movies in parks programs to be continued. 5. Complete 2020 infrastructure project: Northwood Parkway (east) and 36th Circle reconstruction, Hidden Valley Park neighborhood mill and overlay (substantial completion by 9/30/20). Complete Winnetka Avenue watermain replacement from 27th to 29th Avenue by 9/30/20. Complete annual seal coat and crackfill/fog seal program along with sewer pipe lining. Complete parking lot repairs at the golf course and Lions Park by 8/30/20. Present feasibility report by 3/31/20 on potential future addition to public works facility. Complete public works CIP equipment purchases: sidewalk plow machine, dump truck/plow truck and one ton dump truck. Coordination with other cities to be continued with Joint Water Commission along with maintaining partnerships with Meadow Lake and Northwood Lake Watershed associations. Update pavement management plan and present to Council by 11/30/20. 6. Maintain public safety as a high priority; major CIP items to include purchase of advanced ceramic protective tactical vests, continue outfitting several new SWAT members with equipment for riot response (gas masks, filters, kneepads), replacement of five old Taser units, and rifle storage, shelving, etc. for new facility. Start discussion of T:\TRE\4HOUSING DEVELOPEMENT\HOME\LIMITS\2019_HOME limits.doc Hennepin Housing Consortium HOME Investment Partnerships Program 2019 Limits INCOME LIMITS (Effective June 28, 2019) 1 Person 2 Person 3 Person 4 Person 5 Person 6 Person 7 Person 8 Person 30% 21,000 24,000 27,000 30,000 32,400 34,800 37,200 39,600 50% 35,000 40,000 45,000 50,000 54,000 58,000 62,000 66,000 60% 42,000 48,000 54,000 60,000 64,800 69,600 74,400 79,200 80% 52,850 60,400 67,950 75,500 81,550 87,600 93,650 99,700 MSA: Mpls/St. Paul Median Household Income: $100,000 GROSS RENT LIMITS (Effective June 28, 2019) SRO* EFF/0 BR 1BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR 5 BR 6 BR LOW HOME 573 763 915 1,125 1,300 1450 1,600 1,750 HIGH HOME 573 763 915 1,151 1,636 1,828 1,998 2,169 • LOW HOME rents are the lesser of the Fair Market Rent or the 50% rent limit. Units must be occupied by households with gross annual incomes that do not exceed 50% of area median income. • HIGH HOME rents are the lesser of the Fair Market Rent or the 65% rent limit. Units must be occupied by households with gross annual incomes that do not exceed 60% of area median income. • *Limit for Single Room Occupancy (SRO) units -- most will be 75% of the FMR Efficiency limit (Efficiency/0 BR) $763 x 75% = $573 • Limits in RED have decreased, limits in BLUE have increased and limits in BLACK stayed the same FOR INFORMATION ONLY: Efficiency 1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom 4 Bedroom 5 Bedroom 6 Bedroom Fair Market Rent (FMR) 763 915 1,151 1,636 1,923 2,211 2,500 50% Rent Limit 875 937 1,125 1,300 1,450 1,600 1,750 65% Rent Limit 1,118 1,199 1,441 1,656 1,828 1,998 2,169 MAXIMUM PER UNIT SUBSIDY LIMIT (Effective June 28, 2019) SRO Efficiency 1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom 4 Bedroom 112,401 149,868 171,801 208,912 270,266 296,666 MAXIMUM VALUE FOR HOMEOWNERSHIP ACTIVITIES (Effective April 15, 2019) 1-Family and Condominium Units 2-Family 3-Family 4-Family NEW construction $285,000 $364,000 $441,000 $546,000 Existing $248,000 $318,000 $385,000 $477,000 Page 1 of 2 How the Community Land Trust Works! West Hennepin Affordable Housing Land Trust doing business as Homes Within Reach is a Community Land Trust. A Community Land Trust organization is a - • Nonprofit organization • Formed to hold title to land to preserve its long-term affordability • Receives public and private donations of land or monies, to purchase land on which housing exists or can be built • The homes are sold to low-to-moderate income workforce families • The CLT retains ownership of the land and provides a long-term ground lease to homebuyers to secure their rights to use the land • The CLT retains a long-term option to re-purchase the homes at a formula-driven purchase price when homeowners later decide to sell & move. Two key components of Community Land Trusts are as follows.  A Social Component: Promoting homeownership for low to moderate income families  A Financial Component: Protecting the public’s investment in affordable homeownership The Community Land Trust (CLT) is one vehicle that allows homeownership to be affordable for low-to-moderate income workforce families on a long-term basis. A Community Land Trust (CLT) establishes affordability by removing the value of the land from the mortgage equation to create initial affordability. The CLT retains ownership of the land and enters into a 99-year ground lease with the leaseholder-homeowner. Therefore, each affordable home will offer affordable homeownership to 6-9 families throughout the life of the lease. The CLT leaseholder-homeowner pays property tax on both the home and the land, and secures the rights to use the land via a Ground Lease. Federal, State, City and private contributions fund project costs; such as land acquisition, buyer assistance, rehab, and holding costs. A CLT ensures permanent affordability of the home through two provisions found in the Ground Lease.  The first is a pricing formula that provides the owner with a fair amount of equity (HWR is 35%), while ensuring the sale price for subsequent low-to-moderate income households is affordable.  The second provision requires the homeowner to sell either to another low-to-moderate income household. In addition, the provisions ensure the home continues to be affordable with each sale. A CLT leaseholder-homeowner receives benefits similar to non-CLT homeowners such as the ability to build equity, the federal mortgage interest and property tax deduction and the ability to pass on the lease interest and home to their heirs. CLT Practice Affordability is made permanent through the use of a 99-year renewable Ground Lease. The land trust model guarantees that every subsequent homebuyer will be of low-to-moderate income. The investment is never lost. The affordability recycles with each new homeowner. Provides support for first-time homebuyers. Page 2 of 2 The following chart illustrates an example of how a Community Land Trust creates initial and permanent affordability (99 years plus). The example compares the difference in affordability after ten years under the CLT and conventional model. Affordability Comparison Affordability Comparison CLT Model Conventional Model Acquisition costs Market Value Land 100,000$ 100,000$ Market Value Home 145,000$ 145,000$ Total 245,000$ 245,000$ Subsidy Subsidy/Affordability Gap 100,000$ -$ Sale Price 145,000$ 245,000$ Housing Costs Principal and Interest 1 778$ 1,315$ Property Taxes 260$ 260$ Homeowner Insurance 125$ 125$ Land Lease Fee 30$ n/a Total Monthly Principal, Interest, Taxes, Insurance 1,193$ 1,700$ Down Payment 1,000$ 12,250$ Closing Costs 4,628$ 6,292$ Market Value After 10 Years Market Value Home 194,868$ n/a Market Value Land and Home n/a 329,260$ Increase in Value 2 49,868$ 84,260$ Sale Price Calculation after 10 Years Percentage of Appreciation to Owner 35%100% Owners Share of Appreciation 17,454$ 84,260$ New Sale Price of Home 162,454$ 329,260$ 1 Mortgage Interest Rate 5%, Term 30 years, 2 Annual average increase in market value 3% The above chart states that after ten years, the CLT home sells for $162,454 as opposed to $329,260 under the conventional model, a difference of $166,806. There are two primary factors to account for this difference. First, the land has been permanently removed from the speculative market. Secondly, the homeowner receives 35% of the appreciation of the home when they decide to sell or $17,454, based on a formula that is standard among CLTs (25-35%) across the United States, where the homeowner receives a portion of the appreciation in order to make the home affordable for each subsequent sale. the SCORE Metropolitan Council | metrocouncil.org/housing/thescore | 1 Housing Performance Scores—the SCORE—are used to give priority in funding to cities and townships that are maintaining or expanding their supply of affordable housing and using fiscal, planning, and regulatory tools to promote affordable and mixed-income housing. The 2018 SCORES reflect the policies, activities, and production of cities and townships in 2017. We use SCORES in our Livable Communities Demonstration Account and Tax Base Revitalization Account grant programs to reward communities that have a demonstrable commitment to providing affordable housing options. At the same time, the Council assists afford- able housing development in communities struggling with housing performance. For example, the Council gives preference to communities with lower Housing Performance Scores in funding decisions for the Local Housing Incentives Account, which has funded more than one-third of the affordable units produced through the Livable Communities Act programs. SCORES are based on data provided by Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (MHFA) and county governments. We also ask local jurisdic- tions for additional information not available from other sources. For more information about how we use and calculate SCORES, please visit http://metrocouncil.org/housing/theScore. 2018 HOUSING PERFORMANCE SCORES City/township SCORE (1/2/2019)City/township SCORE (1/2/2019) Andover 28 Edina 90 Anoka 85 Elko New Market 16 Apple Valley 93 Empire Township 55 Arden Hills 32 Excelsior 55 Bayport 31 Falcon Heights 15 Belle Plaine 57 Farmington 55 Blaine 91 Forest Lake 86 Bloomington 100 Fridley 80 Brooklyn Center 96 Gem Lake 8 Brooklyn Park 100 Golden Valley 96 Burnsville 92 Greenfield 2 Carver 60 Hamburg 33 Centerville 10 Hampton 24 Champlin 28 Hastings 89 Chanhassen 15 Hilltop 24 Chaska 100 Hopkins 95 Circle Pines 21 Hugo 59 Cologne 31 Independence 11 Columbia Heights 89 Inver Grove Heights 70 Columbus 8 Jordan 67 Coon Rapids 100 Lake Elmo 21 Corcoran 35 Lake St. Croix Beach 21 Cottage Grove 86 Lakeland 14 Crystal 94 Lakeville 84 Dayton 50 Lauderdale 35 Eagan 82 Lexington 25 East Bethel 53 Lilydale 10 Eden Prairie 85 Lino Lakes 56 City/township SCORE (1/2/2019)City/township SCORE (1/2/2019 Little Canada 25 Richfield 98 Long Lake 17 Robbinsdale 90 Loretto 35 Rogers 19 Mahtomedi 58 Rosemount 71 Maple Grove 87 Roseville 96 Maple Plain 25 Savage 44 Maplewood 82 Shakopee 86 Mayer 26 Shoreview 84 Medina 23 Shorewood 17 Mendota 20 South St. Paul 92 Mendota Heights 18 Spring Lake Park 75 Minneapolis 100 Spring Park 8 Minnetonka 90 St. Anthony 84 Minnetrista 0 St. Bonifacius 20 Mound 71 St. Francis 24 Mounds View 54 St. Louis Park 95 New Brighton 89 St. Paul 100 New Germany 55 St. Paul Park 63 New Hope 86 Stillwater 55 Newport 71 Tonka Bay 2 North Oaks 2 Vadnais Heights 33 North St. Paul 65 Victoria 17 Norwood Young America 61 Waconia 81 Oak Grove 12 Watertown 43 Oak Park Heights 31 Wayzata 68 Oakdale 97 West St. Paul 82 Orono 11 White Bear Lake 100 Osseo 66 White Bear Township 8 Plymouth 90 Willernie 36 Prior Lake 75 Woodbury 86 Ramsey 73 the SCORE Metropolitan Council | metrocouncil.org/housing/thescore | 2 Scattered Site Housing Projects 1990 to 2019 (80 units) Address Street Project #Acquired Type of Construction Short Description Details Resolution #'s 8808 41st Ave N 660 1999 New construction Habitat For Humanity Community Development Block Grant Vacant lot purchased by the city for $17,500 using Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds in 1999. Poor soils required the installation of pilings, which were paid for with CDBG funds, bringing the total investment to $40,000. Engineering fees and other soft costs were roughly $5,000. The city sold the lot to Habitat For Humanity for $1 in 1999. Habitat For Humanity constructed a 1,300 square foot single-family home with an attached 2-car garage. City employees donated a day to assist in the construction of this home. The home was sold to a family that met Habitat For Humanity's eligibility qualifications for $140,000 in 2001. 99-107, 99-180, 99-193 6003 West Broadway 668 2000 Demo & new construction Habitat For Humanity Community Development Block Grant Handicap Accessible (Courage Center) Dilapidated single-family home purchased by the city for $91,500 using Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds in 2000. The city demolished the home, sold the property to Habitat For Humanity for $1 in 2001, and waived building permit fees associated with the construction of a new handicap accessible single-family home. The 3-bedroom home was designed in collaboration with the Courage Center to include a roll-in shower, oversized bedroom, wider hallways and doors, and lower counters. City employees and councilmembers donated a day to assist in the construction of this home by installing drywall. The home was sold to a family that met Habitat For Humanity's eligibility qualifications for $160,000 in 2002. 00-43, 01-113 4907 Yukon Ave N 2011 Rehab Habitat For Humanity Single-family home purchased directly by Habitat For Humanity for $121,000 using Neighborhood Stabilization Program (Twin Cities Community Land Bank) funds in 2011. The city was used as a pass through agency for Habitat For Humanity to obtain the funds. The home was sold to a family that met Habitat For Humanity's eligibility qualifications for $160,000 in 2011. 11-15 5909 Aquila Ave N 914 2012 Rehab Habitat For Humanity Community Development Block Grant Foreclosed single-family home purchased by the city from the National Community Stabilization Trust First Look program (Twin Cities Community Land Bank) for $68,320.64 using Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds in 2012. The city sold the property to Habitat for Humanity for $35,000 in 2013. Habitat for Humanity invested $35,000-$40,000 to rehabilitate the property. Improvements included a new furnace, water heater, and electrical panel, replacement of the roof, new appliances and a garage door, and painting of the exterior. The home was sold to first time homebuyers that met Habitat For Humanity's eligibility qualifications for $168,000 in 2013. The homebuyer received a 30-year mortgage at 0% interest and was required to put in 400 hours of sweat equity into constructing the home and attend 10 homeownership classes. There is no minimum period for residency for the owner, however, Habitat for Humanity has the first right of purchase if a sale occurs prior to the mortgage being paid off. 13-49 Habitat For Humanity Projects (4 units) G:\CommDev\zJeff Alger\Scattered Site Housing\Scattered Site Housing Projects Master List.xlsx 1 Address Street Project #Acquired Type of Construction Short Description Details Resolution #'s 5009 7901 & 7909 Winnetka Ave N 51st Ave N 505 1993 Demo & new construction (twin home) Northwest Community Revitalization Corporation Equal Access Homes Handicap Accessible Dilapidated single-family home purchased by the city for $39,600 from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) using Minnesota Housing Finance Agency's Neighborhood Land Trust Program funds in 1993. The home was burned down as part of a West Metro Fire training exercise. The city partnered with Northwest Community Revitalization Corporation (NCRC) and accepted a bid from Equal Access Homes to construct a new handicap accessible twin home for $169,808 in 1995. Both units were sold to first time homebuyers for $85,000 each in 1995. Down payment assistance of $15,000 per unit was provided in the form of Community Housing Development Organization HOME funds. 93-169, 94-10, 95-06, 95-15 7105 & 6151 62nd Ave N Louisiana Ave N 685 2000 Demo & new construction (twin home) Northwest Community Revitalization Corporation Community Development Block Grant Handicap Accessible Single-family home from an estate purchased by the city for $103,000 using Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds in 2000. The city intended to rehabilitate the home but found the foundation for the house to be failing. The home was demolished using CDBG funds. The city partnered with Northwest Communities Revitalization Corporation (NCRC) and Project for Pride in Living (PPL) and accepted a bid for the design and construction of a new handicap accessible twin home for $346,926 in 2002. Both units were sold individually to program qualified first time homebuyers with disabilities for $185,000 each in 2002. Down payment assistance of $60,500 per unit was provided in the form of Community Housing Development Organization HOME funds. 00-124, 02-30, 03-132, 03-162 4864 Flag Ave N 678 2000 New construction Northwest Community Revitalization Corporation Community Development Block Grant Vacant lot purchased by the city for $16,000 using Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds in 2000. The city transferred ownership to Northwest Communities Revitalization Corporation (NCRC) to allow for the use of CDBG funds for installation of $22,100 in pilings required due to poor soils. The city accepted a bid from SVK Development to construct a new single-family home for $155,589 in 2001. The home was sold to first time homebuyers for $179,900 in 2002. Down payment assistance of $9,100 was provided in the form of Community Housing Development Organization HOME funds and $9,100. A second mortgage of $18,400 was provided through the city. 00-78, 01-59, 01-135, 02-33, 03- 173, 04-171 7901 49th Ave N 699 2001 Rehab Northwest Community Revitalization Corporation Community Development Block Grant Dilapidated single-family home purchased by the city for $99,000 using $73,545 in Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds and $25,455 in Northwest Community Revitalization Corporation (NCRC) funds in 2001. The city accepted a bid for $81,336 (including change orders) to rehabilitate the home in 2001. Improvements included the replacement of the roof, siding, driveway, garage door, improved landscaping, a new egress window and patio door, and the repair/replacement of some interior items. The home was sold to first time homebuyers for $165,000 in 2003. The sale limited the property to a 2 to 6 person household. 01-101, 01-137, 03-53 4301 & 4317 4303, 4305, 4307, 4309, 4311 & 4315 Nevada Ave N Nevada Ave N 571, 734, 778 2004 Demo, lot split & new construction (twin homes) Northwest Community Revitalization Corporation Handicap Accessible Two dilapidated single-family homes purchased by the city (4317 Nevada Ave N) for $83,000 and Northwest Community Revitalization Corporation (4301 Nevada Ave N) in 2003. The city and Northwest Community Revitalization Corporation (NCRC) partnered to demolish the homes, split the two lots into three lots, and develop 3 twin homes (6 units). The homes include two and three bedroom units and 3 of the 6 are designed to accommodate persons with disabilities. All have two car garages. The units sold to first time homebuyers meeting HCRC income qualifications for prices ranging between $154,000, and $240,000 in 2006 and 2007. 03-72, 04-51, 04-69, 04-70, 04- 72, 04-83 Northwest Community Revitalization Corporation Projects (12 units) 2 Address Street Project #Acquired Type of Construction Short Description Details Resolution #'s 2709 Ensign Ave N 1980 Rehab Community Development Block Grant In 1980, the city initiated a program to provide additional rental opportunities to low and moderate income residents. The city purchased 8 single-family homes using Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds and made improvements to the homes before making them available for rent. The city began selling the homes in the late 1980's with the objective of encouraging home ownership by allowing low and moderate-income individuals the option of purchasing the homes. The properties were offered to tenants who were renting at the time their lease expired. This property was the last of the homes owned by the city and sold for $80,500 in 1992. HRA 92-02 7109 62nd Ave N 511 1993 Rehab Community Development Block Grant Vacant single-family home purchased by the city for $36,263 from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) using Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and Minnesota Housing Finance Agency's (MHFA) Neighborhood Land Trust Program funds in 1993. The city accepted a bid from Flag Builders for $31,885 to rehabilitate the home in 1994. Improvements included a new roof, new exterior siding, well sealing, and upgrades to the electrical and heating systems. The home was sold to first time homebuyers for $59,500 in 1994. A lottery system giving New Hope residents preference was used to select a buyer. 93-152, EDA 94-13 5212 Winnetka Ave N 573 1996 Rehab Community Development Block Grant Dilapidated single-family home purchased by the city for $77,400 from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) using Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds in 1996. The city contracted with Project for Pride in Living (PPL) to design plans and specifications for the rehabilitation project. The city accepted a bid from Anton Construction for $84,645 to rehabilitate the home in 1997. The home was sold to first time homebuyers for $98,000 in 1998. A second mortgage of $9,000 was provided in the form of a Community Housing Development Organization HOME loan and a Metro HRA Housing assistance loan was utilized. 96-170, 97-48, 97-126, 98-57 5629 Wisconsin Ave N 612 1997 Demo & new construction Community Development Block Grant Handicap Accessible Dilapidated single-family home purchased by the city for $45,000 with $2,598 for moving expenses with Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds in 1997. The city demolished the home and accepted a bid from Michlitsch Builders to construct a new handicap accessible home for $127,824 (after change orders) in 1999. The home was sold to first time homebuyers for $127,500 in 1999. A second mortgage of $18,000 was provided in the form of a Community Housing Development Organization HOME loan. The city also received a contribution of $4,500 from the Minneapolis Area Association Realtors for the project. 97-219, 99-104, 99-179, 99-192 6064 Xylon Ave N 919 2013 Rehab Community Development Block Grant Foreclosed single-family home purchased by the city from the National Community Stabilization Trust First Look program (Twin Cities Community Land Bank) for $135,977.76 using Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds in 2012. The city accepted a bid from Integrity Restoration Inc. for $21,238.65 to rehabilitate the home in 2013. Improvements included kitchen renovations, a new air conditioning unit, fresh paint, and new carpeting, flooring, and light fixtures. The home was sold to first time homebuyers for $185,000 in 2014. The city contributed $5,000 towards closing costs. 13-17, 13-95, 14-56 Community Development Block Grant Projects (7 units) 3 Address Street Project #Acquired Type of Construction Short Description Details Resolution #'s 5431 Virginia Ave N 950 2014 Demo & new construction Community Development Block Grant Foreclosed single-family home purchased by the city from the National Community Stabilization Trust First Look program (Twin Cities Community Land Bank) for $76,000 using Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds in 2014. The city demolished the home and sold the lot to Novak-Fleck for $55,000 to construct a new single-family home. The home was sold to a first time homebuyer that met the Twin Cities Community Land Bank's income qualifications for $245,000 in 2015. 14-150, 15-121 6059 West Broadway 948 2014 Demo & new construction Market rate Vacant single-family home purchased by the city for $115,000 using Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds in 2014. The city demolished the home and sold the lot to Novak-Fleck for $40,000 to construct a new single-family home. The home sold for $226,150 in 2016. 14-142, 15-152 Community Development Block Grant Projects (continued) 4 Address Street Project #Acquired Type of Construction Short Description Details Resolution #'s 6073 & 6081 Louisiana Ave N 519 1994 New construction (twin home)Equal Access Homes Community Development Block Grant Handicap Accessible Vacant lot purchased by the city for $17,402 with Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds in 1994. The city contracted with Equal Access Homes to design a handicap accessible twin home for $1,590 in 1995. The city accepted a bid from Michlitsch Builders to construct a new handicap accessible twin home for $199,900 in 1995. Both of the units were sold individually to program qualified first time homebuyers with disabilities for $95,000 each in 1996. Second mortgages of $15,000 were provided in the form of Community Housing Development Organization HOME loans for each home. EDA 94-05, EDA 94-06, EDA 95- 18, EDA 95-21, EDA 95-22, EDA 96-08, 96-137 6067 West Broadway 545 1995 Demo & new construction (twin home) Equal Access Homes Community Development Block Grant Handicap Accessible Dilapidated single-family home purchased by the city for $41,400 from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) using Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and Economic Development Authority (EDA) funds in 1995. The city demolished the home and accepted a bid from Equal Access Homes to construct a new handicap accessible twin home for $103,739 in 1996. The home was sold to first time homebuyers for $95,000 in 1997. A second mortgage of $10,000 was provided in the form of a Community Housing Development Organization HOME loan. 95-101, 95-130, 96-13, 96-157, 97-77 9116 31st Ave N 589 1997 Rehab Metropolitan Council and Community Housing Development Organization Dilapidated single-family home purchased by the city for $61,250 using Metropolitan Council and Community Housing Development Organization (CHDO) funds in 1997. The city accepted a bid from Flag Builders for $59,200 to rehabilitate the home in 1997. The home was sold to first time homebuyers for $112,500 in 1999. Down payment assistance of $10,000 was provided in the form of Community Housing Development Organization HOME funds. 97-125, 97-204, 98-182 4424 Nevada Ave N 558, 734, 778 2009 Demo Incorporated into park Foreclosed single-family home purchased by the city for $65,000, demolished, and incorporated land into Fred Sims Park. 09-134, 09-164, 14-24, 15-25 3757 Gettysburg Ave N 899 2010 Rehab Homes Within Reach Community Development Block Grant Foreclosed single-family home purchased by the city from the National Community Stabilization Trust First Look program (Twin Cities Community Land Bank) for $123,503 using Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds in 2012. The city sold the property to Homes Within Reach for $100,000 in 2012. Homes Within Reach invested $30,228 to rehabilitate the property with a goal of providing affordable housing by removing land value from the purchase price. The home was sold to a first time homebuyer that met Homes Within Reach's eligibility qualifications for $100,000 in 2012. Homes Within Reach maintains ownership of land through 99-year ground lease and home is sold to owner occupant. 11-179, 12-62, 12-80, 12-108 Other Projects (7 units) 5 Address Street Project #Acquired Type of Construction Short Description Details Resolution #'s 7819 Angeline Dr 603 1999 New construction Market rate Tax forfeited vacant land purchased by the city for $7,053 in 1999. The city sold the lot to Kingsman LLC for $35,000 in 2004. Kingsman LLC constructed a new single-family home that was completed in 2005 (appears to still own). 98-156, 98-168, EDA 98-11, EDA 99-04, EDA 04-37 5207 Pennsylvania Ave N 775 2004 Demo & new construction Market rate Vacant single-family home purchased by the city for $80,000 in 2004. The city demolished the home and sold the lot to Avery Homes for $75,000 to construct a new single-family home in 2005. The 2,382 square foot home with 3 bedrooms and 2.5 bathrooms sold for $369,900 in 2006. 04-149, EDA 04-31, 05-26, EDA 05-03, EDA 05-04 9115 & 9121 62nd Ave N 956 2015 Demo, lot split & new construction Market rate Single-family home from an estate purchased by the city for $130,000 using Economic Development Authority (EDA) funds in 2015. The city demolished the home, split the lot, and sold the lots to Novak-Fleck for $60,000 each to construct two new single- family homes. The homes sold for $296,094 and $270,900 in 2016. EDA 15-03, 15-153 6065 & 6067 Louisiana Ave N 973 2015 Demo, lot split & new construction Market rate Foreclosed single-family home purchased by the city for $130,000 using Economic Development Authority (EDA) funds in 2015. The city demolished the home, split the lot, and sold the lots to Great Buy Homes for $55,000 each to construct two new single- family homes. The homes sold for $325,000 and $323,900 in 2018. EDA 15-19, EDA 16-20, EDA 18- 10 4415 & 4417 Nevada Ave N 965 2015 Demo, lot split & new construction Market rate Vacant single-family home purchased by the city for $67,600 using Economic Development Authority (EDA) funds in 2015. The city demolished the home, split the lot, and sold the lots to Regal Homes for $55,000 each to construct two new single- family homes. The homes sold for $382,875 and $363,869 in 2017 and 2018. EDA 15-08, EDA 16-11 4511 Boone Ave N 975 2016 Demo & new construction Market rate Foreclosed, fire damaged single-family home purchased by the city for $86,000 using Economic Development Authority (EDA) funds in 2015. The city demolished the home and sold the lot to Novak-Fleck for $55,000 to construct a new single-family home. The home sold for $319,500 in 2016. EDA 15-24, EDA 16-12 5400 Yukon Ave N 986 2016 Demo & new construction Market rate Single-family home from an estate purchased by the city for $105,000 using Economic Development Authority (EDA) funds in 2016. The city demolished the home and sold the lot to Great Buy Homes for $55,000 to construct a new single-family home. The home sold for $297,000 in 2017. EDA 16-13, EDA 16-23 7303 62nd Ave N 1007 2017 Demo & new construction Market rate Dilapidated single-family home purchased by the city for $132,900 using Economic Development Authority (EDA) funds in 2017. The city demolished the home and sold the lot to Tollberg Homes for $55,000 to construct a new single-family home. The home sold for $311,000 in 2018. EDA 17-17, EDA 18-13 3751 Louisiana Ave N 993 2017 Demo & new construction Market rate Foreclosed single-family home purchased by the city for $38,964 using Economic Development Authority (EDA) funds in 2015. The city demolished the home and sold the lot to Regal Homes for $55,000 to construct a new single-family home. The home sold for $380,000 in 2018. EDA 17-04, EDA 17-13 3984 Zealand Ave N 997 2017 Rehab Market rate Foreclosed single-family home purchased by the city for $165,000 using Economic Development Authority (EDA) funds in 2017. The city accepted a bid from Day Construction for $113,231 to rehabilitate the home in 2017. The home sold for $295,000 in 2018. EDA 17-02, 17-16, 18-05 7311 62nd Ave N 1022 2018 Demo & new construction Market rate Dilapidated single-family home purchased by the city for $130,000 using Economic Development Authority (EDA) funds in 2018. The city demolished the home and sold the lot to Houston Homes for $55,000 to construct a new single-family home. The home sold for $319,900 in 2019. EDA 18-16, EDA 18-16 Market Rate Projects (20 units) 6 Address Street Project #Acquired Type of Construction Short Description Details Resolution #'s 7215 62nd Ave N 1023 2018 Demo & new construction Market rate Dilapidated single-family home purchased by the city for $138,000 using Economic Development Authority (EDA) funds in 2018. The city demolished the home and sold the lot to Great Buy Homes for $61,000 to construct a new single-family home. The EDA 18-09, EDA 18-22 3856 Maryland Ave N 1024 2018 New construction Market rate Vacant lot purchased by the city for $65,000 using Economic Development Authority (EDA) funds in 2018. The city sold the lot to Donnay Homes for $61,000 to construct a new single-family home. The home sold for $413,921 in 2019. EDA 18-11, 19-01 5353 & 5355 Oregon Ave N 1018 2018 Demo, lot split & new construction Market rate Foreclosed single-family home purchased by city for $170,000 using Economic Development Authority (EDA) funds in 2018. The home was burned down as part of a West Metro Fire training exercise. The lot has been split and will be sold to a builder. EDA 18-04 5212 Pennsylvania Ave N 1025 2018 Demo & new construction Market rate Dilapidated single-family home purchased by the city for $145,500 using Economic Development Authority (EDA) funds in 2018. The city demolished the home and sold the lot to Novak-Fleck for $65,000 to construct a new single-family home in 2019. EDA 18-15, 19-03 3924 Utah Ave N 1020 2018 Rehab Market rate Foreclosed single-family home purchased by the city for $191,000 using Economic Development Authority (EDA) funds in 2018. The city accepted a bid from Day Construction for $173,671 to rehabilitate the home in 2019. EDA 18-24, EDA 19-04 6027 West Broadway 1038 2020 Demo & new construction Market rate Dilapidated single-family home purchased by the city for $141,000 using Economic Development Authority (EDA) funds in 2020. EDA 19-05 7227 62nd Ave N 1028 2020?Demo & new construction Market rate Purchase agreement in place for acquisition of single-family home.EDA 18-21 Market Rate Projects (continued) 7 Address Street Project #Acquired Type of Construction Short Description Details Resolution #'s 7621 Bass Lake Rd 549 1995 Demolition, land assembly, redevelopment Winnetka Green Single-family home purchased by the city for $90,000, demolished, and redeveloped as part of Winnetka Green project. 95-179 5559 Sumter Ave N 548 1995 Demolition, land assembly, redevelopment Winnetka Green Single-family home purchased by the city for $62,000, demolished, and redeveloped as part of Winnetka Green project. 95-172 5530 Sumter Ave N 565 1996 Demolition, land assembly, redevelopment Winnetka Green Single-family home purchased by the city for $72,000, demolished, and redeveloped as part of Winnetka Green project. 96-146 5546 Sumter Ave N 646 1998 Demolition for road reconfiguration Winnetka Green Single-family home purchased by the city for $94,000 with $2,030 for special assessments, demolished, and redeveloped for future road realignment near Winnetka Green. 98-175 5340 Winnetka Ave N 653 1999 Demolition, land assembly, redevelopment Winnetka Green Single-family home purchased by the city for $102,000, demolished, and redeveloped as part of Winnetka Green project. 99-90 7603 Bass Lake Rd 651 2000 Demolition, land assembly, redevelopment Winnetka Green Single-family home purchased by the city for $90,000, demolished, and redeveloped as part of Winnetka Green project. 00-110 5406 Winnetka Ave N 676 2000 Demolition, land assembly, redevelopment Winnetka Green Single-family home purchased by the city for $105,000, demolished, and redeveloped as part of Winnetka Green project. 00-143 5420 Winnetka Ave N 696 2000 Demolition, land assembly, redevelopment Winnetka Green Single-family home purchased by the city for $93,000, demolished, and redeveloped as part of Winnetka Green project. 00-165 5422 Winnetka Ave N 675 2000 Demolition, land assembly, redevelopment Winnetka Green Single-family home purchased by the city for $92,000, demolished, and redeveloped as part of Winnetka Green project. 00-94 5532 Winnetka Ave N 670 2000 Demolition, land assembly, redevelopment Winnetka Green Single-family home purchased by the city for $140,000, moved home, and redeveloped as part of Winnetka Green project. 00-152, 01-15 5410 & 5412 Winnetka Ave N 664 2000 Demolition, land assembly, redevelopment Winnetka Green Twin home purchased by the city for $136,000, demolished, and redeveloped as part of Winnetka Green project. 00-128 5520 Sumter Ave N 712 2002 Demolition, land assembly, redevelopment Winnetka Green Single-family home purchased by the city for $172,000, demolished, and redeveloped as part of Winnetka Green project. 02-57 5518 Winnetka Ave N 715 2002 Demolition, land assembly, redevelopment Winnetka Green Single-family home purchased by the city for $159,000, demolished, and redeveloped as part of Winnetka Green project. 02-116 5524 Winnetka Ave N 709 2002 Demolition, land assembly, redevelopment Winnetka Green Single-family home purchased by the city for $185,000, demolished, and redeveloped as part of Winnetka Green project. 02-131 5500 Winnetka Ave N 753 2003 Demolition, land assembly, redevelopment Winnetka Green Single-family home purchased by the city for $200,000, demolished, and redeveloped as part of Winnetka Green project. 03-155 5506 Winnetka Ave N 741 2003 Demolition, land assembly, redevelopment Winnetka Green Single-family home purchased by the city for $222,000, demolished, and redeveloped as part of Winnetka Green project. 03-73 7605 Bass Lake Rd 758 2004 Demolition, land assembly, redevelopment Winnetka Green Single-family home purchased by the city for $158,000 with $4,250 maximum differential payment, demolished, and redeveloped as part of Winnetka Green project. EDA 04-01 7609 Bass Lake Rd 766 2004 Demolition, land assembly, redevelopment Winnetka Green Single-family home purchased by the city for $175,000 with $34,000 maximum differential payment, demolished, and redeveloped as part of Winnetka Green project. EDA 04-08 7643 Bass Lake Rd 757 2004 Demolition, land assembly, redevelopment Winnetka Green Single-family home purchased by the city for $190,000 with $24,500 maximum differential payment, demolished, and redeveloped as part of Winnetka Green project. EDA 04-09 Winnetka Green Projects (30 units) 8 Address Street Project #Acquired Type of Construction Short Description Details Resolution #'s 5519 Sumter Ave N 768 2004 Demolition, land assembly, redevelopment Winnetka Green Single-family home purchased by the city for $199,000 with $24,500 maximum differential payment, demolished, and redeveloped as part of Winnetka Green project. EDA 04-13 5531 Sumter Ave N 763 2004 Demolition, land assembly, redevelopment Winnetka Green Single-family home purchased by the city for $214,000 with $5,900 maximum differential payment, $2,350 for moving expenses, and $4,050 for closing costs (if applicable), demolished, and redeveloped as part of Winnetka Green project. EDA 04-21 5537 Sumter Ave N 663, 764 2004 Demolition, land assembly, redevelopment Winnetka Green Single-family home purchased by the city for $180,000 with $14,900 maximum differential payment, $1,800 for moving expenses, $4,000 for closing costs (if applicable), and $4,830 for rent supplement in lieu of differential payment, demolished, and redeveloped as part of Winnetka Green project. EDA 04-25 5538 Sumter Ave N 765 2004 Demolition, land assembly, redevelopment Winnetka Green Single-family home purchased by the city for $185,000 with $9,700 maximum differential payment, demolished, and redeveloped as part of Winnetka Green project. EDA 04-07 5400 Winnetka Ave N 760 2004 Demolition, land assembly, redevelopment Winnetka Green Single-family home purchased by the city for $205,000 with $23,325 maximum differential payment, demolished, and redeveloped as part of Winnetka Green project. EDA 04-04 5434 Winnetka Ave N 714 2004 Demolition, land assembly, redevelopment Winnetka Green Single-family home purchased by the city for $233,745.66 with $1,850 for moving expenses and $4,500 for closing costs, demolished, and redeveloped as part of Winnetka Green project. 04-20 5440 Winnetka Ave N 755 2004 Demolition, land assembly, redevelopment Winnetka Green Single-family home purchased by the city for $250,000 with $26,250 maximum differential payment, demolished, and redeveloped as part of Winnetka Green project. EDA 04-05 5446 Winnetka Ave N 761 2004 Demolition, land assembly, redevelopment Winnetka Green Single-family home purchased by the city for $222,500 with $12,000 maximum differential payment, demolished, and redeveloped as part of Winnetka Green project. EDA 04-13 5512 Winnetka Ave N 748 2004 Demolition, land assembly, redevelopment Winnetka Green Single-family home purchased by the city for $147,000 with $42,900 maximum differential payment, demolished, and redeveloped as part of Winnetka Green project. EDA 04-13 5540 Winnetka Ave N 762 2004 Demolition, land assembly, redevelopment Winnetka Green Single-family home purchased by the city for $225,000 with $54,000 maximum differential payment, $2,400 for moving expenses, and $2,500 for closing costs, and cost to relocate home occupation or $20,000 "in lieu" payment, and redeveloped as part of Winnetka Green project. EDA 04-26 Winnetka Green Projects (continued) 9