101722 Work Session Meeting Packet
CITY COUNCIL
WORK SESSION MEETING
New Hope City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North
Northwood Conference Room
Monday, October 17, 2022
6:00 p.m. - dinner
6:30 p.m. - meeting
Mayor Kathi Hemken
Council Member John Elder
Council Member Andy Hoffe
Council Member Michael Isenberg
Council Member Jonathan London
1. CALL TO ORDER – October 17, 2022
2. ROLL CALL
11. UNFINISHED & ORGANIZATIONAL BUSINESS
11.1 Discussion regarding HRG programs and recommended 2023 rates
11.2 Update on Canadian Pacific Rail Regional Trail with Three Rivers Park District
Staff
11.3 Discussion regarding 2023 enterprise and utility fund budgets and 2023 utility
rates
11.4 Discuss upcoming vehicle purchases utilizing the Minnesota Department of
Administration’s Cooperative Purchasing Venture
11.5 Discuss request for city to serve as legal sponsor for Minnesota Investment Fund
program loan through Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic
Development
11.6 Review Gas and Electric Franchise ordinances and discuss renewal of CenterPoint
Contract
11.7 Update on Civic Center Park/City Hall Landscaping projects by Stantec
Engineering (Improvement Project Nos. 941/994)
11.8 Discuss change orders related to Phase 1 Improvements at the Public Works
Facility (Improvement Project No. 1039)
11.9 Discussion regarding the creation of a statement to publicly share the city’s
commitment to a diverse, equitable, and inclusive environment
11.10 Discussion regarding Fencing Consortium Joint Powers Agreement
12. OTHER BUSINESS
13. ADJOURNMENT
I:\RFA\City Manager\2022\HRG program and rates\11.1 Q ‐ HRG Programs 2023 rates.docx
Request for Action
October 17, 2022
Approved by: Tim Hoyt, Acting City Manager
Originating Department: City Manager
By: Tim Hoyt, Acting City Manager
Agenda Title
Discussion regarding HRG programs and recommended 2023 rates
Requested Action
Staff requests the Council have a brief discussion regarding HRG (Hennepin Recycling Group) programs and
2023 rates. Tim Pratt, Hennepin Recycling Group Administrator, will be in attendance at the meeting. A $1.00
per household/per month increase is recommended for 2023 due to an increase in the collection and disposal
of the curbside bulky waste cleanup program and a new recycling contract. Last year there was a $.25 rate
increase per household/per month.
Policy/Past Practice
The Council reviews and discusses programs and rates for services on an annual basis during the budget
process in the fall. If rate adjustments are recommended for utility or enterprise fund operations (water,
sewer, storm sewer, street lighting and recycling) for the following year, the City Council usually considers
and approves adjustments in December in conjunction with the approval of the final budget with the new
rates becoming effective the next year.
Background
As the City Council is aware, New Hope is a member of the HRG along with the cities of Crystal and
Brooklyn Center. I have requested Tim Pratt, HRG administrator and Brooklyn Park staff member, to attend
the work session to review HRG program and discuss 2023 rates. Tim has prepared the attached presentation,
which he will review with Council.
Historical information:
2022 – load limits were implemented for the curbside bulky waste cleanup year.
2022 – refuse haulers were required to offer organics recycling collection.
SCORE funding for traditional recycling continues to decrease.
HRG’s contract with Waste Management for recycling services expires June 30, 2023; HRG may negotiate
a contract extension. The current rate is $2.61 per household.
2022 – implemented the on‐line ReCollect platform that provides reminders to residents about collection
day and provides an on‐line disposal guide.
Recycling grants to cities will remain at $5,000 per year, similar to 2022.
Contract includes free recycling to city facilities and special events (farmers market, city festival, corn
feed) and pilot project for parks.
Summary and Rate Recommendation
The HRG/Solid Waste proposed budget for New Hope was distributed previously with your budget
notebooks. The Solid Waste Management budget provides every other week recycling services for single‐
Agenda Section
Work Session
Item Number
11.1
Request for Action, Page 2
family households, duplexes, townhouses and apartment complexes in the city with seven or less units. The
budget includes contractual costs for collection of recyclable materials, special materials collection, container
replacement, yard waste costs, recycling costs at city facilities and administration by Brooklyn Park. This
budget includes New Hope’s portion of the HRG contract costs.
Breakdown of 2023 Recycling Fees
Proposed fee of $5.00 per household per month
$3.61/hh/mo. Curbside recycling contractual costs
+$1.25/hh/mo. Curbside clean‐up costs
+$0.50/hh/mo. Yard waste contractual costs
+$0.19/hh/mo. Brooklyn Park Administrative costs
+$0.10/hh/mo. Special material drop off costs
+$0.05/hh/mo. Internal recycling grants
______ +$0.05/hh/mo. New Hope Administration costs_______
$5.74/hh/mo.
______ ‐$0.74/hh/mo. Hennepin County Grant______________
$5.00/hh/mo.
The rate history over the past ten years is as follows:
2012 $3.55 per household/per month
2013 $3.55 per household/per month
2014 $3.55 per household/per month
2015 $3.55 per household/per month
2016 $3.55 per household/per month
2017 $3.65 per household/per month
2018 $3.65 per household/per month
2019 $3.65 per household/per month
2020 $3.75 per household/per month
2021 $3.75 per household/per month
2022 $4.00 per household/per month
2023 $5.00 Per household/per month – recommended
Attachments
HRG 2023 Budget Presentation
HRG draft budget information
New Hope 2023 Solid Waste Management Budget
HENNEPIN RECYCLING
GROUP PROGRAM AND
BUDGET OVERVIEW
New Hope City Council Work Session
October 17, 2022
1
Program Components
Curbside recycling
Recycling and waste disposal education (e.g., App,
calendar, phone calls, emails)
Bulky waste curbside collection
Organics drop-off
Special material drop-off
Yard waste site
Event recycling
2
Curbside Recycling
3
Service delays due to
driver shortage
Curbside Recycling
4
Service delays due to driver shortage
Levying fines
In process of selecting service provider for contract
that starts July 1, 2023
Current rate ($2.60/month) is $1 below market
Cost Competitiveness
Because WM owns the
carts, they have a cost
advantage over
competitors
Cost Competitiveness
If HRG owns the carts, it
eliminates the cost
advantage
Allows us to brand the carts
Cost
Purchase off the HGAC contract for
approximately $60/cart
Brooklyn Park would purchase and
bill back to HRG starting in 2024
Charge residents ~$1 per month
for five years
Would distribute in June ahead of
new contract
Vendor responsible for repairs,
replacements and storage
Brooklyn Park HRG Recycling App
8
Website Interface
Hrg-recycling.com
9
Calendar Send Notifications
Features
Features
Searchable Database
Service Alerts
11
Multiple Languages
Features
Curbside Cleanup
12
50 homes tagged for exceeding the limits
Curbside Clean Up
March 28 –April 7, 2022
13
Organics Recycling
Food Scraps (including meat and dairy)
Non-Recyclable Paper
14
•Fruits and vegetables
•Meat, fish and bones
•Bread, pasta and baked goods
•Eggshells
•Dairy products
•Napkins and paper towels (not used with chemical
cleaners)
•All paper, non-plastic lined plates and bowls (look for
BPI certification)
•Food soiled paper, including pizza boxes, unlined
take-out containers and egg cartons
•Facial tissue, tissue paper and other paper products
with fibers too short to be recycled
Why Organics
15
Food scraps ranged from
15% (Hennepin Co.)
–31% (Statewide)
Non-recyclable paper made
up 5.7 –9.8%
Organics is the single largest
category in our trash
Rain Barrel/Compost Bin Sale
16
$20 discount for HRG residents
Two Options
Curbside Collection
HRG splits cost for first year
of service up to $100
Drop Off
Hennepin County Drop-Off
Facility, 8100 Jefferson Hwy
17
Organics Drop-Off
At Crystal Cove
218 users
~400 lbs./week
Sign up at
hrg-recycling.com
18
Special Materials Drop-off
Spring and Fall
Appliances
Batteries
Electronics
Mattresses
Oil, Antifreeze
Paper Shredding
Scrap Metal
Tires
19
Yard Waste Site
20
Contract extended through 2023
Pumpkin Drop-Off
Week after
Halloween
Central Park in
Brooklyn Park (Noble Ave.
parking lot)
21
Event Recycling
❑Provide organics recycling for
Lions Corn Feed
❑Event recycling and organics
containers which can be
borrowed for free by the public
❑Reservation form on
hrg-recycling.com website
22
Breakdown of 2023 Recycling Fees
Current fee is $4.00 per household per month
$2.60/hh/mo. is curbside recycling contractual costs
$1.25/hh/mo. is the curbside clean up costs
$0.50/hh/mo. is yard waste contractual costs
$0.19/hh/mo. is Brooklyn Park Administration costs
$0.10/hh/mo. is special material drop off costs
$0.05/hh/mo. is for internal recycling grants
$0.05/hh/mo. is Crystal Administration costs
($0.74/hh/mo.) Hennepin County Grant
23
2022-23 HRG Budget Highlights
Curbside recycling cost increase July 1
Still catching up on Curbside Bulky Waste Cleanup
costs
SCORE funding will no longer decrease –remain flat
Board recommending $1.00 rate increase to offset
increased cost of new recycling contract, replenish
reserves
Perhaps another fee increase in 2024
24
Questions...?
tim.pratt@brooklynpark.org
763-493-8120
25
I:\RFA\P&R\3 Rivers Park District\2022\CP Rail Regional Trail\WS Update ‐ October\Q ‐ Regional Trail Master Plan Update.docx
Request for Action
October 17, 2022
Approved by: Tim Hoyt, Acting City Manager
Originating Department: Parks & Recreation
By: Susan Rader, Director
Agenda Title
Update on Canadian Pacific Rail Regional Trail with Three Rivers Park District Staff
Requested Action
Staff requests that the City Council receive an update regarding the Canadian Pacific Rail Regional Trail with
Three Rivers Park District and city staff. Danny McCullough, Regional Trail System Manager and Kelly
Grissman, Director of Planning will attend to lead the discussion which will include an update on the
community engagement process, results gathered and preferred route that has been identified. They will also
be asking the Council for informal support of one route before the formal master plan is prepared.
Policy/Past Practice
Past policy and practice has been to provide the Council with program, facility and infrastructure updates
and receive input and feedback.
Background
The Canadian Pacific Rail Regional Trail (CP Rail Regional Trail, or CPRRT) is a planned 21‐mile regional
trail corridor that will extend from Becker Park in Crystal south to the Minnesota River, connecting six
communities – New Hope, Crystal, Golden Valley, St. Louis Park, Edina and Bloomington. The proposed trail
alignment will also connect to three regional trail search corridors and six regional trails, including the
Bassett Creek Regional Trail which runs east‐west through New Hope mostly along 36th Avenue and through
Northwood Park.
On January 17, 2022, Three Rivers Park District staff attended the work session to introduce the project,
outline their process and asked for Council support to move forward with their planning. They then attended
the Citizen Advisory Commission (CAC) meeting on February 8, 2022, to provide a similar presentation.
Following discussions that included Three Rivers staff, the project consultant and city staff from New Hope,
Crystal and Golden Valley several potential routes were identified for further discussion. These routes were
presented to the CAC on June 14, 2022 and then shared with the Council on June 20, 2022. At the June 20th
meeting, the Council was asked for their input regarding the potential routes and their support to move
forward with the community engagement phase.
Community engagement occurred from July to September and included a wide range of notification
strategies and engagement opportunities.
Agenda Section
Work Session
Item Number
11.2
Attachments
Recommendation and Summary Write Up
Engagement Summary
Route Concepts
Route Comparison Matrix
CP Rail Regional Trail: Golden Valley/New Hope/Crystal
Luce Line RT to Crystal Lake RT Segment
Staff Recommendation & Engagement and Route Assessment Summaries
Preferred CP Rail Regional Trail Recommendation
Three Rivers, Golden Valley, New Hope and Crystal staff recommend adopting the Winnetka-
Douglas Route (studied routes shown to the right) as the preferred regional trail route due to:
• Public support – it is the community preferred route due to community connections
and a quieter, more family friendly location.
• Assessment findings – it meets the project goals better and is less expensive.
• Hennepin County plans to improve bike and pedestrian safety along Douglas Drive in
2026 and may include a trail which would create an 8-mile trail loop.
Community Engagement Summary
Community engagement occurred from July to September and included a wide range of
notification strategies and engagement opportunities.
The engagement findings, summarized in the table below, revealed a clear preference for the
Winnetka-Douglas Route. See attached engagement summary for greater detail.
30+ events 3,750+ people
in attendance at
in-person events
On-line engagement available
24-7 & one-on-one engagement
available upon request
500
people indicated a preferred
route(s)
Here is the Preferred Route Breakdown
Winnetka 20%
Winnetka-Douglas 50%
Douglas 30%
225
people indicated where they
want to bike, walk or visit.
Here are the Top 3 Answers
Parks, Trails & Community Centers 28%
Restaurants 19%
Friends and Family 15%
Route Assessment Summary
In consultation with city staff, the Winnetka Route was removed from additional assessment due
to implementation challenges and lack of public support.
The two remaining routes, Winnetka-Douglas and Douglas Routes, share segments along Douglas
Drive between Becker Park & Fairview Ave. and Medicine Lake Road & the Luce Line Regional
Trail. Since these segments have the same opportunities and challenges, staff focused the route
assessment primarily on the segments of the routes which are different and unbuilt. As currently
proposed, neither option removes parking.
The assessment findings, summarized in the table below, indicate a stronger case for the Winnetka-Douglas Route. See attached matrix and
concept renderings for greater detail.
Between Douglas Dr./32nd
Ave. and Douglas
Dr./Fairview Ave. Connections to the Top 3 Places
to Walk, Bike and Visit.
Equity Impact
(within 1,000’ of new trail
segments only)
Road/
Driveway
Crossings
Anticipated
Easements
Tree
Impacts
High-Level
Cost
Winnetka-Douglas
Route
Similar.
4 parks/trails, 2 community
centers, 7 restaurants, and 55%
is adjacent to residential land
uses.
Better.
An additional 1,200 BIPOC, 200
Hispanic, 50 people >75 years old,
425 youth, 600 households with an
annual income of ≤$50K and 100
families living in poverty served.
Fewer by
15%.
74 driveways
and 11
roads.
About 15,
typ. 2’ wide
along ROW.
About
80 trees,
1/3 are
ash.
Less by
50%.
$4.2 M*
Douglas Route
1 trail, 1 community center, 6
restaurants and 94% is adjacent
to residential land uses.
--- 88 driveways
and 11 roads None.+ None. $7.3M+
* The Winnetka-Douglas Route cost assumes that the curb and parking along Fairview/49th Ave. will remain and the trail will be constructed at the back of curb. If a
different design concept is favored, the project cost will increase.
+ The Douglas Route cost assumes moving the curb and reducing the road shoulder width to minimize the need for easements. If reducing shoulder width is not an
option, an additional 90 private property easements are likely, but project costs may be less.
Recommended
Route
1
CP Rail Regional Trail: Golden Valley/New Hope/Crystal
Luce Line RT to Crystal Lake RT Segment
Phase 1: Community Engagement Summary
Engagement Summery
Community members engaged in the CP Rail
Regional Trail process demonstrated a clear
preference for the Winnetka-Douglas Route (see
summary table to the right).
Community engagement occurred from July to
September and included a wide range of
notification strategies and engagement
opportunities in an effort to build awareness and
make engagement simple, convenient, and
meaningful.
Greater detail on the notification efforts,
engagement offerings and feedback is available
below and on the following pages.
Three Rivers Notification Efforts and Outcomes
Three Rivers utilized a variety of notification techniques to help build project awareness, reach those most impacted by the project, and ensure a
balanced approached to engagement. Additionally, Three Rivers tracked engagement findings and increased notification and engagement efforts
in September to better reach those not yet significantly engaged but most likely impacted by what was appearing to be the community preferred
route.
A high-level summary of the notification efforts and measurements of success is outlined below.
Notification Method Distribution Magnitude/Impact Outcome Metrics
Post Cards
(July 10-11)
Sent to ~2,800 property
owners/residents within 500’ of
each route
o 320 webpage visits are attributed to the post card mailing as the webpage was
manually typed/entered following the mailing.
o Website traffic peaked a few days after the postcard mailing.
o All virtual/in-person participants indicated notification via the postcard.
o Many people living close to the routes that participated in an in-person
engagement (i.e. Farmer’s Market) indicated that they received the post card.
o A local mail person at the Golden Valley Farmer’s Market noted delivering
about 200 post cards.
Flyers Sharing Project
Information
(Sept 2-6)
Left at businesses along Quebec
and at each residence along the
northside of 49th/Fairview Aves.
o There was no noticeable change in website traffic after the flyer was left and
only a handful of additional comments were received.
Flyers for a
Neighborhood Mtg
(Sept 21)
Flyers were left along both sides
of 49th/Fairview
o Website traffic peaked a few days after the flyer was left.
o Participation in a neighborhood pop-up meeting reflected receipt of flyer.
Email
(July 13)
Email
(Aug 6)
Social Media
(July – Sept)
36,000 people (Three Rivers
newsletter list serve)
3,705 households in Crystal,
New Hope and Golden Valley
which have a Three Rivers
registration account
July 13 message: Data analytics not readily available at this time, but will be added
when available.
Aug 6 message: The message was opened by 1,606 recipients (44 percent open
rate) and clicked on by 90 recipients (2.5 percent click rate).
o 800 webpage visits are attributed to various Three Rivers and city social media
posts, website articles, and/or newsletters.
Yard Signs 24-yard signs were installed
along the studied routes in July
and August
Several engaged community members cited seeing them.
Information Boards Brookview Community Center
Crystal Community Center
New Hope Golf Course
About 45 people activity participated in the self-guided engagement activity.
30+ events
3,750+ people
in attendance at
in-person events
On-line engagement available
24-7 & one-on-one engagement
available upon request
Over 1,900 people visited the project webpage.
1,400 website visitors clicked on at least one project link
and over 110 people participated in at least one of the
feedback opportunities.
500
people indicated a preferred
route(s)
Here is the Preferred Route Breakdown
Winnetka 20%
Winnetka-Douglas 50%
Douglas 30%
225
people indicated where they
want to bike, walk or visit.
Here are the Top 3 Answers
Parks, Trails & Community Centers 28%
Restaurants 19%
Friends and Family 15%
2
Engagement Plan Opportunities
In addition to the engagement events listed below, interested parties could visit the project website www.ThreeRiversParks.link/CP-Rail or email
cprailregionaltrailmasterplan@threeriversparks.org to learn more, share feedback or request a one-on-one virtual meeting or phone conference.
Self-guided engagement boards were available at Golden Valley’s Brookview, New Hope Golf Course and Crystal Community Center.
Completed Events Date City General
Pop.
Regional
Trail
Users
Adjacent
Property
Owners
Targeted Community Groups
Youth BIPOC Hispanic/
Latino
Seniors
(75+)
House.
< $50K
New
Resdnts
Initial Engagement: Where do you want to bike/walk/visit?
Paso A Paso 4/30 NH X X
Bike Rodeo 5/5 GV X X
Vehicle Fair 6/4 CRY X X
Primary Engagement: Route Assessment and Preference
Crystal Park Neighborhood Mtgs 7/6 CRY X X
New Hope Farmers Market 7/9 NH X X X X
Golden Valley Farmers Market 7/10 GV X X
Luce Line RT Pop Up 7/11 GV X
Golden Valley Concerts in the Park
and Ice Cream Social: The 1st John
Philip Sousa Memorial Band 7/11 GV X X X
Luce Line RT Pop Up 7/13 GV X
Golden Valley Concert in the Park -
Salsa del Soul 7/18 GV X X X
Crystal Soccer Camp 7/19 CRY X X X
Virtual Lunch Hour Mtg 7/20 ALL X X
Virtual Evening Mtg 7/20 ALL X X
Golden Valley Pedal Pushers 7/21 GV X
Crystal Seniors Tabling 7/25 CRY X
In Person Mtg 7/27 CRY X X
Golden Valley Penny Carnival 7/29 GV X X
Crystal Frolics 7/30 CRY X X X X X X X X
Crystal Farmers Market 8/2 CRY X X X X X X X X
Prism Food Shelf Pop Up
8/2
8/16 GV X X X X
Crystal - Park Neighborhood Mtgs 8/3 CRY X X X
New Hope Summer Theatre Off-
Broadway Musical Theatre 8/5 NH X
Bassett Creek RT/Park Pop Up 8/5 CRY X
Crystal/New Hope Wet and Wild
Fun Day Valley Place Park 8/5 CRY X X X X
New Hope Music in the Park - Salsa
del Soul 8/10 NH X X X X X
New Hope Bingo & Food Truck
Friday 8/12 NH X X
Bassett Creek RT/Northwoods Park
Pop Up 8/17 NH X
Three Rivers Explorer Camp 8/23 CRY X X
49th/Fairview Ave. Pop Up Mtg. 9/26 CRY X X
Padagis (Quebec Ave.) Private Mtg. 9/29 NH X
Three Rivers also explored the following activities but was unable to make the following suggestions work:
• Potential bike event with ACER in Crystal (opportunity was offered, but community partner did not respond)
• Junior Bike Rangers and Bike Rangers program in Golden Valley (city staff did not recommend pursuing)
• Pop Up in partnership with Three Rivers disc golf at Becker Park in Crystal (staff availability)
3
• Becker Park Pop Up (received feedback from park users at other community events held at the park)
• North Lions Park Pop Up (staff availability)
• Schaper Park Pop Up (substantial youth/Golden Valley engagement events already completed)
• Golden Valley Little League and Softball Tournaments (league was wrapping up at start of engagement/staffing availability)
• Low Income/Affordable Housing Pop-ups (opportunity was offered, but housing representatives did not respond)
• Outdoor Afro (Three Rivers Community Engagement Team is still working on this partnership)
Engagement Findings
Community members could provide feedback in a variety of ways including simply providing a preferred route to providing written comments to
taking a project survey. While the online engagement opportunities provided a means for people to learn more and shared feedback twenty-four
hours a day, seven days a week, the over thirty in-person events reached more people and provided a way for community members to have their
questions answered immediately and in an informal, conversational manner which provided comfortable to most participants.
The comments below do not represent every comment received (especially those that were verbal) but does provide a representative summary of
common themes and preferences. Upon request, staff can provide a breakdown of route preference by age for each engagement offering.
Route Preference
The following table summarizes the engagement findings for those that participated in reviewing route options.
Event
Location
Total
Engaged* Route Option Sub-
total
Response by Age Notes <10 10-18 19-34 35-59 60-74 ≥75
Crystal
Events 186
Winnetka 17 3 1 1 10 2 0 1 aged 19-34 likes Win-Doug or
Doug
2 aged 60-74 like all 3/no
preference
Winnetka-Douglas 89 4 4 20 35 20 6
Douglas 65 7 3 11 25 18 1
New Hope
Events 91
Winnetka 15 1 1 0 10 1 2
1 aged 35-59 likes Win-Doug in
south and Win in north
1 aged 60-74 likes all 3/no
preference
1 aged 60-74 wants the safest
option
Winnetka-Douglas 52 2 5 8 30 7 0
Douglas 22 0 1 3 9 8 1
Golden
Valley
Events
153
Winnetka 24 5 0 6 7 5 1
1 aged 35-59 and 6 aged 60-74
likes all 3/no preference
2 aged 60-74 like Win-Doug or
Doug
1 aged 60-74 likes Win or Doug
1 aged 60-74 is not
supportive/feels sorry for
anyone living by a trail
Winnetka-Douglas
74 10 2 7 28 21 6
Douglas 42 1 7 5 16 10 3
Virtual/In
Person
Open
Houses
14
Winnetka 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 age unknown is undecided Winnetka-Douglas 4 0 1 0 2 0 1
Douglas+ 9 0 1 2 2 0 0
Wikki
Interactive
Map+
17
Winnetka 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 Did not collect age data. More
people were engaged (81
comments total); this reflects
those comments that showed a
preferred route.
Winnetka-Douglas 5 0 0 0 0 0 0
Douglas 6 0 0 0 0 0 0
Online
Survey** 59
Winnetka 21 0 0 10 8 3 0 3 aged 55-74 did not like any of
the 3 routes Winnetka-Douglas 18 0 0 7 7 4 0
Douglas 17 0 0 6 4 7 0
Summary 520
Winnetka 83 9 2 17 35 11 3
Winnetka-Douglas 242 16 12 42 102 52 13
Douglas 161 8 12 27 56 43 5
* Does not equal total of 3 preferred routes as it includes those without a single preferences or those that do not support
the trail/routes.
+ Includes preferences from virtual open houses/interactive maps where age data was not collected and/or undecided
participants.
** Age ranges did not align perfectly. Online survey ranges was 35-54 was classified as 35-59 and online survey ranges from
55-74 was classified as 60-74.
4
Desired Places to Walk, Bike or Visit
For those that were less familiar with the routes (primarily youth and people that did not live within the project search area), a second engagement
activity was provided to learn about where they wanted to be able to walk, bike or visit. These findings are summarized below.
Age of
Part.
Total
Engaged* School
Prks, Trls
& Com.
Cntrs
Restrnts Health
Care Transit Place of
Worship
Shopping
Centers Work Library Friends &
Family
<10 83 12 17 10 5 3 2 1 0 11 22
10-17 22 1 3 5 0 0 0 6 0 4 3
18-34 24 0 11 2 0 2 1 1 0 4 3
35-59 35 2 14 6 2 1 1 2 2 3 2
60-74 18 0 5 6 0 1 0 2 0 1 3
75+ 5 0 2 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0
Unknown
Age 36 0 11 12 0 1 1 3 4 4 0
Subtotal 223 15 63 42 7 8 5 17 6 27 33
Percent 100.0% 6.7% 28.3% 18.8% 3.1% 3.6% 2.2% 7.6% 2.7% 12.1% 14.8%
* Some participants were undecided and choose more than one option. Total engaged is likely closer to 175-200 people.
Emailed Comments
Community members, businesses and property owners were also invited to email comments directly to a project email address. Seven people took
advantage of this option. All emails are listed below verbatim.
July 10 Hello,
I live on 32nd and Edgewood Ave N. There already is a trail along 32nd to Douglas Drive. I don’t understand what the post
card is announcing that I received in the mail. Please explain.
Thank you,
Joanne Loth
August 1
Hello,
Is there a recording of the virtual meetings to watch?
-Sarah Butler
August 5 Hello, I enjoyed the Beacon Academy "Share Your Feedback" meeting on July 27th. I have a question. Can any portion of the
new trail go through any part of Robbinsdale? Thank you! MC
August 6/16 Hi,
I received the email re: planned trails through Golden Valley, Crystal, etc.
I am in favor of more trails, but with kids in mind.
Most of the trails (read “anything on a street”) are completely unsafe to take a kid biking or skating. There is no effective
traffic barrier, no obvious signage, and little thought to pavement condition.
Please consider improving what exists already.
Thanks,
Anna Sawyer
----
Thank you for the reply.
We use the route currently marked as Basset Creek, running from Scheid Park to Wirth, (which we take to connect to the city
lakes and our kids’ school).
The “trail” there NEEDS a physical barrier.
The sidewalk area needs pavement that is level. If there were a safe way to get to stores (Lunds Byerlys, the strip mall at
Winnetka/55), we would use those more too. Make it safe for me to use my bike and my kids’ bikes, to run local errands.
In terms of recreational trails, we use the Luce Line and Wirth.
Anna
August 18
Hi,
5
I manage Valley Place Apartments at 7201 36th Ave N. The Bassett Creek Regional Trail was extended down Nevada Ave a
few years ago. That leg is across the street from our back parking lot. Looking at the website for this project it looks to me like
the new additions would run through the residential neighborhoods north of our property. It doesn’t look like our property
would be physically impacted by this addition (depending on whether the trail is extended west on 36th Ave N across the
street from us or on our side of 36th Ave N). I would be interested in finding out if there will be an impact on our side of the
street or not.
Thanks,
Ed B.
September 14 Hi Three Rivers Parks,
I’m the head of engineering/facilities for a manufacturing business along the proposed route through New Hope, along
Quebec Ave N. We have a couple of comments/questions we’d like to discuss, so I would like to request an opportunity to
review the plan with you. I apologize that this is after the requested due date, but I just became aware of the proposed
locations yesterday afternoon. We can make ourselves available in order to have this meeting right away (or at your earliest
convenience). Please let me know on your availability.
Thanks,
Melissa
Melissa Timm | Senior Engineering Manager
Padagis | Engineering
September 27 Dear Three Rivers,
Thank you for setting up the Neighborhood Pop-up Meeting yesterday, September 26th for residents to better understand
and ask questions about the proposal.
Installing a regional walking/biking trail would be an action which would provide multiple benefits to both neighborhoods
and also the community at large, and I am in favor of the trail. As to how and where the trail is constructed, there are
decisions which need to be made as to whether to eliminate parking and build the trail from there up to the lawn that edges
the sidewalk or to keep the parking lane and build the trail 15 feet from the curb into the public easement which are at
present, part of the front yards of residents.
As a gardener living on the north side of Fairview Avenue N. and who actively uses the sunny, south-facing part of her front
yard for growing vegetables and flowers, mostly in the easement portion, loss of that approximately 10 ft.-wide strip of prime
sunny soil would drastically diminish my garden and production of vegetables and flowers. While the needs and preferences
of one resident should not drive the decisions that affect the entire neighborhood, I would welcome a design which block by
block, we neighbors could vote on whether we would prefer to have the trail built into the easement land of our front yards
and maintain parking with the creation of parking bays, or use the parking lane as part of the trail and keep the easement
land as part of our front yards.
I believe that the trail does not need to be a straight line for its entire length; rather, it would be more visually pleasing to
have the curving path that might emerge from the block-to-block decisions of the residents as they weigh parking space vs.
front yard space for their preferences and needs.
I look forward to learning more about the trail and how its implementation is decided.
Judith Anthony
On-line Comments
Anyone visiting the project website could leave feedback directly on the project page. Twenty-six people took advantage of this option, and their
comments are listed below verbatim.
Date Comment
May 21
Love that you are connecting these trails. Will be great to have new places to go as I primarily use the Dakota Rail Trail and the
opportunity to go north will be a welcome change.
One thing I'm not clear on ... will the section of the Luce Line Trail that is being used be paved? I believe it's crushed limestone (or
similar) right now, but it would be amazing if that section could be paved to increase accessibility for people using various modes
of travel.
Thank you !
6
Jul 09
I disagree with using 49th Ave. North for this purpose. I live on a cul-de-sac off 49th and 49th is our only access in and out of the
cul-de-sac. It's already busy with traffic and adding a rail line would make congestion worse! Please find another option for this
rail line.
Jul 09 Do you have any mock ups of what the trail would look like? Seems like a great idea but wondering if home owners along
Winnetka would have to give up some of their front yard?
Jul 09 Please do not select the pink route, this goes through the most residential areas of all the plans and is not a straightforward
pathway with existing sidewalks causing people to cross more streets.
Jul 11
I like the Winnetka and the Douglas routes as they are the most straightforward, but I think I’m leaning toward using Winnetka
Ave for the trail as it seems to pass more shopping areas, including the Hy-Vee and the YMCA. Winnetka traffic has been building
though over time and I imagine the bikers would slow things down as it’s only two lanes so cars would have to wait for bikers to
pass before turning. If Douglas has more space to have separate turn lanes (as I can’t recall) then that would definitely help
maintain the flow of traffic if a big lane was added. I am also very curious if one route or the other is worse in regards to incline,
and I think that should be an important factor to consider! You wouldn’t want a large hill to deter bikers from using the path if we
build it. I suspect the Winnetka incline heading north might be somewhat difficult, and I’m not sure how it would be on Douglas.
Jul 11 Also, it would be really helpful to have restaurants marked on the map, specifically, so we can see which route has more of them
as I think many bike to get to places to eat, drink and socialize.
Jul 12
There is no need to have a Winnetka-Douglas route. Two routes are fine. How about giving us a refund rather than wasting our
tax money. Property taxes are ridiculous and we’ve already been taxed enough for the New Hope pool and the Crystal police
station. Please take this inquiry seriously - many residents believe our city representatives truly only represent themselves rather
than the community. There are more important things that need to be addressed such as making fiber internet available to all
citizens and burying power lines - this isn’t the 1950’s!
Jul 14
There’s a small paved trail on the south side of 55 from Theo worth Parkway going west toward the intersection on sharper rd. It
stops by the frontage road and does not continue over to that intersection. If it were continued along the frontage road to the
intersection decide 55 it would cut up a big shock to get to the Luce line by the park.
Jul 16
Will these be sprayed on lanes or protected? These roads are intimidating to ride down given the speed limit and the amount of
unlicensed people. When riding in mpls I find many streets are built to keep people paying more attention. Slower speeds. On
street parking. Ironically narrower roads make me feel safer biking on them. Some of the roads in this map don't have that and
people are off guard. Just a couple hours ago on Douglas a woman stopped, I hit breaks, she turned around, I look in mirror, she
did a 360 in the middle of the road.
Aug 01 Would love to see the Winnetka trail! Thank you for your work on this!
Aug 02 I feel this trail should follow the most direct route possible, along Douglas.
Aug 02
This trail, no matter which route, should be off street family friendly walking/biking trails. Traffic on these streets is intimidating
and dangerous even when we walk on the current sidewalks. We will look forward to walking/biking to businesses along the
Winnetka corridor in the future and prefer the Winnetka trail! Thank you for this North/South route.
Aug 04
The Douglas route would establish important connections between areas that the City of Crystal seems to be investing in, Bassett
Creek Park, City Hall, the Library, the Community Center and perhaps most importantly, in the context of the incoming Blue Line,
the Becker Park area and "Town Center". This last item should be *directly* connected to the others and is why I think the
Douglas route should be favored. This obviously has a Crystal bias and a personal perspective bias.
Re: City of Crystal investments. There are incentives for Storefront improvements along the Douglas route as well:
https://www.crystalmn.gov/resident/community_development/storefront_improvement_program
Aug 09
Can we please get a couple of safe, off street north/south connections to the Cedar Lake trail? It's a shame that we can't ride
from New Hope or Golden Valley straight down to Hopkins or St. Louis Park, especially where there are train tracks and highways
that go north/south. Can we please think of actually getting somewhere on a bike/by walking instead of just recreation? If we
could actually go shopping/go to work/go out to eat/go to the gym on our bikes/scooters, maybe more people would use the
trails you build.
Aug 10
The Winnetka option will be the greater improvement over current conditions. I bike on Douglas already; I will go out of my way
to avoid riding on Winnetka. While I would love to see a Douglas trail I would rather have improvements on Winnetka. The
Winnetka-Douglas option is not appealing.
Aug 10
'For all these new trails, a few comments:
- When following a main road, it should be separated from the road, see to what has been done on N Plymouth Avenue in
Minneapolis
- When following a main road, the trail should have the same priority on the side roads as the main road, see again what has been
done on N Plymouth Avenue where all the side roads do not have priority on the bike trail
- Before putting on a stop on a trail, assess if a priority sign triangle would be more adequate especially when the trail has good
visibility on the crossing road
- Never put a stop on a trail for drive ways such as what has been done in Orono on the Dakota trail where you have 13 stops for
mostly home driveways on 2 miles!
- Overall, Minnesota needs to catch up on bike trails along main corridors (like along 55) or even in typical city streets where a
7
bike trail should always be marked especially at lights; they need to be separated from walking path, minimize stops, be
protected from cars. Some cities in the South like Tucson has a much wider network with bike trail or path along most main roads
I bike a lot along these trails, most of them are great (Elm Creek, Carver,…) but in between parks, they can be improved
Aug 12
Hello, my wife and I bike a lot and live just off Boone in New Hope. Placing the trail on Winnetka only OR Winnetka-Douglas
would allow for more residents of New Hope to access the trails. Douglas-only trail cuts New Hope out of the equation and I
doubt it would see much ridership from New Hope. Given New Hope destinations of HyVee, YMCA, Ice Arena and the new
waterpark and green space near the New Hope City Hall, keeping the trail closer to New Hope is very beneficial. Also, the
Winnetka options is in the middle between 169 and 100 that border the area.
Aug 16
Both planned routes have their benefits. A downside I see to Winnetka is the amount of traffic which bikers would encounter.
Already
concerned with the lack of respect drivers through much of Winnetka neighborhoods I am concerned the addition of bikes and
families would cause more safety concerns. Winnetka has become a main Avenue of traffic for emergency vehicles, traffic
violator escapees, speed testing/racing drivers and no longer is the quiet road it once was. For this reason, the
Winnetka/Douglas route, through community neighborhoods, would be a more enjoyable and safer ride.
Aug 21 Hi, I prefer the Douglas Drive optionz
Aug 24
Whether you opt for Douglas or Winnetka, please make the trail separate from the street (like it is on Boone or 36th). Biking on
Winnetka and Douglas is entirely too busy, and if traffic is narrowed down to two lanes, drivers will get upset with bikers (or
those waiting to turn left) and go in the bike lane.
Aug 31 I would like to see the Basset Creek Regional Trail from east of Highway 100 highway completed to Theodore Wirth Parkway
Sep 03
As a recreational rider who lives at the north end of New Hope, I would be very happy to have a north/south route connecting me
to some major bike trails. Here are my comments about what things are important to me:
1. Pretty and quiet trail - I have recently discovered I could ride south on Quebec rather than riding on Winnetka. That was a
major discovery. It's pretty and quiet. However, even though it is not too inefficient from my location, it would not be as efficient
from Becker Park. It seems silly to go west and then back east again. But if the trail is nicer, it might be worth it.
2. Few intersections and as little traffic as possible - the route on Winnetka has a lot of intersections and traffic. It might be
similar to the route going north on Bottineau Blvd from 63rd to Fleet Farm. That part of the trail is worthless. It's ugly. It cuts your
bike riding time in half because of all the time you stand waiting at intersections. I would not be in favor of any route like that.
3. Off Road trail - Douglas Drive could work as long as the route is not on the road. I would not bother riding a trail that is a special
section on the road. If I had to ride on that road anyway, it would be better than nothing, but I would not go out of my way to
ride on that trail and for recreation purposes, I would choose a different one.
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to give feedback. I would be very happy to have a bike trail in this area. And if there is
ever a way to connect the Crystal/Becker Park area to Eagle Lake in Maple Grove (or just to get across 169 more easily at the
north end of New Hope), that would be much appreciated as well!
Sep 08 Our manufacturing business is located on Quebec Ave., will the proposed trail be on the road or would a new sidewalk/path be
added on this stretch of the path? If a new path where exactly is the proposed location?
Sep 08
I walk from Yunkers park (Winnetka Hills) to Bassett Creek everyday. I used to live on the trail. Now that I don't, it seems like east
and west are not connected. You could look at 32nd ave between nevada and winnetka as a missed opportunity to serve a large
community of apartment living. The road is incredibly wide and people walk there all the time only to encounter trucks/trailers
parked and busy drivers. Not a pleasant way to get from new hope to crystal and/or to the bigger connections. Winnetka hills has
a ton of walkers and no place to walk! Just west of us, we have trails in New hope which are not well maintained but are good for
walking. With so much emphasis on the larger trails, please do not forget the arteries that can support this initiative. People want
to walk, bike, excercise for a variety of reasons. If it's difficult for people in the neighborhood to access them, they won't enjoy
the bigger benefits of what you are doing. I only walk through the industrial area because I know how great the Bassett creek trail
is. This is a small request for a great way to connect the east and west sides of town. Getting from 100 to 169 should be easier for
us. And, perhaps there is a better way to get to medicine lake (Bicycle / Walking Bridge about at 32nd) to get across. The only way
now is an old unsafe sidewalk on medicine lake road(or 36th). Thanks for listening!
Sep 14 Will the trail go on the East side of Winnetka? That would make the most sense.
8
Sep 23
I feel it’s important for bikers and the community to have safe paths and routes to use. I drive both Douglas and Winnetka
frequently for my commute and feel that street traffic is better managed on Douglas and would seem to be the safer option. It
also seems that the least amount of railroads would need to be altered to accommodate this route. Since there is currently a bike
lane on Douglas, would there be less work to the existing roads to add in a trail? Is there any data available on how much
potential bike traffic this trail in expecting to draw? I am also curious as to how many residential properties will be affected by
each proposed route. As a Crystal resident I am a bit disappointed to only be hearing about this project in what appears to be the
later stages. Were the residents notified earlier on and something was missed? Again, not opposed to the idea of a trail, just
looking for more details from a residents perspective. Thank you.
Survey Summary
A survey was posted on the website and provided an opportunity for participants to share their preferred route and why, why they may be excited
for the trail and what concerns they may have. Fifty-nine number of people took the survey and their comments, listed in the tables below, are in
line with verbal feedback from other in-person events. A few additional highlights are listed below:
• There was not a clear preferred route by survey participants.
• Fifty percent of participants indicated that they would use the trail for recreation purposes, forty-two percent of participants would use
the trail to access local destination (within the same community) and 37% of participants would use the trail to reach destinations in
other communities.
What is your
preferred route? Why is that your preferred route? Or if you selected 'Other', please explain why.
Winnetka-
Douglas Route Incorporates Bassett creek trail infrastructure
Douglas Route
The Douglas route will serve the most underinvested parts of the area. Will get the county to actually improve a
popular bike route that is currently unsafe. It is also the most efficient. Most families will not want to bike a mile
west to just bike a mile East later in the trail.
Winnetka Route
So many people use this sidewalk on winnetka and it’s a busy street with bus stops and kids walking to Cooper high
school. There is not enough room to pass a stroller or biker, so many people walk or bike on winnetka which is
dangerous
Winnetka Route
- It is a straight route so it won’t be confusing.
- it is the closest to medicine Lake
- we live on winnetka and we would love to have the regional trail go by our home to increase pedestrian and
bicycle ‘traffic’ on our road.
Douglas Route This would give good access to the Crystal Community Center.
Winnetka Route
The Winnetka Route would be the safest and most direct for all concerned. I live by the 4 way stop at 32nd and
Hampshire. I have witnessed how aproximately 50% of the autos and 95% of the bicycles do not observe the stop
sign. Many not only do not slow down but actually speed through the intersection. Since this is a residential
neighborhood with a busy city park at this intersection, it is only a matter of time until there is a serious accident at
32nd and Hampshire Ave. The current setup is for the trail to not only cross Hampshire but also 32nd at this
interesection. Currently, only pedestrians follow this. To rectify this, there would have to be much expense and
potentially taking resident's propoerty. Since bike riders do not like to stop at intersections, the Winnetka Route
would have fewer stops and enable them to traverse the area quickly.
Winnetka Route Winnetka Route provides access for students who attend Robbinsdale Cooper High School to more safely bike
to/from school.
Douglas Route Makes sense to connect to Luce Line with the already planned underpass, less busy street.
Winnetka Route It will provide the opportunity for me to connect to a number of other trails I frequently use.
Winnetka Route
Douglas Route Less busy and direct
Winnetka-
Douglas Route Gets me to the store, to my home, to other trails to get to work, and can get me to other transit connections.
Douglas Route
Douglas Drive is wide enough to handle a bike lane, passes by the Crystal City Hall and police station, Crystal Cove
Pool, Crystal Community Center and allows additional exposure for established and newly emerging businesses.
There are a number of small businesses that could benefit from the route traffic.
Winnetka Route I'm torn between Winnetka and Winnetka- Douglas. Winnetka doesn't feel safe to bike on, therefore I would like a
bike/walk path there. I like the Quebec section of the Winnetka-Douglas trail.
9
Winnetka Route The straight path for the entire length is preferable to a route with a lot of turns and the Douglas route already has
a pretty good path south of medicine lake road. The Douglas path would be a good second option though.
Winnetka-
Douglas Route It is not just a straight shot. Provides more of a circular route.
Winnetka-
Douglas Route Goes through the most natures type area
Winnetka-
Douglas Route There is more diversity in the route than just going in a straight line like the other two routes.
Winnetka-
Douglas Route
All or most of the side streets in New Hope lack sidewalks. Winnetka is very busy and loud when I walk my dogs,
but when I take the side streets like Quebec Ave, I am walking on the street. Providing additional walking paths
that are safer is why I would prefer the Winnetka-Douglas route.
Douglas Route I like that is is a straight shot. Also Douglas Dr is not as busy as Winnetka
Winnetka Route
Of the three proposed routes, Winnetka is the only street that currently has no affordability for cyclists. Douglas
Drive and Quebec Ave are both reasonably bike friendly. Putting the trail on the latter two routes would make
good things better for people who already use them, while leaving most or all of Winnetka behind.
To add to this, Winnetka is currently quite unsafe between Medicine Lake Rd and Bass Lake Rd. The four lane setup
on that stretch of road causes much heavier traffic than what there ought to be in these neighborhoods, and this
makes it difficult to even cross the street safely for kids living in the Cooper High area. As a result, people who live
west of Winnetka are generally cut off from trails to the east, and vice versa. Winnetka Ave should be restructured
to prioritize the safety of families who live in the residential neighborhoods adjacent to it. I believe putting the bike
trail there would help accomplish that while also doing the most to improve trail access for New Hope residents.
Winnetka-
Douglas Route Variety in where it goes.
Winnetka Route
Winnetka Route
Douglas Route Further from my house
Winnetka-
Douglas Route Would be less vehicle traffic
Winnetka Route Convenience, safety.
Winnetka Route Safe location for woman and children
Winnetka Route Direct route. Also winnetka is a busy street and it would be nice to have safe biking space there. The other smaller
streets you can already bike on fairly safely with it a trail anyway.
Other Douglas to Basset’s Creek Regional trail
Winnetka Route It is closest to my house and a straight shot down south
Winnetka Route It's closest to my house
Winnetka Route We live off of Winnetka and bike/run often. I even bike to work in Golden Valley. Having an official trail off of
Winnetka would be incentive to stay in the area long term.
Douglas Route
I frequently bike up and down Douglas dr. It would be amazing to have this connected to the luce line at the south
end and Becker park at the north end.
However, a trail is also needed to connect the Crystal area (42nd and Douglas) with medicine lake so more is
needed beyond this project.
Douglas Route
As a biker, it is more straight forward path. Douglas drive is a little quieter than the current Winetka and I would
not like biking on Winetka, thus would never use it. Please note I do live only 2 blocks from Winetka, so technically
it would be easier for me to get to on my bike, and I still prefer the other route.
Douglas Route Seems to be less vehicle traffic on Douglas vs Winnetka
Douglas Route
Winnetka Route Connects to shopping
Winnetka Route
Douglas Route I see this route as creating important, non-car, connections in Crystal, especially in the context of future
development and the Blue Line.
Winnetka-
Douglas Route
From a laymen perspective it seems that there will be less traffic along this route which will make bike rides/walks
more pleasant and safer. Construction might also be less disruptive.
Winnetka-
Douglas Route
From the Bassett Creek Trail, the Winnetka-Douglas Route takes a biker to more separate areas, or you can get to
the Luce Line Trail easily too.
10
Winnetka-
Douglas Route
More of the community will benefit by interconnecting the parks and the ride will be more scenic for the riders -
not just along the same road.
Winnetka-
Douglas Route
Thinking specifically about biking, staying off Winnetka and Douglas as much as possible is preferable to me. 49th,
Quebec, Nevada and 32nd are much less trafficked for biking.
Douglas Route Less complicated.
Winnetka-
Douglas Route
It connects to the larger paved route along 36th Avenue and the trails through Northwood Park. The trails through
Northwood Park are true nature trails, not through busy streets.
Winnetka Route Because there is already a bike lane on Douglas(and it is fantastic) and the Winnetka route would be a great
alternative for going north south and I hope it would not be on the busy road.
Other
Douglas and Winnetka and 36th are very busy streets. Getting off those streets onto quieter streets is both safer
and more Interesting a route. Use Maryland, Nevada or Oregon to get north. Ive biked on all those busy streets:
They are filled with traffic at all times of the day.
Other
I don’t like any of them. Winnetk and Douglas are busy high-traffic routes. It will be noisy, smelly, and not scenic.
The Douglas-Winnetka route is convoluted and involves crossing a lot of roads, especially the intersection at
Winnetka and 36th. Very long and tedious crossing. Could you cross 36th further east at a less busy intersection?
Winnetka-
Douglas Route It’s off busy streets which allows for a more enjoyable trail experience and it connects several parks together.
Winnetka-
Douglas Route
I like this route because it connects Winnetka to Douglas and seems like it would also be a little bit more scenic
and peaceful in between the two.
Winnetka-
Douglas Route This would be convenient for where I live.
Douglas Route
Douglas Route Closest access to places near my home that I might bike to
Winnetka-
Douglas Route Quieter streets. Less traffic
Winnetka Route I would use it as a New Hope resident. This route allows a safer way for pedestrians and cyclists to travel along and
visit businesses on Winnetka.
Douglas Route The Douglas ROW has more room than Winnetka, and I’ve witnessed some terribly unsafe driving on Winnetka.
Winnetka-
Douglas Route We like the fact that the streets are less busy, better scenery, passes by other parks & YMCA
Douglas Route It is the most direct and least confusing to a rider
If you are excited about or looking forward to the regional trail, please share why.
Northern extension of basset creek trail and Luce Line connection
Crystal has no safe north/south bike routes. This could finally make the city bike friendly and connect to the grand rounds.
I love biking, but there aren’t any good trails to bike to from my house without crossing over 169 to get to medicine lake.
The more trails are around and accessible, the more people will walk/bike on them and the more active people will be.
Regional trails provide a safer way for bikers and pedestrian to bike/walk around.
My family would love to be able to bike more in our neighborhood without the worries of sharing the road with vehicles.
Safer access for bike commuting
I am an avid cyclist, and I always welcome trail expansion.
I live on Winnetka and there's very little space to bike
I love to bike and don't feel we have enough trails in our area
I think it would help many people who need to or want to walk or bike to get around.
I'm an avid cyclist, the more paths the better. Also, there's no good north-south paths around here so the full regional trail is very
exciting.
So that I can bike more safely.
It’s close to my house
It provides more activities for our neighborhood and neighbors. Easier way to get around besides walking and driving.
I want families to use the trail as a safe place for children to exercise. I see many kids playing in the streets and parking lots around my
house. In New Hope, safe walking paths are limited to very busy streets.
I am excited that existing paths are gaining connections! It helps to make ride distances more manageable.
11
The many miles of connected trails is one of the best perks of living in this area. But many are still cut off, especially kids. We need it to
be safer and more accessible for people of all ages to enjoy our trails. I want to be able to get to Golden Valley safely and hop on the
Luce Line trail. I want my teenage son to feel safe doing the same thing on his own.
We really need a good long walking path to connect parks.
I think it would bring our communities closer.
The areas identified have poor bike/walking access.
To bike, run and more!
Connect easily to other regional trails. I noticed that immediately when we moved to new Hope that there weren’t easy connections to
the trails. Excited to have that!
Yes. I live in Crystal and use the bike trails regularly
Yes! I believe this would entice me to bike more and use the local trails
I enjoy riding bicycle
I am pumped - we use the Three Rivers trails often and having a bike route nearby would be fantastic!
The Crystal area needs more bike trails which make it safe to get to and from the Luce line, medicine lake and victory memorial
parkway. There are so many great trails in other areas but we have no great way to connect to them. I’d love to be able to safely bike
on a trail to get to these wonderful trails.
For the last two years I've taken my bike, by car, to get to Elm Creek Park reserve to use their trails or take Rush Creek trail to the
Mississippi River. I have also taken my car to bike on the Luce Line trail, as well as the Medicine Lake Regional Trail. It would be nice to
have a starting place closer to home - and I always go on trails that do not have a lot of car traffic, as I enjoy nature.
more options for cycling
We have no close biking paths that connects to my neighborhood
I enjoy riding my bike to do basic things. Almsteads grocery is along the Douglas route and I would be able to use this trail to get their
quickly and safely on my bike. I also have an interest in exploring alternatives to personal vehicles and how projects like this effect local
vehicle trips. I'm excited to observe the effect on the community.
It will be great to have direct access to other communities and bike safe trails very close. The bike lanes that share the road with cars do
not feel very well thought out or safe at all in our area.
I am an avid biker! I regularly bike this area, and also enjoy many trails around the state. I'm a teacher and these trails are really the
highlight of m summer break! As an older citizen, not having to share busy roads with motorists encourages me to try to go to more
places on my bike.
So we can go on safer bike rides as a family in our own community. Right now, our only safe option with a seven-year-old is to drive to a
location first to use a safe bike trail.
I like the idea of connecting our communities with the Minnesota Valley State Trail - the better connected we are for biking, the easier
is it to navigate the area.
Connects parks in the city for easy access.
Better connection through the New Hope Parks!
I am excited because this will connect to so many other great trails. I use the regional trails multiple times a week.
I’m all for anything that makes bike transit easier, safer and thus more enjoyable and enticing.
It will be nice to have a north-south bike corridor to connect the existing trails
I live in the forest neighborhood of Crystal and love my neighbors but hate that there are no nearby trails. This would be such a nice
addition to the area and make it a more desirable place to live. There are many families with young children in this area and it is
definitely lacking safe trails for kids to ride bikes, scooters, go for walks etc. My husband and I have wanted to move for a while to be
closer to trails, but the addition of this trail would be a huge incentive to stay, especially with the blue line extension coming too! I am
so excited to hear about this!
I love all the new suburbs and how planned out they are. It’s exciting to think about retrofitting this area.
It will be something away from the normal city streets
Currently, we access the Luce Line via Douglas, where riding on street seems a little hazardous, especially with round-abouts
Any option for navigating my way north while avoiding busy 2 lane car streets is a plus
We badly need a safe and continuous north-south connection to the many east-west regional trails.
We like connectivity to other communities. Opportunity for exercising and taking advantage of the outdoors in our area.
Eager to be able to ride a few blocks from my house and be on a dedicated bike trail verses riding on regular roads with car. Also gives
me access all the other great trails without having to drive my car to them
12
If you have any concerns about the regional trail, please share them.
The Winnetka and Winnetka/Douglas alignments are less efficient and will likely be less used.
None, excited about the possibility.
How long is construction expected to take?
I am hoping it is not a bike lane on the road but a path so it is safer
I am AGAINST the Winnetka Douglas route which runs along small neighborhood streets.
Automobiles do not stop at stop signs. Bicycles do not stop at stop signs. And there are an increasing number of dogs in the area that
bark at bicycles at all hours.
I hope the planners don't get too much "not in my backyard" pushback from residents. No matter what trail you pick, it's going to be a
boon to the neighborhoods and cities it goes through.
N/A
My concern right now is there is little input from people of color. I would also like to hear about the engagement of local police in crime
along the planned routes.
It should improve life for the people who live along the trail. And it should create trail access for people who are currently lacking.
Please prioritize the people who will be impacted, and the people who are really in need.
I think it’s a waste of tax payer money
Semi trucks are a worry
Safety
None
I support more trails everywhere
None - please build it faster.
Ensuring their is shady areas along the route, quiet streets, and wide enough trail if needed to share with walkers.
Crime
None whatsoever.
This is about the Luce Line: As you are heading to Plymouth, this trail crosses wetlands using long plank bridges. They are so rough that
my husband and I have to walk our bikes across. He has had many back surgeries and I have an aneurysm that should not be jarred.
I worry that the cheapest way will be chosen and our community will miss out.
Winnetka is a busy route - I have concerns about biking there with four lanes of traffic. Douglas is better, particularly between Duluth
Street and Highway 55. Not sure if biking on Winnetka would be in the roadway or on a new trail, but the current road conditions on
Winnetka are not conducive to bike traffic.
Why were less-travelled streets not originally part of any plan?
None of the Proposed routes are very scenic and involve crossing a lot of roads and being exposed to traffic pollution
People not picking up after their pets
Winnetka and Douglas are both busy streets, so noisy and lots of cross traffic
No sharrows. Please make any dividers between cars and bikes out of concrete. No plastic strips or dividers
That it is wide enough for safe shared use.
Crossing busy streets and some railroads.
Virtual and In-person Open Houses
Two virtual and one in-person open houses were held. No significant comments were received, and all questions were addressed during the
meeting duration. All participants appeared supportive of the project.
Padagis (3940 Quebec) Private Meeting
A private meeting was held with Padagis representatives to share project and company information and design concerns which would need to be
addressed during a future design phase. Padigis is not opposed the project, but would like to be involved during the design phase.
• Company is growing which will increase staff (400+ total, 3 shift operation) and truck traffic (both internal operations and coordination
with other warehouse at 5175 Winnetka and with delivery of raw goods and product shipment).
• Company also uses adjacent church parking lot – as such there are 3 entrances which will need to be carefully designed.
• Topography may limit some sight lines.
• Underground utilities and irrigation are present in the right-of-way, a short retaining wall may be needed and driveways/crossings will
need to account for truck turning radius.
• Entrances should be monitored for potential concerns and corrections made promptly should an issue be identified.
13
Fairview/49th Ave. Pop Up Neighborhood Meeting
An additional pop-up outdoor neighborhood meeting for adjacent property owners was held to engage residents potentially most impacted by the
community preferred route. A high level summary of the meeting is as follows:
• About 25 people attending. 2/3 of attendees were direct neighbors and 1/3 were people out walking and use this route frequently.
• While not asked, about ¼ indicated that they would rather give up parking then have the trail consume the area that is functioning as part
of their front yards but officially ROW.
• About 5 neighbors were not supportive and cited:
o Lack of current winter maintenance by the city
o Concerns over safety of kids (kidnapping, safe access walking to and waiting for the bus as this is already a neighbor concern as
kids do this without parents)
o Concerns over people using the trail to case their properties for future crimes
o Not being able to leave their garages open
o The need for a privacy fence in their front yard in addition to their backyard
o Proximately of the trail to homes/windows
o Loss of a privacy
o Perceived or real loss of property values
o Current concerns over speed/traffic volume/lack of stop signs/truck route – this would just add more congestion.
• The balance of the meeting participants appeared supportive but recognized that additional design consideration to address retaining
walls, driveway drainage, potential tree/garden impacts, etc. would be needed.
• Several liked the idea of having safe places to walk/bike and connectivity to the Crystal Community Center and YMCA.
• About half of the neighbors mentioned their current displeasure over the city’s previous decision to remove stop signs, add parking and
make the route a truck route.
• There were a few comments about not knowing about the project, but this was generally handled by other neighbors that reported
receiving the previous post card and flyer.
• There were also comments about whether this was a done deal and who makes the decision and when that happens.
Preliminary Concept - Not for Construction
THIS IS A PRELIMINARY CONCEPT. FIELD VERIFICATION, SITE CONDITION
ASSESSMENTS, ENGINEERING ANALYSIS AND DESIGN ARE NECESSARY PRIOR
TO IMPLEMENTING ANY OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS CONTAINED HEREIN.
49th Ave. N. (Quebec to Louisiana)
The graphic on this page display’s the alignment on the north side for
the trail along 49th Ave. N. The trail is proposed on the north side of
the road for the following reasons:
• Fewer driveway crossings.
• Fewer utility conflicts (overhead utility lines).
• Existing sidewalk on the north side lessens impact of constructing
the regional trail.
The recommended trail alignment may include:
• Replacing the existing, varying width, boulevard lawn with a
consistent 2’ wide concrete clear zone.
• Replacing the existing 5’ wide concrete sidewalk with a 10’ wide
asphalt trail.
• Installing an approximately 2’ wide lawn clear zone up to the right-
of-way line.
• Relocating light poles and fire hydrants.
This section reflects the most common public right-of-way width of 70’.
There is one instance, in front of the New Hope Ice Arena, where the
right-of-way extends to the road centerline.
The section shows varying lanes widths to reflect existing road widths
along 49th Ave. N. The road section is greater on the west side of the
railroad tracks than the east.
For this section:
• The Average Daily Traffic of 49th Ave. N. is between 3,001 and
6,000 vehicles. This is considered moderate motor vehicle traffic
volume and supports the need for a separated regional trail.
• The corridor is generally flat with the steepest slope between
Quebec Ave. N. and the railroad tracks to the east. The slope is
approximately 2.5% and is below standard ADA guidelines for an
accessible path.
• The proposed regional trail crosses three driveways and one street
between Quebec Ave. N. and Louisiana Ave. N.
FOCUS AREA 1: 49TH AVE. N. (QUEBEC TO LOUISIANA)
BETWEEN QUEBEC AVENUE NORTH AND LOUISIANA AVENUE NORTH
NORTH
Preliminary Concept - Not for Construction
THIS IS A PRELIMINARY CONCEPT. FIELD VERIFICATION, SITE CONDITION
ASSESSMENTS, ENGINEERING ANALYSIS AND DESIGN ARE NECESSARY PRIOR
TO IMPLEMENTING ANY OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS CONTAINED HEREIN.
FOCUS AREA 1: 49TH AVE. N. + FOCUS AREA 2: FAIRVIEW AVE. N.
Fire hydrants and other utilities
may need to be relocated.Existing curb location may
stay in place.
Pedestrian crossings should be
highly visible to vehicular traffic.
Right-of-way in front of
the New Hope Ice Arena
extends to the centerline
of 49th Ave. N.
Light poles and fire hydrants
may need to be relocated.Existing curb location may
stay in place.
0 50 100 ft
NORTH
49TH AVE N49TH AVE N
NEVADA AVE NNEVADA AVE NQUEBEC AVE NQUEBEC AVE NMARYLAND AVE NMARYLAND AVE NFAIRVIEW AVE NFAIRVIEW AVE N49TH AVE N49TH AVE N
KENTUCKY AVE NKENTUCKY AVE NLOUISIANA AVE NLOUISIANA AVE NLOUISIANA AVE NLOUISIANA AVE NJERSEY AVE NJERSEY AVE NJERSEY AVE NJERSEY AVE N
Preliminary Concept - Not for Construction
THIS IS A PRELIMINARY CONCEPT. FIELD VERIFICATION, SITE CONDITION
ASSESSMENTS, ENGINEERING ANALYSIS AND DESIGN ARE NECESSARY PRIOR
TO IMPLEMENTING ANY OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS CONTAINED HEREIN.
FOCUS AREA 2: FAIRVIEW AVE. N. (LOUISIANA TO DOUGLAS)
BETWEEN LOUISIANA AVENUE NORTH AND JERSEY AVENUE NORTH
BETWEEN JERSEY AVENUE NORTH AND DOUGLAS DRIVE NORTH
Fairview Ave. N. (Louisiana to Douglas)
The graphics on this page display a trail on the north side of the road with
two trail widths to fit within the existing right-of-way and curb location.
The trail is proposed on the north side of the road for the following
reasons:
• Fewer driveway crossings.
• Fewer utility conflicts (overhead utility lines).
• Existing sidewalk on the north side lessens impact of constructing the
regional trail.
The recommended trail alignment may include:
• Replacing the existing, varying width, boulevard lawn with a consistent
2’ wide concrete clear zone.
• Replacing the existing 5’ wide concrete sidewalk with a 9.5’-10’ wide
asphalt trail.
• Installing an approximately 2 - 3’ wide lawn clear zone up to the right-
of-way line.
• Relocating fire hydrants.
This section reflects the most common public right-of-way width of 60’.
There are a few instances, at 6324, 6526, 6600, and 6602 Fairview Ave.
N., where the right-of-way extends to the road centerline; however,
an existing easement allows for street and sidewalk infrastructure
improvements.
For this section:
• The Average Daily Traffic of Fairview Ave. N. is between 0 and 3,000
vehicles. This is considered low motor vehicle traffic volume and while
an on-street facility would be acceptable, a separated regional trail is
the preferred and safest solution and will result in a cohesive alignment
with other segments of the regional trail.
• The corridor is generally flat, with the steepest slope between Louisiana
Ave. N. and Idaho Ave. N. The slope is approximately 1.9% and is
below standard ADA guidelines for an accessible path.
• The proposed regional trail crosses 10 driveways and three streets
between Louisiana Ave. N. and Douglas Dr N..
NORTH
Preliminary Concept - Not for Construction
THIS IS A PRELIMINARY CONCEPT. FIELD VERIFICATION, SITE CONDITION
ASSESSMENTS, ENGINEERING ANALYSIS AND DESIGN ARE NECESSARY PRIOR
TO IMPLEMENTING ANY OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS CONTAINED HEREIN.
FOCUS AREA 2: FAIRVIEW AVE. N.
Light poles and fire hydrants
may need to be relocated.
Light poles and fire hydrants
may need to be relocated.
Existing curb location may
stay in place.
Existing curb location may
stay in place.
Some properties have public
improvement easements
where their property lines
extend to the road centerline.
Pedestrian crossings should be
highly visible to vehicular traffic.
Some properties have public
improvement easements
where their property lines
extend to the road centerline.
Some properties have public
improvement easements
where their property lines
extend to the road centerline.
0 50 100 ft
NORTH GEORGIA AVE NGEORGIA AVE NFAIRVIEW AVE NFAIRVIEW AVE N
EDGEWOOD AVE NEDGEWOOD AVE NFLORIDA AVE NFLORIDA AVE NFLORIDA AVE NFLORIDA AVE NFAIRVIEW AVE NFAIRVIEW AVE N
HAMPSHIRE AVE N HAMPSHIRE AVE N HAMPSHIRE AVE N HAMPSHIRE AVE NDOUGLAS DR NDOUGLAS DR NIDAHO AVE NIDAHO AVE NJERSEY AVE NJERSEY AVE NJERSEY AVE NJERSEY AVE N
Preliminary Concept - Not for Construction
THIS IS A PRELIMINARY CONCEPT. FIELD VERIFICATION, SITE CONDITION
ASSESSMENTS, ENGINEERING ANALYSIS AND DESIGN ARE NECESSARY PRIOR
TO IMPLEMENTING ANY OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS CONTAINED HEREIN.
Quebec Ave. N. (49th to Winnetka)
The graphics on this page display a trail on the east side of the road.
The trail is proposed on the east side of the road for the following
reason:
• There appears to be more public right-of-way space, however, this
will need to be confirmed during the detailed design phase of the
project.
The recommended trail alignment may include:
• Replacing the existing, varying width, boulevard lawn with a
consistent 2’ wide concrete clear zone.
• Replacing the existing 5’ wide concrete sidewalk with a 9 - 10’ wide
asphalt trail.
• Installing an approximately 2 - 3’ wide lawn clear zone up to the
right-of-way line.
• Relocating fire hydrants and other utilities.
The section reflects the most common public right-of-way width of 60’.
Approximately 3’ of ROW acquisition will be required along Quebec
Ave. N. north of North 42nd Ave. and potentially immediately west of
Winnetka Ave. N.
The Average Daily Traffic of Quebec Ave. N. is between 0 and 3,000
vehicles. This is considered low motor vehicle traffic volume and while
an on-street facility would be acceptable, a separated regional trail is
the preferred and safest solution.
The corridor is generally flat with the steepest slope between Winnetka
Ave. N. and the western most entrance to the Perrigo Company parking
lot, approximately 1/10 of a mile east of Winnetka Ave. N. This slope
is approximately 4.3% and is below standard ADA guidelines for an
accessible path.
The proposed regional trail crosses 29 driveways and one street
between 49th Ave. N. and Winnetka Ave. N.
FOCUS AREA 3: QUEBEC AVE. N. (49TH TO WINNETKA)
NORTH OF NORTH 42ND AVENUE
SOUTH OF NORTH 42ND AVENUE NORTH
Preliminary Concept - Not for Construction
THIS IS A PRELIMINARY CONCEPT. FIELD VERIFICATION, SITE CONDITION
ASSESSMENTS, ENGINEERING ANALYSIS AND DESIGN ARE NECESSARY PRIOR
TO IMPLEMENTING ANY OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS CONTAINED HEREIN.
FOCUS AREA 3: QUEBEC AVE N (SECTIONS 1-2)
Fire hydrants and other utilities
may need to be relocated.
Fire hydrants and other
utilities may need to be
relocated.
Existing curb location may
stay in place.
Existing curb location may
stay in place.
Parking lot is higher than
Quebec Ave. N., a retaining
wall may be required.
Pedestrian crossings should be
highly visible to vehicular traffic.
Pedestrian crossings should be
highly visible to vehicular traffic.
0 50 100 ft
NORTH 49TH AVE N49TH AVE NQUEBEC AVE NQUEBEC AVE N
QUEBEC AVE NQUEBEC AVE N
Preliminary Concept - Not for Construction
THIS IS A PRELIMINARY CONCEPT. FIELD VERIFICATION, SITE CONDITION
ASSESSMENTS, ENGINEERING ANALYSIS AND DESIGN ARE NECESSARY PRIOR
TO IMPLEMENTING ANY OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS CONTAINED HEREIN.
FOCUS AREA 3: QUEBEC AVE N (SECTIONS 3-4)
Fire hydrants and other
utilities may need to be
relocated.
Fire hydrants and other
utilities may need to be
relocated.
Existing curb location may
stay in place.
Existing curb location may
stay in place.
Pedestrian crossings should be
highly visible to vehicular traffic.
Pedestrian crossings should be
highly visible to vehicular traffic.
0 50 100 ft
NORTH
QUEBEC AVE NQUEBEC AVE N
QUEBEC AVE NQUEBEC AVE N
Preliminary Concept - Not for Construction
THIS IS A PRELIMINARY CONCEPT. FIELD VERIFICATION, SITE CONDITION
ASSESSMENTS, ENGINEERING ANALYSIS AND DESIGN ARE NECESSARY PRIOR
TO IMPLEMENTING ANY OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS CONTAINED HEREIN.
FOCUS AREA 3: QUEBEC AVE N (SECTIONS 5-6)
Fire hydrants may need to be
relocated.
Existing curb location may
stay in place.
Tight condition in front
of 7530 Quebec Ave. N.
Parking lot revisions may
be required.
Fire hydrants may need to be
relocated.
Existing curb location may
stay in place.
Pedestrian crossings should be
highly visible to vehicular traffic.
Pedestrian crossings should be
highly visible to vehicular traffic.
0 50 100 ft
NORTH
QUEBEC AVE NQUEBEC AVE N
QUEBEC AVE NQUEBEC AVE N N 42ND AVEN 42ND AVE
Preliminary Concept - Not for Construction
THIS IS A PRELIMINARY CONCEPT. FIELD VERIFICATION, SITE CONDITION
ASSESSMENTS, ENGINEERING ANALYSIS AND DESIGN ARE NECESSARY PRIOR
TO IMPLEMENTING ANY OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS CONTAINED HEREIN.
FOCUS AREA 3: QUEBEC AVE N (SECTION 7)
Fire hydrants and other
utilities may need to be
relocated.
Holy Nativity Lutheran Church
is lower than Quebec Ave. N..
Retaining wall may be needed.
Existing curb location may
stay in place.
Quebec Ave. N. is lower than
properties to the south, retaining
wall may be needed.
Pedestrian crossings should be
highly visible to vehicular traffic.
0 50 100 ft
NORTH
QUEBEC AVE NQUEBEC AVE N
WINNETKA AVE NWINNETKA AVE N
Preliminary Concept - Not for Construction
THIS IS A PRELIMINARY CONCEPT. FIELD VERIFICATION, SITE CONDITION
ASSESSMENTS, ENGINEERING ANALYSIS AND DESIGN ARE NECESSARY PRIOR
TO IMPLEMENTING ANY OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS CONTAINED HEREIN.
Winnetka Ave. N. (Quebec to 36th)
The graphics on this page display a trail on the east side of the road.
The trail is proposed on the east side of the road for the following
reasons:
• Fewer driveway crossings.
• Placing the trail on the east side of Winnetka Ave. N. eliminates
crossing Winnetka Ave. N. twice within a couple of blocks.
The recommended trail alignment may include:
• Installing a 2’ wide asphalt or 4’ wide lawn clear zone along the
back of curb.
• Replacing the existing 6’ wide concrete sidewalk with a 9’-10’ wide
asphalt trail.
• Installing an approximately 2 - 4’ wide lawn clear zone east of the
trail.
• Relocating 615’ of overhead utility lines on the west side of 7818
36th Ave. N. and in front of 3620 Winnetka Ave. N.. Additionally,
the propery at 3900 Winnetka Ave. N. has one, stand alone utility
pole that connects to the main line on the west side of Winnetka
Ave. N.
The sections to the right and on the next page reflect the three
most common public right-of-way widths of 66’, 73’, and 82’.
Approximately 2’ of ROW acquisition will be required along the road
segment to the west of 7818 36th Ave. N. and along 3620, 3700, and
3800 Winnetka Ave. N. in order to fit the trail and clear zones.
The Average Daily Traffic of Winnetka Ave. N. is over 6,000 vehicles.
This is considered high motor vehicle traffic volume and supports the
need for an off-street regional trail.
The corridor is generally flat with the steepest slope being just north of
Bassett Creek and about 1,000’ long. This slope is approximately 4.2%
and is below standard ADA guidelines for an accessible path.
The proposed regional trail crosses five driveways between Quebec
Ave. N. and 36th Ave. N.
FOCUS AREA 4: WINNETKA AVE. N. (QUEBEC TO 36TH)
3900 WINNETKA AVE. N.
3800 WINNETKA AVE. N.NORTH
Preliminary Concept - Not for Construction
THIS IS A PRELIMINARY CONCEPT. FIELD VERIFICATION, SITE CONDITION
ASSESSMENTS, ENGINEERING ANALYSIS AND DESIGN ARE NECESSARY PRIOR
TO IMPLEMENTING ANY OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS CONTAINED HEREIN.
FOCUS AREA 4: WINNETKA AVE. N. (QUEBEC TO 36TH)
3601 WINNETKA AVE. N. (Additional survey necessary to confirm ROW)
3700 WINNETKA AVE. N.
NORTH
Preliminary Concept - Not for Construction
THIS IS A PRELIMINARY CONCEPT. FIELD VERIFICATION, SITE CONDITION
ASSESSMENTS, ENGINEERING ANALYSIS AND DESIGN ARE NECESSARY PRIOR
TO IMPLEMENTING ANY OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS CONTAINED HEREIN.
FOCUS AREA 4: WINNETKA AVE N (SECTIONS 1-2)
Existing curb location may
stay in place.Pedestrian crossings should be
highly visible to vehicular traffic.
Existing curb location may
stay in place.
Pedestrian crossings should be
highly visible to vehicular traffic.
Bassett Creek Regional T
r
a
i
l
Bassett Creek Regional T
r
a
i
l
Light poles and overhead
utility lines may need to
be relocated.
0 50 100 ft
NORTH QUEBEC AVE NQUEBEC AVE NWINNETKA AVE NWINNETKA AVE N
WINNETKA AVE NWINNETKA AVE N38 1/2 AVE N38 1/2 AVE N37TH AVE N37TH AVE N
Preliminary Concept - Not for Construction
THIS IS A PRELIMINARY CONCEPT. FIELD VERIFICATION, SITE CONDITION
ASSESSMENTS, ENGINEERING ANALYSIS AND DESIGN ARE NECESSARY PRIOR
TO IMPLEMENTING ANY OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS CONTAINED HEREIN.
FOCUS AREA 4: WINNETKA AVE N (SECTION 3)
Existing curb location may
stay in place.
Pedestrian crossings
should be highly
visible to vehicular
traffic.
Bassett Creek Reg
i
o
n
a
l
T
r
a
i
l
Bassett Creek Reg
i
o
n
a
l
T
r
a
i
l
Light poles and overhead
utility lines may need to
be relocated.
0 50 100 ft
NORTH
WINNETKA AVE NWINNETKA AVE N
36TH AVE N36TH AVE N
Preliminary Concept - Not for Construction
THIS IS A PRELIMINARY CONCEPT. FIELD VERIFICATION, SITE CONDITION
ASSESSMENTS, ENGINEERING ANALYSIS AND DESIGN ARE NECESSARY PRIOR
TO IMPLEMENTING ANY OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS CONTAINED HEREIN.
Douglas Dr. N. (47th to CP Rail Crossing)
The graphics on this and the following page display a trail on the east
side of the road. The trail is proposed on the east side of the road for
the following reasons:
• Fewer driveway crossings.
• More public right-of-way on the east side of road.
• The trail is anticipated to cross the southeast quadrant of the
redesigned W. Broadway Ave. and Douglas Dr. N. intersection.
• Provides a direct connection to the Crystal Community Center and
Crystal Cove Aquatic Center.
• Existing trail on the east side of Douglas Dr. N. between Medicine
Lake Rd. and Golden Valley Rd..
The recommended trail alignment may include:
• Installing a 2’ wide asphalt clear zone along the back of curb.
• Replacing the existing 4’ wide concrete sidewalk with a 9’ wide
asphalt trail.
• Installing an approximately 2’ wide lawn clear zone to the east of
the trail.
• Relocating 2,000’ of overhead utility lines. Additionally, the existing
roadway has fire hydrants and other utilities that may be relocated
to accomodate the proposed trail.
The sections reflects the most common public right-of-way widths of
66’*:
• North of Corvallis Ave. N. the lane configuration consists of two
travel lanes in the north and sound bound direction. South of
Corvallis Ave. N. the lane configuration consists of one travel lane
in the north and south bound directions, one middle turn lane, and
a shoulder along the east and west gutters. ROW acquisition (3’)
will be required.
• Between 47th Ave. N. and Corvallis Ave. N. the design moves the
east curb to the west into the existing shoulder by approximately 4’
to eliminate ROW acquisition. This design option is also applicable
between 47th Ave. N. and Medicine Lake Rd..
• Between Medicine Lake Rd. and Golden Valley Rd. an 8’ wide
asphalt walk exists. This existing asphalt walk could be widened by
2’ at a future date to better meet regional trail standards.
* Note that should improvements be made to Douglas Ave. N., similar to
what has been done further south, in Golden Valley, these ROW dimensions
may no longer be valid.
FOCUS AREA 5: DOUGLAS DR. N.: 47TH AVE. N. TO CP RAIL CROSSING
CORVALLIS AVE. N. TO CP RAIL CROSSING
The Average Daily Traffic of Douglas Dr. N. is over 6,000 vehicles.
This is considered high motor vehicle traffic volume and supports
the need for an off-street regional trail.
The corridor is generally flat and below standard ADA guidelines
for an accessible path.
The proposed regional trail crosses seven driveways and one
street between the railroad north of 51 St. PI and 47th Ave. N.
NORTH
Preliminary Concept - Not for Construction
THIS IS A PRELIMINARY CONCEPT. FIELD VERIFICATION, SITE CONDITION
ASSESSMENTS, ENGINEERING ANALYSIS AND DESIGN ARE NECESSARY PRIOR
TO IMPLEMENTING ANY OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS CONTAINED HEREIN.
FOCUS AREA 5: DOUGLAS DR. N.: 47TH AVE. N. TO CP RAIL CROSSING
47TH. AVE. N. TO CORVALLIS AVE. N. - MOVE CURB
(Also applies to 47th Ave. N. to Medicine Lake Rd.)
NORTH
Preliminary Concept - Not for Construction
THIS IS A PRELIMINARY CONCEPT. FIELD VERIFICATION, SITE CONDITION
ASSESSMENTS, ENGINEERING ANALYSIS AND DESIGN ARE NECESSARY PRIOR
TO IMPLEMENTING ANY OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS CONTAINED HEREIN.
FOCUS AREA 5: DOUGLAS DR N (SECTIONS 1-2)
Existing curb location may
stay in place.Pedestrian crossings should be
highly visible to vehicular traffic.
Existing curb location may
stay in place.
Pedestrian crossings should be
highly visible to vehicular traffic.
Fire hydrants and other
utilities may need to be
relocated.
Fire hydrants and other
utilities may need to be
relocated.
0 50 100 ft
NORTH 51ST PI51ST PIDOUGLAS DR NDOUGLAS DR NCORVALLIS AVE NCORVALLIS AVE NDOUGLAS DR NDOUGLAS DR N FAIRVIEW AVE NFAIRVIEW AVE N50TH AVE N50TH AVE N
Preliminary Concept - Not for Construction
THIS IS A PRELIMINARY CONCEPT. FIELD VERIFICATION, SITE CONDITION
ASSESSMENTS, ENGINEERING ANALYSIS AND DESIGN ARE NECESSARY PRIOR
TO IMPLEMENTING ANY OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS CONTAINED HEREIN.
FOCUS AREA 5: DOUGLAS DR N (SECTION 3)
Existing curb location may
stay in place.Pedestrian crossings should be
highly visible to vehicular traffic.
Fire hydrants and other
utilities may need to be
relocated.
Fire hydrants and other
utilities may need to be
relocated.
0 50 100 ft
NORTH
DOUGLAS DR NDOUGLAS DR N47TH AVE N47TH AVE N48TH AVE N48TH AVE N
CP Rail Regional Trail: Golden Valley/New Hope/Crystal
Luce Line RT to Crystal Lake RT Segment
Route Comparison Matrix: Winnetka-Douglas and Douglas Routes
Between Douglas
Dr./32nd Ave. and
Douglas Dr./Fairview
Ave.
Winnetka-Douglas Route
Douglas Route
Community Engagement Assessment
What is your preferred
route? 50% of engaged community members 30% of engaged community members
Where do
you want
to bike,
walk, or
visit?
Parks/Trails/
Community
Centers
Valley Place, Northwood and Sunnyside Parks
Bassett Creek Regional Trail
YMCA
Crystal Community Center
Bassett Creek Regional Trail
Crystal Community Center
Restaurants
36th: Fat Nat’s Eggs, Frankies, Café Meow, Bruegger’s
42nd: 42nd Pub, Sarpinos, Pocket Square Cocktail
Lounge
Med Lake Rd.: Delicious Chow Mein, Donuts, Pizza
Man, Crystal Cafe
36th: Bella’s Shoppe Bakery and Coffee, Milton’s
Friends &
Family 55% is adjacent to residential land uses 94% is adjacent to residential land uses.
Equity Assessment
Equity
(within 1,000’ of new trail
segments based on 2019
ACS/2020 Census)
3,466 BIPOC
696 Hispanic/Latino
582 People Over 75 Years Old
1,770 Youth (Under 18)
1,501 Households with an Annual Income of ≤$50,000
168 Families (9%) Living in Poverty
2,244 BIPOC
495 Hispanic/Latino
535 People Over 75 Years Old
1,335 Youth (Under 18)
906 Households with an Annual Income of ≤$50,000
56 Families (4%) Living in Poverty
Safety Assessment
New Trail Segments Only
(36th Ave. north to
Douglas Drive)
Entire Segment (including
Bassett Creek Regional
Trail)
Entire Segment
Single Family Driveway
Crossings 13 23 75
Commercial/Multi-Family
Driveway Crossings 34 51 13
Total Driveway Crossings 47 74 88
Road Crossings 5 11 11
ADA/Steep Grade
Challenges All below ADA guidelines All below ADA guidelines
Adjacent Property Impact and Infrastructure Impact Assessment
Easements and Trail/Road
Reconfiguration
15, 2’ wide easements are anticipated. This assumes
that the trail width will be reduced where ROW is
limited.
Easements are anticipated along:
• Quebec Ave.: 10 commercial/1 institutional parcels
• Winnetka Ave.: 1 commercial/1 institutional/2
cemetery parcels
If the east curb is moved west 4’ and the shoulders
reduced from 4’ to 2’ on both sides, no easements
are anticipated.
If shoulder width cannot be reduced/curbed moved,
90, 3’ easements are anticipated along Douglas
Drive, and trail width would be reduced to 9’.
Tree Impacts
(High-level Estimates)
80 Trees
• ~1/3 are Ash trees
• 75 trees are in New Hope/5 trees are in Crystal
None/minimal as trail is located within fully
developed ROW.
Utility/Light Pole/Hydrant
Relocation 30 hydrants; 615’ of overhead utilities 25 hydrants; 2,000’ of overhead utilities
Timing/Other
Consideration
The segment along 49th/Fairview Avenues overlaps the
Lake Sarah Regional Trail Search Corridor.
Hennepin County may consider a trail as part of its
HSIP safety improvements & 2026 Rehabilitation
work.
Cost Assessment
High-level Cost Estimate $4.2M $7.3M
I:\RFA\City Manager\2022\Budget 2023\WS 101722\11.3 Q ‐ 2023 Enterprise and utility fund budgets utility rates.docx
Request for Action
October 17, 2022
Approved by: Tim Hoyt, Acting City Manager
Originating Department: City Manager
By: Tim Hoyt, Acting City Manager
Agenda Title
Discussion regarding 2023 enterprise and utility fund budgets and 2023 utility rates
Requested Action
Staff requests to discuss the 2023 enterprise and utility fund budgets, and 2023 utility rates. Representatives
from Abdo will be present to assist with the discussion. The director of public works will be present for the
review and discussion of the utility fund budgets, i.e., street lights, storm sewer, water, and sewer. The
director of parks and recreation and recreation facilities manager will be present for the review and
discussion of the golf course and ice arena budgets.
Policy/Past Practice
The Council reviews and provides feedback/direction on the enterprise and utility fund budgets and rates on
an annual basis.
Background
Attached is a memo from Abdo providing an overview of the fund status for each of the enterprise and utility
funds. The original proposed budgets for these funds are in your budget notebooks. The directors from the
respective departments will outline significant changes in the budgets from 2022. A brief summary of the
budgets is as follows:
Utility Fund Budgets
Sanitary Sewer – At 12/31/21 the sanitary sewer utility fund had a cash balance of $2,070,556. The City
Council approved a 4% rate increase for 2022. A 4% rate increase is recommended for 2023 to meet ongoing
capital needs and to keep pace with the rate increases approved by the Metropolitan Council.
Water – At 12/31/21 the water fund had a cash balance of $3,154,081. A 4% rate increase was implemented in
2022. A 4% rate increase is recommended for 2023 to meet ongoing capital needs and to keep pace with the
rate increases approved by the Joint Water Commission. Also, staff previously discussed potentially
discontinuing the emergency water fee in 2022, however upon conducting further research it shows that only
$1.9 million has been collected from the fee and the original loan to the water fund was $2.5 million.
Therefore, staff recommends leaving the fee in place for several more years (approximately $300,000 is
collected from the fee each year).
Storm Water – At 12/31/21 this fund had a cash balance of $1,240,598. A 4% rate increase was implemented in
2022 and a 4% rate increase is recommended for 2023 to meet ongoing capital needs.
Street Lighting – At 12/31/21 this fund had a cash balance of $128,962. A 5% rate increase was implemented
in 2022 and a 5% rate increase is recommended for 2023 to meet ongoing capital needs.
Agenda Section
Work Session
Item Number
11.3
Request for Action, Page 2
Golf Course – At 12/31/21 this fund had a cash balance of $341,554. The 2022 budget called for a $26,678
decrease in cash, after accounting for $54,000 in capital improvements. Personnel costs will increase with re‐
implementation of the Golf Course Superintendent position.
Ice Arena – This fund had an interfund loan of $194,063 to assist with cash flow management as of 12/31/21.
The 2022 budget calls for an increase in the cash balance of $41,373 after factoring in a $500,000 transfer in
from the Park Infrastructure Fund, payment on capital improvements of $260,000 and a $245,000 principal
paydown on the 2021A Bonds.
Attachments
Abdo Enterprise Fund Summary Memo
Utility and Enterprise Fund Budget Narratives
Draft 2023 Utility Rates Recommendation
Ice Arena/Golf Course Rate Surveys
1
MEMO
TO: TIM HOYT
FROM: VICKI HOLTHAUS, ABDO FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS
SUBJECT: BUDGET SUMMARY - ENTERPRISE FUNDS
DATE: OCTOBER 12, 2022
BACKGROUND
Initial budgets have been prepared for the City’s Enterprise funds. Since these funds are fee supported and not tax
supported, they are typically presented following the initial September City Council approval of the preliminary budget and
tax levy. Below is a brief summary of the budget highlights for each enterprise fund.
2
Sewer - The cash balance of the sewer fund as of December 31, 2020, and 2021 was $1,400,403 and $2,070,556,
respectively. The projected cash balance at the end of 2023 is $2,640,399. This estimate is based on the 2022 and 2023
budgets for operations and capital as outlined below. Actual results will vary due to variances from budget to actual.
Favorable
2022 2022 Percent 2023 2023 Percent (Unfavorable)
Budget of Revenues Budget of Revenues Variance
Revenue 3,708,000$ 100 % 4,064,500$ 100 356,500$
Operating Expenses (2,931,278) (79) (2,964,773) (73) (33,495)
Depreciation (190,000) (5) (190,000) (5) -
Debt Service (19,239) (1) (17,775) - 1,464
Capital Improvements (600,000) (16) (550,000) (14) 50,000
Net Revenue/(Expenses) (32,516)$ (1) 341,952$ 8 374,468$
Sewer
Key Points:
Revenue - A 4 percent rate increase is reflected on the rate sheet to meet the ongoing operating, debt, and capital
commitments of the sewer fund. Revenue for the years ending December 31, 2021, and 2022 (year-to-date) are shown
below.
$0.00
$50,000.00
$100,000.00
$150,000.00
$200,000.00
$250,000.00
$300,000.00
$350,000.00
Historic Sewer Revenues
ACH Discount - Sewer Sewer - Commerical Sewer - Minimum Bill
Sewer - Residential Sewer - Surcharge
Expense - The overall budget has decreased by $17,968. The decrease is comprised of the following.
Increase from the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services for the sewer treatment changes,
estimated at 0.73% or $14,451
Increase of $1,459 in Admin transfer fees
Increase of $18,960 in wage and benefits
Increase of $14,076 in IT department charges
Decrease of $50,000 for 2023 infrastructure Improvement projects
Decrease of $1,463 for bond interest payment
Decrease of $17,592 Central Garage Charges
Decrease of $5,000 depreciation expense
3
Water - The cash balance of the water fund as of December 31, 2020, and 2021 was $2,345,370 and $3,154,081,
respectively. The projected cash balance at the end of 2023 is $296,120. This estimate is based on the 2022 and 2023
budgets for operations, and a reimbursement for a JWC South Water Paint project which is included in the capital as
outlined below. Actual results will vary due to variances from budget to actual.
Favorable
2022 2022 Percent 2023 2023 Percent (Unfavorable)
Budget of Revenues Budget of Revenues Variance
Operating Revenues 5,026,000$ 100 % 6,139,500$ 100 1,113,500$
Operating Expenses (4,092,961) (81) (4,403,534) (72) (310,573)
Depreciation (325,000) (6) (300,000) (5) 25,000
Debt Service (67,393) (1) (61,587) (1) 5,806
Capital Improvements (1,409,550) (28) (6,087,000) (99) (4,677,450)
Net Revenue/(Expenses) (868,904)$ (16) (4,712,621)$ (77) (3,843,717)$
Water
Key Points:
Revenue - A 4 percent rate increase is reflected on the rate sheet to meet the ongoing operating, debt, and capital
commitments of the water fund. Revenue for the years ending December 31, 2021, and 2022 (year-to-date) are shown
below.
$0.00
$100,000.00
$200,000.00
$300,000.00
$400,000.00
$500,000.00
$600,000.00
Historic Water Revenues
Water (9301.1370)ACH Discount - Water County Tax
Duplicate Tenant Bill Copy Emergency WA Supply-IRR Emergency WA Supply-WA
Irrigation Sprinkler Hydrance Maintenance Fee Sales Tax
State Testing Fee Water - Commercial Water Consumption-Block 1
Water Consumption-Block 2 Water Consumption-Block 3 Water Surcharge
Water Tax
4
Expense - The overall budget has increased by $4,957,217 which includes a $4,677,450 increase related to 2023
infrastructure improvement projects. The changes are comprised of the following.
New Hope’s share of JWC budget (including water purchase and JWC capital improvements) increased by
$83,764
Increase of $117,621 for wages and benefits; this includes the addition of one maintenance position in water
Increase of $18,192 for IT Department charges
Increase of $5,200 for supply/street repairs
Increase of $5,200 for repairs/other contractual
Increase of $1,521 for Admin transfer fees
Decrease of $13,389 for Central Garage charges
Decrease of $4,000 for small tools
Decrease of $5,806 for bond interest payment
Decrease of $25,000 for depreciation expense
Storm Water - The cash balance of the Storm Water fund as of December 31, 2020, and 2021 was $1,024,563 and
$1,240,598, respectively. The projected cash balance at the end of 2023 is $1,283,173. This estimate is based on the
2022 and 2023 budgets for operations and capital as outlined below. Actual results will vary due to variances from budget
to actual.
Favorable
2022 2022 Percent 2023 2023 Percent (Unfavorable)
Budget of Revenues Budget of Revenues Variance
Revenue 1,302,500$ 100 % 1,375,500$ 100 73,000$
Operating Expenses (815,723) (63) (824,502) (60) (8,779)
Depreciation (250,000) (19) (250,000) (18) -
Debt Service (35,060) (3) (31,438) (2) 3,622
Capital Improvements (325,000) (25) (340,000) (25) (15,000)
Net Revenue/(Expenses) (123,283)$ (10) (70,440)$ (5) 52,843$
Storm Water
Key Points:
Revenue - A 4 percent rate increase is reflected on the rate sheet to meet the ongoing operating, debt, and capital
commitments of the storm water fund. Revenue for the years ending December 31, 2018, through 2021 and 2022 (year-
to-date) are shown below.
$-
$200,000
$400,000
$600,000
$800,000
$1,000,000
$1,200,000
$1,400,000
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 (YTD)
Commercial Residential
5
Expense - The overall budget has increased by $20,157 which includes a $15,000 decrease in infrastructure improvement
projects. The budget changes are comprised of the following:
Increase of $1,105 for wages and benefits
Increase of $6,611 for IT department charges
Increase of $5,388 for repairs/other contractual
Increase of $15,000 in 2023 scheduled improvement project
Decrease of $7,102 for Central Garage charges/operating costs
Decrease of $3,622 for bond interest payments
This budget includes member assessments charged by the Shingle and Bassett Creek Watershed Management
Commissions, which increased minimally for 2023
Street Lighting - The cash balance of the Street Lighting fund as of December 31, 2020, and 2021 was $70,954 and
$128,962, respectively. The projected cash balance at the end of 2023 is a negative $272,350. The November 2021 long
term plan projected the short fall of cash and recommended a short term interfund loan to provide adequate cash flow for
the 2023 improvement projects. This estimate is based on the 2022 and 2023 budgets for operations and capital as
outlined below. Actual results will vary due to variances from budget to actual.
Favorable
2022 2022 Percent 2023 2023 Percent (Unfavorable)
Budget of Revenues Budget of Revenues Variance
Revenue 165,000$ 100 % 180,100$ 100 15,100$
Operating Expenses (120,706) (73) (125,706) (70) (5,000)
Capital Improvements - - (500,000) (278) (500,000)
Net Revenue/(Expenses) 44,294$ 27 (445,606)$ (248) (489,900)$
Street Lighting
Key Points:
Revenue - A 5 percent rate increase is recommended to offset the rate increasing energy cost.
Expense – The overall budget has increased by $505,000. The budget changes are comprised of the following:
No increase for irrigation (water/sewer expenditure)
No increase for General Liability Insurance
Increase $5,000 for Electric Expense
Increase $500,000 for 42nd Project (decorative streets lights)
Golf Course - The cash balance of the Golf Course fund as of December 31, 2020, and 2021 $214,545 and $341,554,
respectively. The projected cash balance at the end of 2023 is $151,829. This estimate is based on the 2022 and 2023
budgets for operations and capital as outlined below. Actual results will vary due to variances from budget to actual.
Favorable
2022 2022 Percent 2023 2023 Percent (Unfavorable)
Budget of Revenues Budget of Revenues Variance
Revenue 372,500$ 100 % 396,150$ 100 23,650$
Operating Expenses (345,178) (93) (443,197) (112) (98,019)
Depreciation (37,000) (10) (37,000) (9) -
Capital Improvements (54,000) (14) (116,000) (29) (62,000)
Net Revenue/(Expenses) (63,678)$ (17) (200,047)$ (50) (136,369)$
Golf Course
6
Key Points:
Revenue -
A $10,000 increase in green fees; proposing slight increase in season passes.
Increase of $6,000 in concession sales
An increase of $4,000 for equipment rental, due to strong golf cart rentals over the last couple of years.
A $2,000 increase in merchandise sales.
This revenue also includes lease revenue from Ironwood Apartments use of several parking lot spaces overnight.
Expense -
Increase in personnel costs of $85,997. This budget includes 25% of the Recreation Facilities Manager and 85%
of the new Golf Course Superintendent position. Seasonal staffing costs are expected to increase $6,335
(minimum wage increase on 1/1/22 and higher wage ranges)
Capital improvement project expenses for 2023 are expected to be $62,000 higher than 2022 and include:
o $36,000 replacement of fire system; original in 2001
o $24,000 replacement of fireplace; original in 2001
o $8,000 for golf cart lease (year 5 of 5)
o $12,000 painting the maintenance shop; last painted in 1990
o $30,000 maintenance garage updates (3) garage doors and (2) heaters; original in 1990
o $6,000 miscellaneous equipment
Increase of $3,414 in IT costs due to city-wide allocations.
Increase of $2,200 in water/sewer, based on 2021 actuals.
Decrease of $2,675 in Central Garage charges. No purchases are identified for 2023.
Ice Arena - The cash balance of the Arena fund as of December 31, 2020, and 2021 was negative $155,885 and
negative $194,063, respectively. The projected operating cash balance at the end of 2023 is $125,512. This estimate is
based on the 2022 and 2023 budgets for operations and capital as outlined below, an interfund loan for capital projects
and has been adjusted to account for the revised debt service amounts per the 2021A refunding of the 2011A lease
revenue bonds, ($245,000 in 2022 and $260,000 in 2023). Actual results will vary due to variances from budget to actual.
Favorable
2022 2022 Percent 2023 2023 Percent (Unfavorable)
Budget of Revenues Budget of Revenues Variance
Revenue 919,219$ 65 % 939,355$ 65 20,136$
Transfer in 500,000 54 500,000 53 -
Operating expenses (854,146) (59) (919,383) (64) (65,237)
Depreciation (210,000) (15) (205,000) (14) 5,000
Debt service (18,700) (1) (16,250) (1) 2,450
Capital improvements (260,000) (18) (1,338,100) (93) (1,078,100)
Net revenue/(expenses) 76,373$ 26 (1,039,378)$ (54) (1,115,751)$
Ice Arena
Key Points:
Revenue -
A $15,000 increase in ice rental revenue due to the increase in the prime rate from $225 to 230/hour, which will
take effect in the fall of 2023, and the increase in non-prime rate from $180 to $185/hour.
Increase of $5,000 in donations due to the expected yearly donation from the youth hockey association.
Increase of $1,110 in facility rental due to a slight increase in all locker room rental fees and the dryland training
lease agreement.
Interest income is expected to decrease by $4,850.
7
Expense -
Capital improvement project expenses for 2023 are expected to be $1,078,100 higher than 2022 and include;
o $26,500 rebuild ice compressors; done every 3 years
o $36,000 upgrade concession stand area
o $9,600 replace meeting room carpets; original in 2012
o $18,000 replace some skate tile in the south rink
o $48,000 replace 3 water heaters; last replaced in 2007
o $1,200,000 replace south rink floor (cement, piping, boards and glass); original in 1996
Increase of $50,993 in personnel costs. This budget covers a portion of the salaries for several fulltime positions:
Recreation Facilities Manager (55%), Recreation Facilities Supervisor (80%), Ice Arena Maintenance Operator
(85%), Recreation Facilities/Pool Supervisor (25%) and the new Golf Course Superintendent (15%). Seasonal
staffing costs are expected to increase $17,557 (minimum wage increase of 1/1/22 and higher wage ranges).
Increase of $4,000 each for electric and gas expenses.
Decrease of $5,000 in depreciation costs.
Decrease of $4,847 in IT Costs, due to the city-wide allocations.
Decrease of $2,450 in lease interest expense.
Central Garage expenses will decrease $1,086 and 2023 purchases include new Zamboni batteries.
The transfer from the Park Infrastructure levy remains at $500,000. This transfer to the ice operating fund will assist with
ice arena debt payments and capital improvements. As previously discussed, staff will be recommending a loan from the
Temporary Financing Fund for the south rink project.
I:\RFA\PUBWORKS\2022\Work Session\10‐17 RFA Upcoming Vehicle Purchases Under State Contract
Request for Action
October 17, 2022
Approved by: Tim Hoyt, Acting City Manager
Originating Department: Public Works
By: Bernie Weber, Public Works Director
Agenda Title
Discuss upcoming vehicle purchases utilizing the Minnesota Department of Administration’s
Cooperative Purchasing Venture
Requested Action
Staff is requesting that the Council have a discussion on the Public Works Department upcoming vehicle
purchases using an opportunity provided through the Minnesota Department of Administration’s Materials
Management Division, called the Cooperative Purchasing Venture (CPV).
Policy/Past Practice
The city develops a ten‐year capital improvement program (CIP) for capital equipment, facility improvements,
and infrastructure projects. Every two years the CIP is reviewed, updated, and extended two years for another
ten‐year period. The purchase of two one‐ton trucks is listed in the 2022 CIP.
Background
The one‐ton trucks are slated to replace a 2010 Ford Compressor Truck (vehicle #77) and a 2012 Ford Utility
Truck (vehicle #16). These vehicles are used by Public Works staff for many maintenance functions throughout
the city. Staff recommends using the purchasing opportunity provided through the Minnesota Department of
Administration’s Materials Management Division, called the Cooperative Purchasing Venture (CPV) to
purchase the cab and chassis of the vehicles. Ancillary equipment, set‐up, and installation would not be
purchased through the CPV and would occur at a later date.
Due to supply chain issues in the motor vehicle market, the Minnesota Department of Administration has
altered the CPV’s typical purchasing window from six months down to only three days. The new three‐day
purchasing window has not been announced but is expected to occur in November. Due to this change in the
typical purchasing process and the much shorter three‐day purchasing window, staff requests the council’s
input on the logistics of approval for these vehicle purchases.
If Council authorizes staff to purchase these vehicles, an RFA would be presented at a future council meeting
to ratify the action and provide the actual costs.
Funding
The 2022 CIP includes $93,491.12 for the replacement of the 2010 Ford Compressor Truck (vehicle #77) and
$129,317.30 for the replacement of the 2012 Ford Utility Truck (vehicle #16).
Agenda Section
Work Session
Item Number
11.4
I:\RFA\COMM DEV\2022\Work Session\10‐17‐22 MIF Loan Request\Q ‐ MIF Loan Request 10‐17‐22.docx
Request for Action
October 17, 2022
Approved by: Tim Hoyt, Acting City Manager
Originating Department: Community Development
By: Jeff Alger, Community Development Specialist;
Jeff Sargent, Director of Community Development
Agenda Title
Discuss request for city to serve as legal sponsor for Minnesota Investment Fund program loan through
Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development
Requested Action
Staff requests that the City Council discuss a request for the city to serve as a legal sponsor for a Minnesota
Investment Fund program loan, up to the amount of $980,000, through the Minnesota Department of
Employment and Economic Development for Padagis US LLC.
Policy/Past Practice
It is a past practice of the City Council to approve resolutions approving the use of loan/grant funds for the
creation of jobs and expansion projects within the city.
Background
Padagis US LLC is a privately held pharmaceutical manufacturer that offers high‐quality generic prescription
and over the counter products. The company was started in 2004 as the prescription division of Perrigo.
Through acquisitions and organic growth, they have become a national leader in generic pharmaceuticals.
Padagis became a separate entity from Perrigo in July of 2021. The company owns and operates manufacturing
sites in New Hope, at 3940 Quebec Avenue North, and in Israel. Padagis is New Hope’s sixth largest employer,
with approximately 315 employees.
Padagis is evaluating location options for expanding production capacity to meet growing market demand for
their pharmaceutical products. Padagis has evaluated existing company manufacturing operations in Israel
and Minnesota as well as the acquisition of an available manufacturing facility in New Jersey. City staff,
Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED), and Greater MSP have worked
together to develop a proposal that includes an interest free repayable loan of up to $980,000 through the
Minnesota Investment Fund (MIF) to facilitate the investment necessary to add approximately $5,000,000 in
new manufacturing machinery and equipment and 60 new employees at the New Hope site. The proposal also
includes potential training funds through the Minnesota Job Skills Partnership that could be used to train new
employees to be hired. The training funds require a match from the company and can be used to assist in the
costs of training to be provided by an accredited Minnesota college or university. The 60 new jobs to be created
include competitive wages ranging from $27 to $96 an hour plus full benefits for all team members. The
$5,000,000 of investment in new machinery and equipment would increase the long‐term viability of the New
Hope plant due to modernized equipment and increased capacity that positions it well to serve growing market
demand. MIF financing at 0% interest is considered an important factor in the final location decision based on
capital investment requirements necessary to add this capacity in Minnesota, increasing hiring costs, and
incentives available from competing locations.
The MIF loan program is intended to provide financing to help add new workers and retain high‐quality jobs
on a statewide basis. The focus is on industrial, manufacturing, and technology‐related industries to increase
Agenda Section
Work Session
Item Number
11.5
Request for Action, Page 2
the local and state tax base and improve economic vitality statewide. All projects must meet minimum criteria
for private investment, number of jobs created or retained, and wages paid. At least 50% of total project costs
must be privately financed through owner equity and other lending sources.
It is required that a local municipality sponsor the MIF loan via resolution of support, and the local unit of
government must hold a public hearing on the request. DEED does not provide money directly to businesses.
DEED and the local government unit enter into an agreement that stipulates that the money must be used to
assist the specified business. The funds are then loaned to the business by the local unit of government. The
loan can either be forgiven (after the business meets its goals) or repaid. If repaid, the local government unit
has the option of keeping 40% of the repayments, up to $100,000. The proposed loan for Padagis would be
repaid over ten years. If the local government unit elects to recoup the repayments, the funds can only be
administered to other businesses if the city follows the same project selection process and expenditure
requirements that DEED utilizes when administering MIF loans (overview attached). Regardless of whether
the city elects to keep the repaid funds, a revolving loan fund policy must be established by the local
municipality, which would require the involvement of the city’s legal and financial consultants.
Serving as a legal sponsor for the MIF loan does not require investing any funds for the loan, as the city serves
as a pass‐through entity. There are other expenses involved with the request, such as establishing a revolving
loan fund policy, advertising for the public hearing, and utilizing the city’s legal and financial consultants to
review the company’s financial records, the application, legal documents, and contract. City staff would also
be responsible for completing a portion of the application, completing annual reports, and coordinating the
request. Staff believes the expenses are a worthwhile investment as the city’s Comprehensive Plan supports
the in‐place expansion of existing businesses and bringing additional jobs to the area. Collecting the $100,000
in funds is an option, however, adhering to the project selection process and expenditure specifications
required by DEED would limit how the funds could be used in the future.
Funding
Funding for the public hearing publication costs and consultants’ time would come from the EDA budget.
There is minimal risk to the city as the loan funds are provided by DEED with the city serving as a pass‐through
entity for the loan. Should the business not meet the conditions of the loan, the city would be responsible for
attempting to recuperate any funds owed. If the business were to close or the city were unable to recuperate
the funds, the city would not be required to pay DEED for any portion of the loan.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council discuss the request for the city to serve as a legal sponsor for a MIF
program loan, up to the amount of $980,000, through DEED for Padagis US LLC. If supportive, it is
recommended that the City Council direct staff to prepare a revolving loan fund policy, schedule a public
hearing, and prepare a resolution supporting the request.
Attachments
Operating Guidelines for Revolving Loan Funds
July, 2014 1
OPERATING GUIDELINES FOR
REVOLVING LOAN FUNDS SEEDED BY
STATE MINNESOTA INVESTMENT FUND AWARDS
A local unit of government may establish a Revolving Loan Fund (RLF) with funds from a variety of sources. The
guidelines outlined in this document pertain only to a RLF seeded with funds received through the repayment of
a loan provided from the state-funded Minnesota Investment Fund (MIF) or Economic Recovery Fund programs
administered through the Department of Employment and Economic Development or its predecessors.
The local government must follow the RLF guidelines that were submitted with the initial MIF application and
approved by your DEED Senior Loan Officer. Although the guidelines provide the policies and procedures for the
reuse of these funds, the RLF policies and procedures must also adhere to the same requirements that are
followed by the state’s Minnesota Investment Fund program. In addition to the local government’s
underwriting criteria, the guidelines from Minn. Stat. 116J.8731 (some of which is summarized below) and from
the Minnesota Business Subsidy Law (Minn. Stat. 116J. 993 and 116J.994) must be included in the policies and
procedures
General Purposes and Guidelines for RLFs Seeded by the Minnesota Investment Fund
Purpose and Goals
The purpose of the RLF is to provide financial and technical assistance for the creation and retention of new
employment. These objectives may be accomplished through the following means:
1. Create/retain permanent private sector jobs to fuel above-average economic growth consistent with
environmental protection;
2. Investment in technology and equipment that increase productivity and provide for higher wages;
3. Leverage of private investment to ensure economic renewal and competitiveness;
4. Increase the local tax base to guarantee a diversified industry mix;
5. Improve the quality of existing jobs, based on increases in wages or improvements in the job duties,
training, or education associated with those jobs;
6. Improve employment and economic opportunities and create a reasonable standard of living; and
7. Enhance productivity growth through improved manufacturing or new technologies.
One way to meet these objectives is to assist businesses that have location options outside Minnesota.
These firms bring income into the state and raise the overall standard of living.
Eligible Expenditures
The MIF-seeded funds may be used in a variety of ways include example noted below. More information is
available in Minn. Stat. 116J.8731 and through conversations with your loan officer.
1. Provide loans, loan guarantees, interest buy-downs, and other forms of participation, ensuring that RLF
funds are matched by private financing.
2. Fund strategic investments in renewable energy market development. Any expenditure for external
marketing for renewable energy market development is not subject to the matching requirements
listed above.
3. Provi de entrepreneurs with training, other techni cal assistance, and financial assistance as
defined by federal guidelines.
July, 2014 2
Eligible Projects
Assistance must be evaluated on the existence of the following conditions as noted in Minn. Stat. 116J.8731:
1. Creation or retention of jobs, or the improvement of jobs as measured by wages, skills or knowledge;
2. Increase in the tax base;
3. Attraction of private funds to the project;
4. Incapacity of local communities and finance partners to finance project;
5. Results in higher wage levels or workforce skills;
6. Supports development of microenterprises, as defined by federal guidelines, through technical
assistance or financial assistance.
7. Need for assistance to retain existing business;
8. Importance of assistance to attract out-of-state business; and
9. The project promotes or advances the green economy.
The assistance cannot meet solely 7. or 8.; other conditions must also be present.
Eligible Activities
RLF’s may be used to fund a variety of business activities including:
1. Acquisition of land
2. Construction or rehabilitation of facilities
3. Site improvements
4. Utilities or infrastructure
5. Machinery and Equipment
6. Training
7. Working capital
Advance approval from DEED is necessary if the local government would like to provide financing fo r
activities not listed above. Approval is more likely to occur in projects that relate to business development
and involve other local government funds.
Ineligible Activities
In contrast to federal MIF funds, there are industry limitations on how state MIF RLFs may be used. State
MIF RLFs may not be used for the operation, construction or expansion of a casino, a sport facility that that
has a professional sports team as a principal tenant or any firm engaged in retailing merchandise. All
assistance should follow the approved RLF guidelines. Please call your loan officer to discuss any
prospective financing.
Wage Goals
Businesses receiving RLF-State MIF assistance must pay each employee total compensation, including
benefits not mandated by law, that on an annualized basis is equal to at least 110 % of the federal poverty
level for a family of four, which as of February 1, 2015 is $12.82 per hour. Each year’s compensation level
changes and can be found on DEED’s Business Finance MIF website.
Other Eligible Uses of the Funds
Minn. Stat. 116J.8731 allows local governments to loan or grant RLF funds to a regional development
commission, other regional entities, or a certain statewide community capital funds to provide the local
match required for capitalization of a regional or statewide RLF. Unlike federal MIF funds, state MIF funds
held by local governments never lose their state identify and must follow all applicable laws and regulations.
July, 2014 3
The local government must request permission from the DEED before it can commit to providing funds to
any of these organizations. The local government does not have the authority to turn over to another
entity, such as Port Authority, Economic Development Authority, Housing Authority, etc. revolving loan
funds for any purpose; these entities may administer MIF transactions provided the MIF grantee still
maintains control over the RLF.
Conflict of Interest
Minn. Stat. 471.87 and 471.88 provide guidance on conflict of interest in a MIF transaction. An actual conflict of
interest shall be deemed to exist when a decision on a MIF transaction would compromise a duty to another
party or if special advantage is deemed to occur. Potential conflict of interests should also be considered.
Business Subsidy Law
As mentioned on page 1, Minn. Stat. 116J.993 and 116J.994 must be followed in the administration of RLF-State
MIF. These sections pertain to the definition of a business subsidy, public purpose of the subsidy, criteria,
subsidy agreements, wage and job goals, timing of the project, public notice and hearing requirements, failure
to meet goals, and reporting of information regarding the outcomes of the subsidy.
Job Listing Requirements
Per Minn. Stat. 116L.66, a business that receives grants or loans in an amount greater than $200,000 must agree
to list any vacant or new positions related to the financial assistance on the MinnesotaWorks.net job bank
website.
Prevailing Wage
Per Minn. Stat. 116J.871, laborers and mechanics at the project site during construction, installation,
remodeling, and repairs must be paid the state prevailing wage if the financial assistance is greater than
$500,000 for a loan. All contracts for publicly owned infrastructure using the RLF must comply with the
prevailing wage provisions.
Data Privacy
The provision of any information related to any applications for assistance is guided by Minn. Stat. 13.591,
particularly Subd 1 and 2.
These operating guidelines provide a summary of how to administer revolving loan funds seeded with
repayments from Minnesota Investment Fund loans. Specific transactions and RLF administration should be
discussed with your DEED Senior Loan Officer. Other applicable state and federal laws and rules must also be
followed.
I:\RFA\City Manager\2022\Franchise Fees\WS ‐ Gas and Electric Franchise Oridnance Review 10‐17‐22.docx
Request for Action
October 17, 2022
Approved by: Tim Hoyt, Acting City Manager
Originating Department: Community Development
By: Brandon Bell, CD Coord/Management Analyst;
Tim Hoyt, Acting City Manager
Agenda Title
Review Gas and Electric Franchise ordinances and discuss renewal of CenterPoint Contract
Requested Action
Staff requests that the City Council review the city’s electric and gas franchise fee ordinance.
Policy/Past Practice
City code requires that the gas and electric franchise ordinances be reviewed every two years and can be
amended if deemed appropriate. The city also must renew its agreement with CenterPoint Energy every five
years. The last time it was renewed was in 2018 meaning it needs to be renewed by April 2023.
Background
Minnesota Statute 216B.36 allows cities to charge a utility fee to both electric and gas companies for operating
in the right of way. The fees are intended to reimburse the city for costs incurred from utility companies
digging within the right of way and compromising the city’s infrastructure. The benefits and criticisms of
franchise fees are summarized in the following table:
Benefits Criticisms
Diversifies revenue sources Raises utility costs
Collected from more users Perception by public as “another tax”
Like users pay similar fees Flat rate for all homes, regardless of value
Growth in revenue proportional to growth in
business activity and development
No exclusions
New construction contributes immediately Opposition from nonprofits
Not subject to loss of revenue resulting from loss of
state aid
Not tax‐deductible
Local control Requires periodic review/adjustment
Easy to administer
The city last updated electric and gas franchise fees in 2016 and reviews the ordinances and rates every two
years. Staff completed a study of monthly franchise fees for cities in Hennepin County with a population
greater than 10,000. The cities of Minneapolis and Robbinsdale were excluded because they charge based on a
percentage of gross revenue as opposed to a flat fee.
The averages in the following charts include the current New Hope rates.
Agenda Section
Work Session
Item Number
11.6
Request for Action, Page 2
Electric Franchise Fees
Residential Small Com/Ind
(non‐demand)
General Com/Ind
(demand)
Large Com/Ind
(>1MW demand)
New Hope $3.00 $6.00 $26.00 $115.00
Bloomington $4.60 $9.20 $49.00 $141.00
Brooklyn Center $1.65 $4.25 $22.75 $103.00
Brooklyn Park $7.00 $7.50 $45.00 $160.00
Champlin $3.62 $9.82 $41.21 $144.24
Eden Prairie $4.00 $5.00 $12.50 $55.00
Edina $2.90 $4.90 $13.68 $58.32
Golden Valley $6.00 $6.00 $30.00 $258.00
Plymouth $2.40 $3.61 $12.05 $48.20
Richfield $4.10 $12.50 $30.00 $185.00
Rogers $5.00 $7.00 $45.00 $210.00
St. Louis Park $4.25 $7.32 $48.50 $148.50
Average $4.25 $7.32 $31.31 $135.52
Percent difference
between average
and New Hope
41.60%
22%
20.40%
17.80%
Gas Franchise Fee
Residential Small Com
A
Small
Com/Ind B
Small
Com/Ind C
Com/Ind
Dual Fuel A
Com/Ind
Dual Fuel B
Large Vol
Dual Fuel
New Hope $3.00 $4.00 $11.00 $38.00 $74.00 $83.00 $164.00
Bloomington $4.60 $9.20 $9.20 $49.00 $49.00 $49.00 $141.00
Brooklyn
Center
$1.66 $1.74 $5.63 $22.50 $56.23 $107.96 $107.96
Brooklyn
Park
$7.00 $6.50 $20.00 $70.00 $160.00 $160.00 $160.00
Champlin $3.98 $3.98 $10.78 $45.33 $90.67 $158.66 $158.66
Eden Prairie $4.00 $5.00 $12.50 $55.00 $55.00 $55.00 $55.00
Edina $2.90 $4.90 $13.68 $58.32 $58.32 $58.32 $58.32
Golden
Valley
$6.00 $7.50 $30.00 $30.00 $258.00 $258.00 $258.00
Plymouth $2.40 $3.61 $12.05 $48.20 $48.20 $48.20 $48.20
Richfield $4.10 $4.10 $12.50 $30.00 $30.00 $30.00 $185.00
Rogers $4.00 $7.00 $20.00 $70.00 $148.00 $148.00 $800.00
St. Louis
Park
$6.75 $6.75 $12.00 $48.50 $48.50 $48.50 $148.50
Average $4.20 $5.36 $14.11 $47.07 $89.66 $100.39 $190.39
% difference
of avg and
New Hope
40%
34%
28.27%
23.86%
21.16%
20.95%
16.09%
Request for Action, Page 3
Franchise fees allow cities to diversify their revenue streams and provide a stable source of funding, which
can be used for any public purpose. Since they are fees, tax exempt properties are still required to contribute.
Revenue from franchise fees in 2021 was $962,395.19. Of the franchise fees collected in 2021, $440,000 of that
went into the street infrastructure fund and the remaining $522,395.19 went into the general fund. If the city
were to increase franchise fees to be “average,” as calculated in the tables above, revenue would increase by
approximately 30%. Staff does not recommend raising fees any higher than the averages that were
determined, as any raises must be seen as reasonable to be approved by CenterPoint and Xcel.
Should the City Council decide to change franchise fee amounts, it would take approximately four months
for the utility companies to process the changes. While not required by city ordinance, staff recommends that
a public hearing be held prior to passing an ordinance that increases fees. The utility companies request to
review a draft ordinance two weeks in advance of a City Council meeting. After a fee increase is approved,
the utility companies are required to notify the Public Utilities Commission 60 days in advance of the change.
The utility companies then notify users with an insert or message in the monthly bill 30 days in advance of
the increase.
Lastly, the franchise fee agreement with CenterPoint Energy will expire in 2023 and needs to be renewed.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council review city’s franchise fee schedule and advise staff if changes should
be made effective 2023. Staff also recommends that the Council direct staff to begin the process of renewing
the agreement with CenterPoint for another five‐year term.
Attachments
Excerpt from City Code on gas franchise agreement (Section 12‐10)
Excerpt from City Code on electric franchise agreement (Section 12‐20)
Sec. 12-10. - Gas franchise.
A franchise to the Minneapolis Gas Company was passed by the council as Chapter 85, Ordinance
62-12, on November 27, 1962, published in the official newspaper on January 17, 1963, and accepted by
the Minneapolis Gas Company on February 8, 1964. This franchise expired by its terms on January 1,
1983 but was renewed by Ordinance No. 84-9. The franchise granted by Ordinance No. 84-9 would have
expired by its terms on June 30, 2003, but was replaced by Ordinance No. 03-08 prior to its expiration.
The current gas franchise appears in Appendix G of the City Code.
(1) Definitions. For the purposes of this section, the following terms shall have the following
meanings:
City. The City of New Hope, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota.
Code. The City of New Hope Municipal Code.
Company. Centerpoint Energy Minnegasco, a division of Centerpoint Energy Resources
Corp., a Delaware corporation, its successors and assigns.
Franchise agreement. The franchise agreement between the city and company pursuant to
City Ordinance 03-08.
Notice. "Notice" means a writing served by any party or parties on any other party or
parties. Notice to company shall be mailed to Centerpoint Energy Minnegasco, V.P., Regulatory
& Supply Service, 800 LaSalle Avenue, Minneapolis, MN 55402-2006. Notice to city shall be
mailed to the City Clerk at 4401 Xylon Avenue North, New Hope, Minnesota 55428.
(2) Purpose. The city council has determined that it is in the best interest of the city to impose a
franchise fee on those public utility companies that provide natural gas and electric services
within the city. Pursuant to the franchise agreement the city has the right to impose a franchise
fee on company.
(3) Franchise fee statement. A franchise fee is hereby imposed on company commencing with the
January 2004 billing month, and in accordance with the fee schedule set forth in the city's fee
schedule.
(4) Account fee. This fee is an account based fee and not a meter-based fee. In the event that an
entity covered by this section has more than one meter, but only one account, only one fee shall
be assessed to that account. In the event any entities covered by this section have more than
one account, each account shall be subject to the appropriate fee. In the event a question
arises as to the proper fee amount for any account, the highest possible fee amount shall apply.
(5) Payment. Franchise fees as set in the city's fee schedule are to be collected by the company
and submitted to the city as follows:
January—March collections due by April 30.
April—June collections due by July 31.
July—September collections due by October 31.
October—December collections due by January 31.
(6) Record support for payment. The company shall make each payment when due and, if
requested by the city, shall provide a statement summarizing how the franchise fee payment
was determined, including information showing any adjustments to the total made to account for
any noncollectible accounts, refunds or error corrections. The company shall permit the city,
and its representatives, free access to the company's records for the purpose of verifying such
statements.
(7) Payment adjustments. Payment to the city will be adjusted where the company is unable to
collect the franchise fee. This includes noncollectible accounts and customers on guaranteed
fixed pricing program (no surprise bill program) through the term of their contract (contracts
currently run from October to October).
(8) Surcharge. The city recognizes that the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission allows the
company to add a surcharge to customer rates to reimburse the company for the cost of
implementing and administering the fee.
(9) Dispute resolution. If either party asserts that the other party is in default in the performance of
any obligation hereunder, the complaining party shall notify the other party of the default and the
desired remedy. The notification shall be written. Representatives of the parties must promptly
meet and attempt in good faith to negotiate a resolution of the dispute. If the dispute is not
resolved within 30 days of the written notice, the parties may jointly select a mediator to
facilitate further discussion. The parties will equally share the fees and expenses of this
mediator. If a mediator is not used or if the parties are unable to resolve the dispute within 30
days after first meeting with the selected mediator, either party may commence an action in
district court to interpret and enforce this section or for such other relief permitted by law.
(10) Effective date of franchise fee. The effective date of this section shall be after its publication
and 60 days after the sending of written notice enclosing a copy of this adopted ordinance from
which this section derives to company by certified mail. Collection of the fee shall commence as
provided above.
(11) Relation to franchise agreement. This section is enacted in compliance with the franchise
agreement shall be interpreted as such. If a provision of this section cannot be reasonable
interpreted to avoid conflict with the franchise agreement, this section will control.
(12) Review. The city council shall review this ordinance every two years in whatever manner the
city manager then determines to be appropriate, including, but not limited to, review by the city
council in either a work session or a regular session. Failure to review this section shall not in
any way invalidate or limit it.
a. Permit fees. The franchise fee shall be payable to the city by the company in lieu of permit
or other fees otherwise imposed on the company in relation to its operations as a public
utility in the city so long as the following requirements are met:
b. The company applies for any and all permits, licenses and similar documentation as
though this provision did not exist.
c. The company requests the fee to be waived at the time of application.
(Code 072684; Ord. No. 03-08, § 1, 4-14-2003; Ord. No. 17-01, § 9, 1-23-2017)
Sec. 12-20 - Electric distribution franchise.
A franchise for electric service from the city to Northern States Power Company is in effect per
Ordinance 2011-03 identified as Appendix H of this Code.
(1) Electricity franchise fee.
Definitions. For the purposes of this section, the following terms shall have the following
meanings:
City. The City of New Hope, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota.
Code. The City of New Hope Municipal Code.
Company. Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation d/b/a Xcel Energy,
its successors and assigns.
Franchise agreement. The franchise agreement between the city and company pursuant to
city ordinance 2011-03.
Notice. "Notice" means a writing served by any party or parties on any other party or
parties. Notice to company shall be mailed to the Regional General Manager thereof at 414
Nicollet Mall, 5th Floor, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401. Notice to city shall be mailed to the City
Clerk at 4401 Xylon Avenue North, New Hope, Minnesota 55428.
(2) Purpose. The New Hope City Council has determined that it is in the best interest of the city to
impose a franchise fee on those public utility companies that provide natural gas and electric
services within the city. Pursuant to the franchise agreement the city has the right to impose a
franchise fee on company.
(3) Franchise fee statement. A franchise fee is hereby imposed on company commencing with the
January 2004 billing month, and in accordance with the fee schedule set forth in the city's fee
schedule.
(4) Account fee. This fee is an account based fee and not a meter-based fee. In the event that an
entity covered by this section has more than one meter, but only one account, only one fee shall
be assessed to that account. In the event any entities covered by this section have more than
one account, each account shall be subject to the appropriate fee. In the event a question
arises as to the proper fee amount for any account, the highest possible fee amount shall apply.
(5) Payment. Franchise fees as set in the city's fee schedule are to be collected by the company
and submitted to the city as follows:
January—March collections due by April 30.
April—June collections due by July 31.
July—September collections due by October 31.
October—December collections due by January 31.
(6) Record support for payment. The company shall make each payment when due and, if
requested by the city, shall provide a statement summarizing how the franchise fee payment
was determined, including information showing any adjustments to the total made to account for
any noncollectible accounts, refunds or error corrections. The company shall permit the city,
and its representatives, free access to the company's records for the purpose of verifying such
statements.
(7) Payment adjustments. Payment to the city will be adjusted where the company is unable to
collect the franchise fee. This includes noncollectible accounts.
(8) Surcharge. The city recognizes that the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission allows the
company to add a surcharge to customer rates to reimburse the company for the cost of
implementing and administering the fee.
(9) Dispute resolution. If either party asserts that the other party is in default in the performance of
any obligation hereunder, the complaining party shall notify the other party of the default and the
desired remedy. The notification shall be written. Representatives of the parties must promptly
meet and attempt in good faith to negotiate a resolution of the dispute. If the dispute is not
resolved within 30 days of the written notice, the parties may jointly select a mediator to
facilitate further discussion. The parties will equally share the fees and expenses of this
mediator. If a mediator is not used or if the parties are unable to resolve the dispute within 30
days after first meeting with the selected mediator, either party may commence an action in
district court to interpret and enforce this section or for such other relief permitted by law.
(10) Effective date of franchise fee. The effective date of this section shall be after its publication
and 60 days after the sending of written notice enclosing a copy of this adopted Ordinance to
company by certified mail. Collection of the fee shall commence as provided above.
(11) Relation to franchise agreement. This section is enacted in compliance with the franchise
agreement shall be interpreted as such. If a provision of this section cannot be reasonable
interpreted to avoid conflict with the franchise agreement, this section will control.
(12) Review. The city council shall review this section every two years in whatever manner the city
manager then determines to be appropriate, including, but not limited to, review by the city
council in either a work session or a regular session. Failure to review this section shall not in
any way invalidate or limit it.
(13) Permit fees. The franchise fee shall be payable to the city by the company in lieu of permit or
other fees otherwise imposed on the company in relation to its operations as a public utility in
the city so long as the following requirements are met:
a. The company applies for any and all permits, licenses and similar documentation as
though this provision did not exist.
b. The company requests the fee to be waived at the time of application.
(Code 072684, Ord. No. 91-19; Ord. No. 2011-03, § 1, 6-27-2011; Ord. No. 17-01, § 10, 1-23-
2017)
I:\RFA\P&R\Pool and Civic Center Pk Projects\2022\Oct WS\Q ‐ October City Hall Landscaping and Park Update.docx
Request for Action
October 17, 2022
Approved by: Tim Hoyt, Acting City Manager
Originating Department: Parks & Recreation
By: Susan Rader, Director
Agenda Title
Update on Civic Center Park/City Hall Landscaping projects by Stantec Engineering (Improvement Project
Nos. 941/994)
Requested Action
Staff requests that the City Council receive an update on the Civic Center Park and city hall landscaping
construction projects. City engineer, Dan Boyum and City attorney, Stacy Woods will be in attendance.
Policy/Past Practice
Past policy and practice has been to provide the Council with updates on projects and receive input and
feedback.
Background
On December 10, 2018, the City Council approved plans and specifications and authorized advertisement for
bids for the pool, Civic Center Park and city hall landscaping projects. All five contracts were approved on
March 25, 2019, and most of the contracts are complete:
Demolition of theater, shelter building, hockey rink and city hall (complete)
Theater and picnic shelter (complete)
Skatepark (complete)
Aquatic Park (complete)
Park amenities, parking lots and landscaping for the city hall and park
Update
Sunram Construction, Inc. Contract (Park amenities, parking lots and landscaping for the city hall and park)
This is the last remaining contract to close. As was shared with Council at the May 16, 2022 work session,
staff and the city engineer met with Ryan Sunram and several of his sub‐contractors in early May to discuss
outstanding punchlist items and a timeline for completion. Since then, all of the work has been completed.
In late August, staff, the city engineer and city attorney met to discuss closing out the contract. The remaining
balance is approximately $145,000 in retainage and payment, and staff has been alerted that Sunram is not
paying the final retainage amount due to their sub‐contractors until they have been paid by the City.
It is the recommendation to not charge any liquidated damages against the contractor, but instead deduct
$28,000 in additional engineering costs that have been identified as a direct cause of Sunram’s delay’s.
Following the discussion, if Council is supportive, a resolution will be placed on a council agenda before the
end of the year to close out the project.
Agenda Section
Work Session
Item Number
11.7
Request for Action, Page 2
Project Costs
Previously, staff had estimated a shortfall of almost $300,000 between all five of the project contracts (pool,
park and city hall landscaping, performance center, skate park and city hall demolition) primarily due to the
additional $270,000 that was spent on the removal of poor soils and importing of sand for the pool area. In
May 2022 the Council was informed that staff is still projecting a shortfall, but due to the additional interest
received and not paying several of the incentives, it will be much less than the estimated $300,000.
In November 2019, Vicki Holthaus provided a memo outlining various funding options for project overages.
At the time, her recommendation was to record a one‐time transfer from the Temporary Financing Fund to
cover any overage on the projects. But she advised that the project overage should be recalculated once all of
the projects were final and the transfer recorded at that time. The recommendation has remained unchanged.
I:\RFA\PUBWORKS\2022\Work Session\1039\10‐17 RFA 1039 PW Facility Expansion Change Order
Request for Action
October 17, 2022
Approved by: Tim Hoyt, Acting City Manager
Originating Department: Public Works
By: Bernie Weber, Public Works Director
Agenda Title
Discuss change orders related to Phase 1 Improvements at the Public Works Facility (Improvement
Project No. 1039)
Requested Action
Staff is requesting that the Council receive a presentation by the city engineer regarding Change Order
No. 5 related to the Public Works Facility Expansion (Improvement Project No. 1039). Depending on
Council questions or feedback, staff is proposing to bring Change Order No. 5 for the Phase 1
Improvements for consideration at the October 24, 2022 council meeting.
Policy/Past Practice
The City Council considers change orders when unforeseen circumstances arise, or changes are recommended
for a city project.
Background
The City Council awarded a construction contract to Rochon Corporation at the May 24, 2021 council meeting
in the amount of $2,316,000. Stantec architects and engineers are providing oversight.
Since the start of the project, the following change orders have been approved:
Change Order Item Amount
Change Order
No. 1 – 7/26/21
Floor sink/drain, venting, and temporary compressor/water heater
relocation, replace concrete aprons, and concrete slab credit.
$15,635.68
Change Order
No. 2 – 10/11/21
Owner removed trees credit, elimination of two windows and removal of
exhaust fan credit, spray foam masonry cells, additional B618 concrete curb
and gutter, insulate existing concrete blocks above window/door openings,
delete exterior draintile credit, and additional fire sprinkler heads.
$7,113.73
Change Order
No. 3 – 12/13/21
Network switch allowance, IT room filter ventilation, concrete walk by
gates/island area, concrete apron by north entrance, additional concrete at
sand interceptors, overhead door loop detector, and alterations to soil
storage building.
$83,108.11
Change Order
No. 4 – 2/28/22
Spread and compact city supplied Class 5 aggregate base, relocate RTU‐2
unit, replace three‐phase with single phase exhaust fan, and temporary
asphalt ramps and striping.
$11,888.30
Change Order No. 5 includes the following items:
Additional Light Fixtures and Long‐Range RFID Readers
The existing gates did not have lighting and lighting was not proposed with the new gates. Adding LED
lighting at the gate areas will improve security and aid camera operations during night time hours. ($3,578 x
Agenda Section
Work Session
Item Number
11.8
1.05% (overhead/profit) = $3,756.90) Also, the radio frequency identification (RFID) long range readers and
vehicle windshield tags for the gate entrances were not included in the original bid. Only the card access
readers for the gate entrances were included and adding RFID long range readers is requested for the larger
equipment where the card reader is difficult to reach. ($8,474 x 1.05% (overhead/profit) = $8,897.70) Cost of
new light fixtures and long‐range RFID readers = $3,756.90 + $8,897.70 = $12,654.60 (add to the contract).
Price Increase for Wear Course Paving in 2022 and Patching Related Work
Poor soils near the soil storage building led to redesign and delays during the start of construction. There were
also other project delays that led to the final lift of bituminous not being placed in fall 2021. After the
freeze/thaw cycle, some soft spots appeared in the bituminous base.
Bituminous and labor pricing increased from 2021 to 2022. The contractor’s paving subcontractor requested
$17,059.12 for bituminous cost increases and $12,750 for correcting soft spots, so a total of $29,809.12. Most of
the soft spots were related to the contractor’s utility work, and the general contractor and the utility
subcontractor need to address the costs to fix those areas. There was a soft area at the north entrance to the
Public Works Facility that was not a contractor issue. Public Works staff corrected the subgrade in that area;
however, repaving of the bituminous base was needed after the correction.
City staff understood some delays related to paving the parking lot and the soils storage building area were
beyond the contractor’s control. The city also needed the bituminous base repaved near the north entrance.
Staff negotiated a $6,000 amount for the additional costs associated with material and labor increases for
paving in 2022 and repaving a city related patch area. Costs for increases for wear course paving in 2022 and
patching related work = $6,000 (add to the contract).
Change Order No. 5 includes the addition, as follows:
Add new light fixtures and long‐range RFID readers $ 12,654.60 Add
Price increase for wear course paving in 2022 and patching related work $ 6,000.00 Add
Total Change Order No. 5 $ 18,654.60 Add
Change Order No. 5 increases the contract amount from $2,431,200.37 to 2,449,854.97.
Funding
At the June 24, 2021 council meeting a separate capital fund for the public works facility was established in the
amount of $2,550,000. The contract award was $2,316,000 and indirect costs were estimated at $192,280, for a
total estimated project cost of $2,508,280. At the November 8, 2021 council meeting, the council approved the
transfer of city hall bond proceeds in the amount of $400,000 to the public works capital fund. At the January
24, 2022 council meeting, the council approved a transfer of CARE’S ACT funds from Temporary Financing to
the public works capital fund. There are adequate funds to pay for the change orders as indicated below:
Item Amount
Public Works facility capital fund $ 2,550,000.00
Minus estimated project costs $ 2,508,280.00
Project contingencies $ 41,720.00
Minus Change Order No. 1 (7/26/21) $15,635.68
Subtotal $26,084.32
Minus Change Order No. 2 (10/11/21) $7,113.73
Subtotal $18,970.59
Minus ITT geotechnical services (10/11/21) $7,325.00
Subtotal $11,645.59
Transfer from City Hall Bond Proceeds (11/8/21) $400,000.00
Subtotal $411,645.59
Minus Change Order No. 3 (12/13/21)
Subtotal
Transfer from Temporary Financing CARES funds (1/24/22)
Subtotal
Minus Change Order No. 4 (2/28/22)
$ 83,108.11
$328,537.48
$741,664.00
$1,070,201.48
$11,888.30
Subtotal $1,058,313.18
Minus Change Order No. 5 (10/24/22) $ 18,654.60
Remaining Project Contingencies $1,039,658.58
Attachments
Memo from Dan Boyum, City Engineer
Stantec Consulting Services Inc.
733 Marquette Avenue, Suite 1000
Minneapolis, MN 55402
October 10, 2022
File:193804913
Attention: Bernie Weber, Director of Public Works
City of New Hope
5500 International Parkway
New Hope, MN 55428
Reference: Change Order No. 5 and Pending Change Orders – New Hope Public Works Facility –
Phase 1 Improvements
City Project No: 1039
Dear Bernie,
The above referenced change order relates to the following items:
(1)Add new light fixtures and long-range RFID readers. The existing gates did not have
lighting and no lighting was proposed with the new gates. Adding LED lighting at the gate
areas will improve security and aid camera operations during nighttime hours. ($3,578 x
1.05% (overhead/profit) = $3,756.90)
Also, the radio frequency identification (RFID) long range readers and vehicle windshield
tags for the gate entrances were not included in the original bid. Only the card access
readers for the gate entrances were included and adding RFID long range readers is
requested for the larger equipment where the card reader is difficult to reach. ($8,474 x
1.05% (overhead/profit) = $8,897.70)
Cost of new light fixtures and long-range RFID readers = $3,756.90 + $8,897.70 = $12,654.60
(add to the contract).
(2)Price increases for wear course paving in 2022 and patching related work. Pour soils near
the soil storage building led to redesign and delays in its start of construction. There were
also other project delays that led to the final lift of bituminous not being placed in fall 2021.
After the freeze/thaw cycle, some soft spots showed up in the bituminous base.
Bituminous and labor pricing increased from 2021 to 2022. The contractor’s paving
subcontractor requested $17,059.12 for bituminous cost increases and $12,750.00 for
correcting soft spots, so a total of $29,809.12. Most of the soft spots were related to the
contractor’s utility work, and the general contractor and the utility subcontractor need to
address the costs to fix those areas. There was a soft area at the north entrance to the
Public Works Facility that was not a contractor issue. Public Works staff corrected the
October 10, 2022
Bernie Weber
Page 2 of 3
Reference: Change Order No. 5 – New Hope Public Works Facility – Phase 1 Improvements
subgrade in that area; however, repaving of the bituminous base was needed after the
correction.
City staff understood some delays related to paving the parking lot and the soils storage
building area were beyond the contractor’s control. The city also needed the bituminous
base repaved near the north entrance. Staff negotiated a $6,000 amount for the
additional costs associated with material and labor increases for paving in 2022 and
repaving a city related patch area.
Costs for increases for wear course paving in 2022 and patching related work = $6,000.00
(add to the contract).
Other Pending Change Orders
Staff has been in discussion with the contractor on some other items on the project. These items
include:
(1)Equipment Cost to Set Precast T’s and L’s for Soils Storage Building. The contractor
indicated they had anticipated the supplier of the precast T’s and L’s would install them
when they were delivered based on discussions at the time of the pricing on the soils
storage building. During a preconstruction meeting at the soils storage building and due
to some concerns with timing of installation, the supplier indicated they would not be able
to do that installation with their equipment. The contractor had to rent equipment to install
the precast pieces. (Estimated amount = $2,624.76).
(2)Water Proofing for Epoxy Floor. The original epoxy floor covering installed in 2000 on the
mechanics bay was showing signs of wear in 2020. The city was happy with the
performance of the original product, so replacing the epoxy floor covering with the same
product was included in the 2021 bid documents. After applying the new epoxy coating,
bubbles started showing up in the floor. The contractor, subcontractor, and supplier
investigated and said the bubbles were caused by moisture in the concrete floor, and a
water proofing product would be needed to keep the epoxy from bubbling. The
contractor would not charge for labor to apply the water proofing product. They were
requesting payment for the material cost of the water proofing product since it was not
included in the original bid. (Estimated amount = $8,610.00).
The contractor has proceeded in removing the epoxy coating placed earlier this year,
applying the water proofing product, and then applying the epoxy coating. Bubbles
started showing up in the new coating shortly after it was placed. The subcontractor and
supplier are now taking cores of the coating system and concrete to try to identify what is
October 10, 2022
Bernie Weber
Page 3 of 3
Reference: Change Order No. 5 – New Hope Public Works Facility – Phase 1 Improvements
occurring. Once we have more information on the testing results, we will update the
council.
The total of the two change order items is an addition of $18,654.60 to the Revised Contract. The
Revised Contract amount will be $2,452,400.42 ($2,316,000 (Original Contract) + $15,635.68
(Change Order No. 1) + $7,113.73 (Change Order No. 2) + $83,108.11 (Change Order No. 3) +
$11,888.30 (Change Order No. 4) + $18,654.60 (Change Order No. 5)).
We recommend approval of the work described above and included in Change Order No. 5. If
you have any questions or require further information, please call me at (612) 712-2021.
Sincerely,
STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES INC.
Dan D. Boyum, P.E.
Attachments: Change Order No. 5 and Contractor Change Order Summaries
CC: Tim Hoyt, Valorie Leone, Bernie Weber – New Hope; Stacy Woods – City Attorney; Bruce
Paulson – Stantec.
I:\RFA\HR & Admin Svcs\Human Resources\2022\2022 Worksessions\10172022 Worksession\Q ‐ DEI Statement.docx
Request for Action
October 17, 2022
Approved by: Tim Hoyt, Acting City Manager
Originating Department: HR & Admin Services
By: Rich Johnson, Director
Agenda Title
Discussion regarding the creation of a statement to publicly share the city’s commitment to a diverse, equitable,
and inclusive environment.
Requested Action
Staff would like to discuss with the City Council the creation of a statement which would publicly share the
city’s commitment to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (D, E & I).
Background
Staff has worked internally and has met with the Human Rights Commission (HRC) on two occasions to
share information as well as gather their input regarding the city’s dedication to D, E, & I. These discussions
ranged from discussing the current make up of staff compared to the diversity of the New Hope community
at‐large, the city’s recruitment methods, and the common goal of both the HRC and staff to ensure it is clear
to our community (and beyond) that the City of New Hope is committed to ensuring that both its workforce
and its community are places where D, E & I is valued and embraced.
This evening, staff would like to review information gathered from other entities and discuss initiatives that
could be incorporated which would publicly share New Hope’s commitment to embracing a diverse,
equitable, and inclusive environment.
Following this evening’s discussion, staff plans to develop materials which would be brought back to the City
Council for approval prior to implementation.
Attachments
2020 Census Data for New Hope
City of New Brighton Information
Agenda Section
Work Session
Item Number
11.9
City of New Hope
Summary of 2020 Census Redistricting Data
Released August 12, 2021
The U.S. Census Bureau has released housing and population counts from the 2020 Census, a complete enumeration of the
population as of April 1, 2020. Table 1 provides basic counts of housing units, households, and population for the City of New Hope.
Table 1: Counts of housing units, households, and population
Housing units Households
Total
population
Population in
households
Persons per
household
Population in
group quarters
2020 Census 9,364 8,984 21,986 21,165 2.36 821
2010 Census 9,051 8,427 20,339 19,492 2.31 847
Change, 2010-2020 +313 +557 +1,647 +1,673 +0.05 -26
Please note: To facilitate comparisons over time, all statistics provided here reflect community boundaries as they existed in 2020.
For example, if a city annexed part of a township, then both communities’ 2010 and 2020 numbers would reflect their 2020
jurisdictional areas. We also corrected published 2020 counts for a small number of communities where the Census Bureau’s
geographic files were incorrect. For more information, see the materials available at https://www.metrocouncil.org/census2020.
Race and Hispanic/Latino origin
Table 2 describes New Hope’s population by race and Hispanic/Latino origin. BIPOC residents (Black / Indigenous / people of color)
are 40.1% of New Hope’s total population, compared with 31.2% for the seven-county Twin Cities region as a whole.
Table 2: Race and Hispanic/Latino origin, 2010 and 2020
Group*2010 Census 2020 Census Change, 2010 to 2020
Number Percent Number Percent Number
Percentage
points
Total population 20,339 100.0% 21,986 100.0% +1,647 NA
White, non-Latino 14,522 71.4% 13,177 59.9% -1,345 -11.5
All BIPOC residents (Black / Indigenous /
People of color)
5,817 28.6% 8,809 40.1% +2,992 +11.5
Black or African American, non-Latino 2,965 14.6% 4,818 21.9% +1,853 +7.3
Asian or Pacific Islander, non-Latino 776 3.8% 957 4.4% +181 +0.5
Hispanic or Latino 1,330 6.5% 1,669 7.6% +339 +1.1
American Indian or Alaska Native, non-
Latino
80 0.4% 110 0.5% +30 +0.1
Other race not listed above, non-Latino 24 0.1% 125 0.6% +101 +0.5
More than one race, non-Latino 642 3.2% 1,130 5.1% +488 +2.0
* - Group names are those used by the federal government; many people prefer different terminology. See additional notes below.
Race and Hispanic/Latino origin by age
As many have noted, the population under age 18 highlights how our future population will be increasingly diverse. Table 3 provides
the same breakdown by race and Hispanic/Latino origin of New Hope’s population under age 18 and age 18+.
Table 3: Race and Hispanic/Latino origin by age
Group*Under age 18 Age 18+
Number Percent Number Percent
Total population 4,734 100.0%17,252 100.0%
White, non-Latino 1,797 38.0%11,380 66.0%
All BIPOC residents (Black / Indigenous / People of
color)
2,937 62.0%5,872 34.0%
Black or African American, non-Latino 1,587 33.5%3,231 18.7%
Asian or Pacific Islander, non-Latino 175 3.7%782 4.5%
Hispanic or Latino 590 12.5%1,079 6.3%
American Indian or Alaska Native, non-Latino 13 0.3%97 0.6%
Other race not listed above, non-Latino 59 1.2%66 0.4%
More than one race, non-Latino 513 10.8%617 3.6%
* - Group names are those used by the federal government; many people prefer different terminology. See additional notes below.
About the data
The above tables contain the official terms for race groups as defined by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget. We
use these for consistency with the data as reported by the Census Bureau while emphasizing the following:
Each of the groups has considerable diversity within it. For example, the Black population includes both descendants
of enslaved people and recent African immigrants, while the Asian population includes Asian Indian, Chinese, Hmong,
and Vietnamese residents along with many other groups. Many people prefer to be called by those more specific
cultural community names rather than the federal government’s broad labels. The redistricting dataset does not allow
for distinctions among communities within these race groups; please see the Council’s Equity Considerations dataset
(https://metrocouncil.org/Data-and-Maps/Research-and-Data/Place-based-Equity-Research.aspx) for more
information.
Many people prefer different language for these broad labels. For example, in place of “Latino,” some use “Latino/a,”
“Chicano/a,” or gender-neutral alternatives like “Latinx” or “Latine.” And in place of “American Indian,” some use
“Native American” or “Indigenous.”
Several factors may complicate the comparison of 2010 and 2020 race data; you can find an overview at
https://www.census.gov/newsroom/blogs/random-samplings.html.
This data release contains only the numbers needed for redrawing legislative districts. Additional data, like household type
and full age breakdowns, will be released later.
For additional information, please see our interactive maps and charts, available at https://metrotransitmn.shinyapps.io/census-
2020. This application provides data for all cities and townships in 1990, 2000, 2010, and 2020. You can access additional detail on
people who identify more than one race and examine trends for areas within communities (census tracts and block groups).
We are happy to discuss any additional questions you have; please contact Research@metc.state.mn.us.
City of New Brighton - Information
EQUITY STATEMENT
We are committed to making New Brighton the preferred place to live, work and
play for everyone. As an organization, The City of New Brighton understands that
inequities exist in our community based on factors such as race, ethnicity,
language, age, gender, sexual orientation, ability, and other differences. We know
that the government has played a role in these systemic inequities. To succeed in
our city's mission and vision, live up to our values and accomplish our goals, we
commit to addressing these inequities through access, opportunity, and quality
services so that outcomes do not vary based on the differences above. We
commit to the following as we strive for equity:
• We welcome and value people of all characteristics, backgrounds, and
experiences.
• We will cultivate and maintain a workforce which reflects the community
and our commitment to diversity.
• We will create a community in which all people are connected to each
other with a sense of shared purpose of achieving the city's mission, vision,
and values.
• We will evaluate decisions with equity in mind.
COMMITMENTS
The City of New Brighton commits to the long-term work of becoming culturally
competent, welcoming and inclusive of all people both within and outside our
organization, as well as in the range of issues and challenges that we engage in.
This includes (but is not limited to):
• Supporting, engaging, serving and including people with different racial,
ethnic, economic, age and religious backgrounds as well as those with
varying physical abilities, gender identities and sexual orientations.
• Entering intercultural relationships with humility, prepared to listen, learn,
and follow others' lead. Then, taking actionable steps to adapt our
methods and practices for mutual benefit.
• Incorporating the Equity Strategic Action Plan into policies, practices, and
procedures at an organizational level and for accountability purposes,
measuring our progress on items within the Plan.
• Reaching beyond our traditional constituencies and familiar stakeholders.
• Recruiting, hiring, retaining, and developing a culturally competent staff
whose demographics more closely mirror those of New Brighton.
• Recruiting, retaining, and developing culturally competent Commission
members whose demographics more closely mirror those of New
Brighton.
• Investing the required resources to ensure the successful execution and
maintaining of the plan. Resources include, but are not limited to funding,
personnel, time, and education and training.
PRINCIPLES
The following principles must be front and center when executing our equity
initiatives:
Use Disaggregated Data & Information
One of the drivers of disparity is the inability or unwillingness to examine the
results of policies and activities for segmented racial, ethnic, cultural, or
underrepresented groups. To achieve equity, therefore, we must collect and
analyze quantitative and qualitative information in this way. Collect data
segmented by census-based racial, ethnic and underrepresented categories and
use that data to create options and make decisions.
Make Data-Driven Decisions
Another driver of disparity is the unwillingness to use segmented data to make
decisions that ensure parity. Consider racial, ethnic and underrepresented
information as we work. Compare results for each group against their presence
in our service areas and against results of the other groups. Provide these
analyses when making recommendations.
Leverage Existing Assets
We have valuable assets at our fingertips: knowledgeable staff, public officials,
partners, community members, technical experts and professional services,
intergovernmental agencies and more. Tap into these institutional resources at
all phases of your work.
Use Existing Authority
Senior leaders, supervisors, other staff members, and public officials have
individual powers within their jobs and roles. Explore and utilize these authorities
as necessary to deliver on this Equity Plan.
Make Policy Changes
We have dozens of policies - those with an external focus and those with an
internal focus. While delivering on this Equity Plan, uphold or strengthen policies
that will deliver strong equity results. Be ready to change policies that create
barriers.
Use Equity to Balance Decisions
When making decisions, give equity sufficient weight. Use segmented data,
historical information, and quality comparisons. Develop a method for
considering equity results balanced against financial and other business results,
such as a decision matrix or balanced scorecard. This will ensure People of Color
and underrepresented individuals and groups get due consideration, and that
their interests are respected.
I:\RFA\City Manager\2022\Fence JPA\11.10 Fencing JPA 101722.docx
Request for Action
October 17, 2022
Approved by: Tim W. Hoyt, Acting City Manager
Originating Department: City Manager
By: Tim W. Hoyt, Acting City Manager
Agenda Title
Discussion regarding Fencing Consortium Joint Powers Agreement
Requested Action
Staff requests that the City Council discuss a Fencing Consortium Joint Powers Agreement to provide fencing
if needed during periods of civil unrest.
Policy/Past Practice
The city participates in various Joint Powers Agreements as needed.
Background
In 2021 steps were taken to improve security at the Civic Center campus in light of the civil unrest that led to
vandalism and other criminal activities in nearby cities. It is proposed to create a Fencing Consortium as a
joint powers entity pursuant to MS 471.59. By working cooperatively and pooling resources, the member
communities will have immediate access to anti‐scale fencing to protect public buildings and infrastructure.
The Fencing Consortium is made up of local government agencies (members) that will jointly contract with a
fencing vendor for the availability, storage, maintenance, and transportation of anti‐scale fencing (including
vehicle gates and pedestrian doors). The Consortium will have the flexibility to increase the amount of
fencing, gates, and doors as additional local governments join the Consortium.
The intent of the Fencing Consortium is to provide anti‐scale fencing within hours, not days, around
potentially impacted government building(s) in response to a critical incident in order to de‐escalate the
potential tensions and:
1) Provide physical separation between law enforcement and protestors
2) Reduce the need for crowd control measures to be used
3) Create a space for protesting
4) Reduce resource demands committed to one location
The purpose and structure of the Fence Consortium is to provide experienced leadership for fence
deployment operations across multiple jurisdictions in a unified command structure and coordinate during
the deployment of anti‐scale fencing. The Fence Consortium itself is a multi‐agency, pre‐planned,
coordinated resource management system to continue efforts to minimize multiple local and state agencies
from being over‐extended.
The Fencing Consortium Joint Board would consist of five directors serving two‐year terms (two from law
enforcement, one from fire, one from public works, and one representing emergency managers).
Appointments would be made in 2023 and 2024 to provide staggered terms, as outlined in 4.2.
If Council supports the endeavor, a resolution would be presented at a future Council Meeting.
Agenda Section
Work Session
Item Number
11.10
Funding
Each member agency’s cost is pro‐rated based on the footage of fencing needed for their location. Currently
the approximate cost for New Hope is $7,000. This number will decrease as additional government agencies
join the consortium. Also, an annual assessment will be paid for on‐going costs to operate and maintain the
fencing consortium.
Attachment
Fencing Consortium Joint Powers Agreement
1
CR225-476-758705.v8
FENCING CONSORTIUM JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT
THIS FENCING CONSORTIUM JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) is
made and entered into by and among the Governmental Units identified in the attached Exhibit A
(each a “Member” or collectively the “Members”).
RECITALS
A. The civil unrest and resulting negative impacts on mental health, damage to buildings,
and a reduction in overall safety experienced in the Seven County Metropolitan Area in
recent years has given rise to a need for communities to have ready access to anti-
scalable fencing. The anti-scale fencing can be set up to protect public buildings, critical
infrastructure, and other key locations to de-escalate tensions between law enforcement
and protestors as well as reduce the need to rely on crowd control measures to protect
such locations from violent and destructive actors.
B. Appropriate fencing to serve this purpose is produced by few vendors, currently all of
which are located outside of the state.
C. This type of fencing is expensive and the delays associated with attempting to identify
and secure the delivery of fencing during the response to a critical incident may result in
unnecessary risks to personnel and public property.
D. By pooling resources and working cooperatively, communities can access high quality
fencing, trained personnel, and related resources to assemble it in as efficient manner as
possible to support de-escalation measures with protestors and protect facilities from
violent and destructive actors.
AGREEMENT
In consideration of the mutual agreements and understandings, and intending to be
legally bound, the Members hereby agree as follows:
ARTICLE I
DEFINITIONS AND PURPOSE
1.1. Definition of Terms. For the purposes of this Agreement, the following terms shall have
the meaning given them in this section.
(a) Additional Member. “Additional Member” means a Governmental Unit that
submits a Membership Resolution after the Effective Date and that the Board
votes to accept as a Member of the Fencing Consortium.
(b) Agreement. “Agreement” means this Fencing Consortium Joint Powers
Agreement.
2
CR225-476-758705.v8
(c) Board. “Board” means the Fencing Consortium Joint Board established by this
Agreement.
(d) Call Out. “Call Out” means a request by a Requesting Member to the Board
requesting the deployment of the Fencing.
(e) Critical Incident. “Critical Incident” means an event or occurrence that occurs
within a Governmental Unit that is reasonably anticipated to result in, or that does
result in, civil unrest focused against one or more public buildings, infrastructure,
or other critical site with the Governmental Unit.
(f) Deployment Site. “Deployment Site” means the specific location at which the
Fence is to be assembled.
(g) Deployment Team. “Deployment Team” means the public works personnel or
others assigned by each Member who are responsible for responding to requests
by Members to assemble and disassemble the Fencing at a Member’s Deployment
Site in accordance with its Fencing Preplan.
(h) Deployment Team Manager. “Deployment Team Manager” is the member of the
Deployment Team designated as supervisor and who has operational control over
the deployment and demobilization of the Fencing.
(i) Effective Date. “Effective Date” means the date this Agreement goes into effect
and the date by which Original Members must adopt the Membership Resolution.
The Effective Date is September 2, 2022.
(j) Extended Membership Area. “Extended Membership Area” means the area
established by the Board outside of the Seven County Metropolitan Area in which
Governmental Units are eligible to request membership in the Fencing
Consortium.
(k) Fencing. “Fencing” means the non-scalable, portable, free-standing fence secured
by the Board and made available to Members under this Agreement.
(l) Fencing Preplan. “Fencing Preplan” means a plan developed by a Governmental
Unit showing the general location and length of the Fencing needed and the type
and location of gates within the Fencing.
(m) Governmental Unit. “Governmental Unit” means a local government or other
political subdivision of the State that is authorized under Minnesota Statutes,
section 471.59 to enter into a joint powers agreement. The term also includes
state agencies and joint powers entities that own a public building.
(n) Lease. “Lease” means the lease agreement between the Board and the Vendor to
secure the Fencing for the Fencing Consortium and that sets out the terms for the
3
CR225-476-758705.v8
storge, delivery, and maintenance of the Fencing. The Lease may also establish
the use charge the Requesting Member is required to pay the Vendor for the
actual use of the Fencing.
(o) Member. “Member” means an Original Member or an Additional Member. The
term is used generally in this Agreement to refer to an individual current member
Governmental Unit or, in its plural form, to all current member Governmental
Units. A Governmental Unit must remain in good standing under this Agreement
to remain a Member of the Fencing Consortium.
(p) Member Assessment. “Member Assessment” means the amount determined
annually by the Board to pay the costs of the Fencing Consortium and which is
invoiced to each Member.
(q) Membership Resolution. “Membership Resolution” means the resolution form a
Governmental Unit adopts to join the Fencing Consortium. Any resolution that is
not substantively the same in all respects as the form resolution developed for
membership shall not constitute a Membership Resolution.
(r) Notification System. “Notification System” means the communications or alert
system, or systems, selected by the Board to issue a Call Out for the deployment
of the Deployment Team and Fencing to a Requesting Member’s Governmental
Unit.
(s) Original Member. “Original Member” means a Governmental Unit that
completed all requirements to enter into this Agreement prior to the Effective
Date.
(t) Public Works Mutual Aid Pact. “Public Works Mutual Aid Pact” means the
Public Works Joint Powers Mutual Aid Agreement, which was originally
effective as of July 1, 2018 and is incorporated herein by reference.
(u) Requesting Member. “Requesting Member” means a Member who makes a
request to the Board for the deployment of the Fencing in its Governmental Unit.
(v) Seven County Metropolitan Area. “Seven County Metropolitan Area” means the
counties of Anoka, Carver, Dakota, Hennepin, Ramsey, Scott, and Washington.
(w) Staging Area. “Staging Area” means the location identified for the Deployment
Team to gather at in response to a Call Out before convoying to the Deployment
Site.
(x) Surcharge. “Surcharge” means the amount an Additional Member is required to
pay to join the Fencing Consortium as determined by the Board. The Surcharge is
in addition to the amount the Additional Member is required to pay based on the
length of its Fencing needs as shown in its Fencing Preplan. The Surcharge
4
CR225-476-758705.v8
includes the amount the Member is to pay for the Member Assessment for the
year in which the Governmental Unit becomes a Member and any buy-in costs as
determined by the Board.
(y) Vendor. “Vendor” means the fencing company selected to provide the Fencing to
the Fencing Consortium.
1.2. Purpose. It is the general purpose of this Agreement to:
(a) To establish the Fencing Consortium, the responsibilities of the Members toward
the Fencing Consortium, and to establish the “Fencing Consortium Joint Board”
to govern the Fencing Consortium and its operations;
(b) To authorize the Board to obtain and provide for the storage and deployment of
Fencing in response to a Critical Incident and for other purposes as provided in
this Agreement and as determined by the Board;
(c) To authorize the Board to negotiate and enter into an agreement with a Vendor to
obtain the Fencing and provide for its storage, delivery to, and return from a
Requesting Member’s Governmental Unit;
(d) To authorize the Board to establish policies and procedures for the deployment of
the Fencing, the training and deployment of the Deployment Team, and on other
matters as needed to achieve the purposes of this Agreement;
(e) To authorize the Board to determine the Governmental Units eligible for
membership in the Fencing Consortium, including expanding the eligible territory
as it determines is appropriate; and
(f) To authorize the Board, upon deliberation and continued communication with the
Members, to revise the initial structure of the Fencing Consortium over time as it
may determine is in the best interests of the Members to do things such as moving
from a leasing arrangement to purchasing the Fencing and to provide for its
storage, maintenance, and transportation.
ARTICLE II
FENCING CONSORTIUM ESTABLISHED
2.1. Established. There is hereby established, by the execution of this Agreement, the
“Fencing Consortium” as a joint powers entity formed pursuant to Minnesota Statutes,
section 471.59, which is to be managed and operated by the Board pursuant to the terms
of this Agreement.
2.2. Scope. This Agreement applies to those Governmental Units that are Members of the
Fencing Consortium and provides for the operation of the Fencing Consortium by a
Board of Directors elected as provided herein.
5
CR225-476-758705.v8
ARTICLE III
MEMBERSHIP
3.1. Original Members. A Governmental Unit that adopts and submits the Membership
Resolution to join the Fencing Consortium before the Effective Date shall be considered
an Original Member under this Agreement. A Governmental Unit is eligible to be an
Original Member of the Fencing Consortium if it satisfies all of the following:
(a) Is a member of the Public Works Mutual Aid Pact;
(b) Is within the Seven County Metropolitan Area;
(c) Has submitted a Fencing Preplan prior to the Effective Date; and
(d) Has properly adopted and submitted a Membership Resolution prior to the
Effective Date.
The Governmental Unit shall submit its Membership Resolution to the Chief of Police in
the City of Crystal. The Membership Resolutions shall be transferred to the Board once
it is formed. Membership Resolutions adopted after the Effective Date shall be sent to
the Board.
3.2. Additional Members. After the Effective Date, a Governmental Unit may request to
become an Additional Member of the Fencing Consortium if it satisfies the following:
(a) Is a member of the Public Works Mutual Aid Pact;
(b) Is located within the Seven County Metropolitan Area or within the Extended
Membership Area as determined by the Board;
(c) Submits a Fencing Preplan;
(d) Submits the fully adopted Membership Resolution; and
(e) The Board votes to accept the Governmental Unit as an Additional Member.
Additional Members are required to pay a Surcharge to the Fencing Consortium in the
amount determined by the Board, and to comply with such additional requirements as
may reasonably be imposed by the Board.
3.3. Exception. The membership requirement to be a member of the Public Works Mutual
Aid Pact is to establish a mechanism through which local public works staff can be
utilized to assist in the mobilization and demobilization of the Fencing within the
Governmental Unit. However, there are entities that do not have their own public works
staff, desire to become a Member of the Fencing Consortium, and for which local support
6
CR225-476-758705.v8
can be provided through another Governmental Unit. Therefore, a Governmental Unit
that does not have a public works department or public works employees is not required
to be a member of the Public Works Mutual Aid Pact to be eligible to become a Member
of the Fencing Consortium, provided the following are complied with to the extent
applicable:
(a) If the Governmental Unit is a joint undertaking among other Governmental
Units, the community in which any of the Governmental Unit’s buildings are
located and to which its Fencing Preplan applies must be a member of the Public
Works Mutual Aid Pact; or
(b) If the Government Unit relies on the county sheriff’s department as the primary
source of law enforcement services, that county must be a member of the Public
Works Mutual Aid Pact.
3.4. Requirement of Good Standing. Continued membership in the Fencing Consortium
shall be contingent upon: paying the annual Member Assessment and any additional
charges as determined by the Board as provided herein; making public works staff
available to participate as members of the Deployment Team; and on-going compliance
with the other requirements, terms, and conditions of this Agreement and the policies and
procedures adopted by the Board.
3.5. Withdrawing from Membership. A Member may withdraw from the Fencing
Consortium as provided in Article XI of this Agreement.
ARTICLE IV
FENCING CONSORTIUM JOINT BOARD
4.1. Established. There is hereby established the “Fencing Consortium Joint Board.” The
Board shall consist of five Directors elected by the Members in accordance with this
Article. Directors shall serve without compensation from the Fencing Consortium. The
Director positions shall be assigned as follows:
(a) Two Directors representing law enforcement;
(b) One Director representing fire;
(c) One Director representing public works; and
(d) One Director representing emergency managers.
4.2. Initial Directors. The Board shall initially be comprised of the following Directors
(“Initial Board”):
7
CR225-476-758705.v8
(a) Ryan Murphy, Commander, Special Operations Unit, Saint Paul Police
Department and Ryan Seibert, Chief of Police, City of Chaska, representing law
enforcement;
(b) Ward Parker, Assistant Chief Operations, City of Eden Prairie, representing fire;
(c) Daniel Ruiz, Director of Operations & Maintenance, City of Brooklyn Park,
representing public works; and
(d) Doug Berglund, Director, Emergency Management, Washington County Sheriff’s
Office, representing emergency managers.
The Initial Board shall be responsible for Organizing the Board and the Fence
Consortium. The Initial Board shall conduct an election in 2022 for Members to elect
three Directors to the Board. An election will then be held in 2023 for Members to elect
the remaining two Directors to the Board. Those elected in 2022 shall assume their
positions effective on January 1, 2023 and those elected in 2023 shall assume their
positions on January 1, 2024. The Initial Board shall determine which positions are up
for election in 2022 and 2023, except the two law enforcement Director positions shall be
elected in separate years.
4.3. Director Eligibility. To be eligible to be elected to the Board a person must be currently
employed by a Member and actively serving in the profession the person is proposed to
represent on the Board. If a Director loses eligibility to continue serving on the Board,
the position shall be deemed vacant and the vacancy filled as provided herein.
4.4. Term. Each Director serves a two-year term commencing on January 1. The terms shall
be staggered to minimize the number of Directors up for election in the same year. The
Initial Board shall determine the terms and the staggering of the positions as part of
adopting the bylaws. A vacancy in the office of Director shall be filled by appointment
of the Board until the next election, at which time the position shall be up for election for
the remainder of the term.
4.5. Election of Directors. The annual election of Directors shall occur in accordance with
this Agreement and the bylaws established by the Board. This process is not subject to
federal, state, or local election laws or procedures. Instead, the intent is to provide a
reasonable means for Members to nominate candidates and to select those whom they
wish to serve on the Board. Each Member in good standing when the nomination process
begins has an opportunity to nominate people from its Governmental Unit for any or all
the open positions on the Board. All persons nominated to a position must be eligible to
represent that position on the Board. The Board shall collect the nominations and prepare
a ballot to be distributed among the Members for a vote. Each Member in good standing
shall have one vote on each open position. A Member must determine for itself who is
authorized to submit nominations and cast the vote on its behalf. The name of the
Member submitting the ballot must be on the ballot. The Board shall tabulate the votes
and provide the Members a list of the persons elected to the Board. The conducting of
8
CR225-476-758705.v8
the nomination and election process shall occur early enough in a year to allow the newly
elected Directors to take their positions on the Board as of January 1.
4.6. Director Duties. Directors are responsible for carrying out the duties of the Board under
this Agreement in a diligent and timely manner. If a Director fails to attend three
consecutive Board meetings without reasonable cause, the Board may declare the office
vacant and fill the position by appointment. The position will then be up for election at
the next election for the remainder of the term.
4.7. Board Officers. Each year at its annual meeting the Board shall elect from among its
Directors a Chair and a Vice-Chair. The Board shall also appoint a Secretary/Treasurer,
which is not required to be selected from among the Directors. If the Secretary/Treasurer
is not a Director, the person shall not have a vote. The Chair shall act as the presiding
officer at Board meetings and the Vice-Chair shall act as the presiding officer in the
absence of the Chair. The Secretary/Treasurer shall take the minutes of Board meetings
and shall serve as the finance manager for the Fencing Consortium. The Board shall
adopt by-laws to establish its own procedures, provided such procedures are consistent
with the purposes of this Agreement.
4.8. Board Meetings. The Board shall hold regular meetings on the schedule as established
in its bylaws. The Board may also hold special meetings as needed upon the call of the
Chair or upon the written request of two Directors given to the Secretary/Treasurer.
Meetings of the Board are subject to the Minnesota Open Meeting Law (Minnesota
Statutes, chapter 13D). The Secretary/Treasurer shall inform all Directors of special
meetings, maintain a schedule of the Board’s regular meetings, and shall post notice of
any special meetings on the bulletin board designated by the Board for such notices or, if
a bulletin board is not designated, upon the outside door of the building in which the
Board meets. The Board may hold emergency meetings and such other meetings as
allowed by law. The Board shall hold an annual meeting in January or in such other
month as designated by the Board. The annual meeting may be held together with a
regular meeting.
4.9. Voting. A majority of the Directors (three) shall constitute a quorum of the Board to
meet and conduct the business of the Board. Each Director shall have an equal, non-
weighted, vote. Unless specifically indicated otherwise herein, a majority vote of the
Directors present at a meeting, if at least a quorum is present, shall be required for the
Board to take action on any issue that comes before it. A Director must be present at a
meeting to vote and shall not vote by proxy. A Director may be considered present and
vote from a remote location to the extent allowed under Minnesota Statutes, chapter 13D.
4.10. Powers of the Board.
(a) To take all actions necessary and convenient to discharge its duty to lease Fencing
and to make it available to Members pursuant to the terms of this Agreement.
9
CR225-476-758705.v8
(b) Establish policies and procedures for requesting, deploying, using, demobilizing,
and returning the Fencing, and on such other operational matters as the Board
may determines is appropriate. This power includes, but is not limited to, further
refining the definition of Critical Incident as may be needed and otherwise
identifying situations in which deployment of the Fencing is automatic and when
it is discretionary with the Board.
(c) Authorize one or more of its Directors to receive request from a Requesting
Member and to issue a Call Out of the Fencing to a Critical Incident in
accordance with established policies and procedures.
(d) Obtain the Fencing initially by lease, or purchase with State appropriation, and
then determine over time whether to purchase part or all of the Fencing provided
under this Agreement. If the Fencing is purchased, to provide for its storage and
deployment.
(e) Select the notification system for the Call Out.
(f) To adopt bylaws and rules or policies consistent with this Agreement as required
to effectively exercise the powers, or accomplish the purposes, of the Fencing
Consortium;
(g) To interpret and apply the provisions of this Agreement in a manner that furthers
its purpose and intent including, but not limited to, determining the eligibility of a
Governmental Unit to become a Member;
(h) To adopt an annual operating and capital budget, including a statement of sources
of funding and allocation of costs to Members;
(i) To establish a system to communicate budget and other information of interest to
Members;
(j) To enter into contracts in its own name;
(k) Contract with an auditing firm to perform financial audits of the Fencing
Consortium as the Board determines is appropriate;
(l) To purchase any insurance and indemnity or surety bonds as necessary to carry
out the purposes of this Agreement;
(m) To seek, apply for, and accept appropriations (including legislative
appropriations), grants, gifts, loans of money or other assistance as permitted by
law from any person or entity, whether public or private;
(n) To sue;
10
CR225-476-758705.v8
(o) To annually charge and collect from Members a Member Assessment as needed
to pay the on-going costs of the Fencing Consortium;
(p) To determine and require the payment of a Surcharge by Additional Members
joining the Fencing Consortium; and
(q) To exercise all other powers necessary and incidental to carry out the purposes of
this Agreement provided such powers are consistent with the purposes of the
Agreement and are exercised in accordance with the applicable statutory powers
of the Members.
4.11. Powers Not Delegated. The Members expressly reserve for themselves the following
powers, which shall not be deemed delegated to, and may not be exercised by, the Board:
(a) Hire employees;
(b) Purchase real property;
(c) Issue bonds; or
(d) Undertake or otherwise perform any functions exceeding the general scope and
purpose of this Agreement.
4.12. Specific Duties of the Board. The Board shall exercise the powers provided it under this
Agreement to perform, in addition to the other duties provided for in this Agreement, the
following specific duties:
(a) Lease Fence. The Board shall enter into a Lease with the Vendor to obtain the
Fencing and trailer(s) for transporting the Fencing. The Board shall ensure it
secures and maintains a sufficient length of Fencing to cover the Member with the
longest Fencing lengths as shown on the Fencing Preplans, rounded up to the
nearest 500 feet. Initially, the Board shall base the amount of Fencing on the
Fencing Preplans submitted by the Original Members. As Additional Members
join the Fencing Consortium, the Board shall consider the Fencing needs and may
secure additional Fencing as it determines is needed.
(b) Fence Storage and Transport. The Lease shall require the Vendor to store the
Fencing at a location agreeable to the Board, deliver the Fencing to the identified
Staging Area upon the Board’s request within the response timeframe identified
in the Lease, and to address other transportation needs as specified in the Lease.
(c) Select Notification System. The Board shall select a Notification Systems that
will be used by Directors to Call Out the Deployment Team to a Requesting
Member’s Governmental Unit.
11
CR225-476-758705.v8
(d) Reports. The Board shall prepare and distribute such reports to the Members as
the Board determines are necessary to keep them informed of the Fencing
Consortium’s activities. The Board shall determine the best method for
distributing such reports.
4.13. Office. The initial office of the Fencing Consortium shall be selected by the Board. The
Board may change the location of the office as it determines is appropriate. The Board
will hold its meetings at the designated office, but may also meet at such other locations
as it determines appropriate to carry out its duties.
4.14. Disbursements. Except as otherwise provided, all unbudgeted disbursements and
expenditures of the Fencing Consortium shall be approved by the Board. All checks
issued by the Fencing Consortium from its funds shall be co-signed by two Directors
designated by the Board.
4.15. Fiscal Agent. The Board may appoint, and enter into agreements with, a fiscal agent for
the Fencing Consortium and may change the fiscal agent from time to time as it deems
necessary. The fiscal agent may be a Member Governmental Unit. The Board may
delegate authority to the fiscal agent to act on its behalf as the Board deems appropriate
and in accordance with applicable laws.
ARTICLE V
DEPLOYMENT OF THE FENCING
5.1. Automatic Deployment. The Fencing shall be made available for automatic deployment
upon the occurrence of a Critical Incident in a Member’s Governmental Unit. The
Requesting Member shall notify a Director of a Critical Incident and a Director shall
utilize the designated Notification System to Call Out the Deployment Team for
deployment of the Fencing. The Deployment Team shall then respond to the Requesting
Member to unload and assemble the Fencing at the Deployment Site. The process to
request deployment and demobilization of the Fencing shall occur in accordance with this
Agreement and the policies and procedures adopted by the Board. The Deployment
Team Manager shall be responsible for coordinating the deployment and demobilization
of the Fencing.
5.2. Requesting Member Obligations. A Requesting Member requesting deployment of the
Fencing for a Critical Incident occurring in the Member’s jurisdiction shall be responsible
for the following:
(a) Providing security for the Deployment Team while it is conducting its work at the
Deployment Site;
(b) Provide any equipment that may be needed to deploy or demobilize the Fencing that
is not provided by the Vendor;
12
CR225-476-758705.v8
(c) Pay the Vendor charges for the actual use of the Fencing. Such payments are to be
made directly to the Vendor unless directed otherwise by the Board;
(d) Providing food, water, first aid, and similar support to the Deployment Team as
may reasonably be needed;
(e) Contacting the Board or the Board’s designee if there are any issues with the
Fencing once it is in place; and
(f) Complying with Board policies and procedures applicable to a Requesting Member,
including avoiding any activities that may unreasonably damage the Fencing or
expose the Deployment Team to an unreasonable risk.
5.3. Discretionary Deployment. A Member may make a request to the Board for the
deployment of the Fencing in the Member’s Governmental Unit for an event or
occurrence other than a Critical Incident. The deployment of the Fencing for something
other than a Critical Incident is left to the sole discretion of the Board. The Board shall
consider all such requests at a meeting and determine whether to approve the Member’s
request. The Board shall adopt criteria or standards for determining when to allow the
discretionary deployment of the Fencing and the requesting Member’s obligations if the
request is approved. The Board may delegate the authority to one or more Directors to
determine whether to allow the discretionary deployment of the Fencing based on the
criteria established by the Board.
5.4. Non-Member Deployment. The Board shall adopt standards and requirements for
determining whether to allow the deployment of the Fencing in response to a Critical
Incident that occurred in a non-member Governmental Unit. Nothing in this Agreement
obligates the Fencing Consortium to deploy the Fencing to a non-member Governmental
Unit.
5.5. No Guarantee. The Members understand and agree the deployment of the Fencing by
the Deployment Team is a cooperative undertaking and that the Fencing Consortium
cannot guarantee a certain response time or make any representations or warranties
regarding response times, the Fencing, its assembly, or effectiveness. The Deployment
Team will endeavor to respond as quickly as possible to a Critical Incident and to place
the Fencing as shown in the Requesting Member’s Fencing Preplan as provided in this
Agreement and in accordance with Board policies and procedures.
5.6. Demobilization. The Member who receives the Fencing in response to a Critical
Incident shall work with the Fencing Consortium to determine when to initiate the
demobilization of the Fencing from the Deployment Site. For a discretionary deployment
of the fence, the demobilization date shall be determined prior to the deployment. The
Deployment Team shall be responsible for disassembling the Fencing as part of the
demobilization. The Board shall establish such procedures and policies as may be needed
to address the demobilization of the Fencing. The Board has the authority to recall the
Fencing from a Member if it determines there is a more critical need for the Fencing in
13
CR225-476-758705.v8
another Governmental Unit that cannot be fulfilled by the remaining Fencing held by the
Fencing Consortium.
ARTICLE VI
MEMBERSHIP COSTS AND ASSESSMENTS
6.1. Original Member Costs. Each Original Member shall be responsible for paying a share
of the Fencing costs based on the length of fence indicated in its Fencing Preplan as a
percentage of the total amount of initial Fencing to be leased by the Board. The Board
shall determine the amount each Original Member is required to pay and provide each an
invoice together with a sheet showing the division of costs. Invoice shall be paid within
45 days of receipt.
6.2. Additional Member Costs. Each Additional Member shall be required to pay their
share of the Fencing costs calculated as if they were an Original Member. Each
Additional Member shall also be required to pay a Surcharge in the amount determined
by the Board. The Surcharge is to pay the Additional Member’s portion of the Member
Assessment, any buy-in costs to cover a share of the Fencing and related costs, and to
partially reimburse the costs paid by the existing Members. The Board shall apply the
buy-in amounts collected to reduce the future charges to the existing Members.
6.3. Member Assessments. In addition to the initial Fencing costs each Member is required
to pay, Members shall also be assessed for the on-going costs to operate and maintain the
Fencing Consortium. These operational costs will be divided based on the Fencing costs
formula and paid by each Member as a Member Assessment. The formula shall take into
account the total length of Fencing held by the Fencing Consortium and then divided by
the length of each Member’s Fencing needs as indicated in the Fencing Preplan. The
Board shall, as part of the annual budget, determine the total amount of the Member
Assessments and the specific amount to be assessed each Member to pay the anticipated
Fencing Consortium costs in the upcoming year.
6.4. Payment of Member Assessments. The Fencing Consortium shall invoice Members for
their Member Assessment amount for the upcoming year. Invoices are to be sent no later
than January 15th in the year for which the assessment is being imposed. Members shall
pay their invoices in full within 45 days from the date of the invoice.
6.5. Default. Any Member who breaches or otherwise fails to comply with the terms and
conditions of this Agreement including, but not limited to, failure to pay its Member
Assessment in full by the due date, shall be considered in default of this Agreement. Any
dispute regarding whether a Member is in default shall be determined by a vote of the
Board. A Member shall not be considered in default until it has been notified in writing
by the Board of the condition placing it in default. The notice of default shall indicate the
Member is not in good standing and may be expelled if the default is not cured within 90
days. If a Member fails to fully cure a default within 90 days of the notice of default, the
Board may issue a written notice of expulsion from the Fencing Consortium. Upon such
notice, the Governmental Unit is no longer a Member of the Fencing Consortium as if the
14
CR225-476-758705.v8
Governmental Unit voluntarily elected to terminate its membership in the Fencing
Consortium as provided herein.
ARTICLE VII
MEMBER STAFFING REQUIREMENTS
7.1. Public Works Staff. Each Member is expected to assign member(s) of its public works
staff to serve on the Deployment Team to train with the Fencing and to participate in the
unloading, assembly, and demobilization of the Fencing at a Deployment Site. The
providing of public works staff is through the Public Works Mutual Aid Pact and is at
each Member’s own cost.
7.2. Training. The Deployment Team shall train with the Fencing at least three times a year
to familiarize the Deployment Team with the Fencing and to help ensure its rapid
assembly at a Deployment Site in response to a Call Out. The Board shall work with the
Deployment Team to determine a reasonable training schedule that does not negatively
impact their regular duties.
7.3. Employees. The members of the Deployment Team are not employees of the Fencing
Consortium. The assigned members shall remain employees of their Governmental Unit
for all purposes including, but not limited to, workers’ compensation coverage.
7.4. Equipment. Any damage to or loss of Member equipment utilized by the Deployment
Team shall be addressed as provided in the Public Works Mutual Aid Pact.
7.5. Liability. Liability for the acts of the Deployment Team when responding to a Call Out
shall be addressed in accordance with the terms of the Public Works Mutual Aid Pact.
For the purposes of the Public Works Mutual Aid Pact, the Requesting Member shall be
the “Requesting Party” and each of the Members assigning personnel to the Deployment
Team shall be a “Sending Party.”
ARTICLE VIII
BUDGETING AND FINANCIAL REPORTING
8.1. Fiscal Year. The fiscal year of the Fencing Consortium is the calendar year.
8.2. Annual Budget. The Board shall prepare and adopt an annual budget as provided in this
section.
(a) Proposed Budget. The Board shall prepare and approve a proposed budget for the
upcoming fiscal year. The proposed budget shall account for all anticipated costs in
15
CR225-476-758705.v8
the upcoming year and indicate the amounts proposed to be assessed to the
Members.
(b) Notice to Members. The Board shall adopt a proposed budget and distribute it to
the Members by no later than June 1st each year. Members may submit written
comments to the Board regarding the proposed budget by no later than July 1 st.
(c) Final Budget. The Board shall consider the comments received from Members and
shall act to adopt a final budget by no later than August 31st. The Board shall
distribute a copy of the adopted annual budget to the Members. To reduce
administrative costs given the potential number of Members, the Board may send
notices and otherwise communicate with Members using email messages in lieu of
mailing.
ARTICLE IX
INSURANCE AND INDEMNIFICATION
9.1 Insurance. The Fencing Consortium shall purchase and maintain such insurance policies
as the Board determines is necessary and appropriate to cover the Fencing Consortium,
the Board, its operations, and, if required, the Fencing. By purchasing insurance the
Members, the Fencing Consortium, and the Board do not waive, and shall not be
construed as having waived, any exemptions, immunities, or limitations on liability
provided by any applicable Minnesota Law, including Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 466
and section 471.59, subdivision 1a. Any uninsured liabilities incurred by the Fencing
Consortium shall be paid by the Members in the same percentage as their Member
Assessments as set out in this Agreement.
9.2 Director Indemnification. The Fencing Consortium shall defend and indemnify its
Directors from any claim or damages levied against a Director arising out of the
Director’s lawful acts or omissions made or occurring in the good faith performance of
their duties on the Board. The Fencing Consortium is not required to indemnify a
Director for any act or omission for which the Director is guilty of malfeasance, willful
neglect of duty, or bad faith.
9.3 Member Indemnification. The Fencing Consortium shall hold the Members harmless,
individually and collectively, and will defend and indemnify the Members for any claims,
suits, demands or causes of action for any damages or injuries based on allegations of
negligence or omissions by the Fencing Consortium. The Fencing Consortium’s duty to
indemnify does not constitute, and shall not be construed as, a waiver by either the
Fencing Consortium or any or all Members of any exemptions, immunities, or limitations
on liability provided by law or of being treated as a single governmental unit as provided
in Minnesota Statutes, section 471.59, subdivision 1a.
9.4 Liability. To the fullest extent permitted by law, this Agreement and the activities
carried out hereunder thereof are intended to be and shall be construed as a “cooperative
activity” and it is the intent of the Members that they, together with the Board, shall be
16
CR225-476-758705.v8
deemed a “single governmental unit” for the purposes of liability, all as set forth in
Minnesota Statutes, section 471.59, subdivision 1a. For purposes of the statute, each
Member to this Agreement expressly declines responsibility for the acts or omissions of
the other Members.
SECTION X
DISPUTE RESOLUTION
10.1 Dispute Resolution Process. The Members agree to engage in good faith to attempt to
resolve any disputes that may arise over the establishment, operation, or maintenance of
the Fencing Consortium. If a dispute is not resolved informally, the Members agree to
use the following process to attempt to resolve any dispute they may have related to the
Fencing Consortium.
(a) Written Notice of Dispute. Any Member with a dispute regarding the Fencing
Consortium or the Board may submit a written explanation of its dispute to the
Fencing Consortium and to each Member. The Board shall make the email list of
Members available for the purpose of providing this notice. The explanation of
the dispute must be detailed, not repetitive of a dispute already addressed by the
Board regarding the same Member, relate directly to a matter within the scope of
the Fencing Consortium or of the Board’s powers, and must suggest a solution.
(b) Review and Response by Board. Upon the Fencing Consortium’s receipt of a
written dispute it shall be placed on the agenda of the Board’s next scheduled
regular meeting for consideration. The Board shall respond in writing to all
properly submitted disputes within three months and shall provide each Member a
copy of its response.
(c) Mediation. If the Member with the dispute is not satisfied with the Board’s
response, it may file a written request with the Board for mediation. If the
Member and the Board are not able to mutually agree on a mediator, the Member
and the Board shall each select a mediator and the two mediators shall select a
third. Each party to the mediation shall be responsible for the cost of the mediator
it selected and shall share equally in the costs of the mediation and of the third
mediator.
(d) Binding Arbitration. If the dispute is not resolved in mediation, the aggrieved
Member and the Board may agree to submit to a binding arbitration process. The
arbitration shall be conducted in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, chapter
572B following the Commercial Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration
Association, unless the Board and the Member agree to follow different rules.
The Members and the Board agree the decision of the arbitrator shall be binding
on the Fencing Consortium and its Members.
17
CR225-476-758705.v8
SECTION XI
WITHDRAWAL OF A MEMBER
11.1 Process. A Member may withdraw from the Fencing Consortium by providing written
notice to the Board of its intent to withdraw. To avoid a withdrawal from interrupting the
on-going payments for the costs of the Fencing, the effective date of the withdrawal will
depend on its timing with respect to the Board’s work to set the budget for the upcoming
year. If the Board receives the withdrawal notice prior to May 1st in a year, the effective
date of the withdrawal will be December 31st of the same year. If the Board receives the
notice after May 1st, the withdrawal will be effective December 31st of the following year.
11.2 Effect of Withdrawal. The withdrawing Member shall be responsible for paying its full
Member Assessment for the full year in which the withdrawal is effective. Recognizing
the Fencing Consortium is an ongoing concern, the Members agree the withdrawing
Member shall not receive any reimbursement of the amounts it has paid and is not
entitled to any share in the assets of the Fencing Consortium. Upon the effective date of
the withdrawal, the former Member shall no longer be considered a Member under this
Agreement.
SECTION XII
DISSOLUTION OF FENCING CONSORTIUM
12.1 Dissolution Process. The Fencing Consortium may only be dissolved by a joint
resolution approved by four-fifths of the then current Members or by a unanimous vote of
the entire Board on a dissolution resolution. Dissolution shall not be effective for at least
six months from the adoption the resolution unless an earlier dissolution date is approved
as part of the resolution. Prior to the effective date of the dissolution, the Board shall use
the Fencing Consortium’s assets to pay its outstanding obligations. If the assets on hand
are not sufficient to pay all outstanding obligations, the Board shall impose a Member
Assessment to collect sufficient funds to pay the outstanding amounts. The Board shall
divide the amount needing to be collected by a Member Assessment using the same
formula for other Member Assessments. The Fencing Consortium shall not be finally
dissolved until its outstanding obligations are paid in full.
12.2 Distribution of Assets and Property. Upon dissolution, the Board shall distribute any
remaining assets to the Members in proportion to the Member Assessment of each
Member in effect as of the date of dissolution. The Board shall have the power to
determine the best method for distributing the assets and to decide any disputes that may
arise among the Members concerning such distribution.
SECTION XIII
MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
13.1 Official Copy. This Agreement is being entered into through the adoption by each
Member and the Membership Resolution. The Board shall maintain the official copy of
this Agreement and maintain a list of the Original Members and the Additional Members.
18
CR225-476-758705.v8
The official copy shall constitute the Agreement, which shall be binding on all of the
Members.
13.2 Data Practices. The Fencing Consortium shall comply with the requirements of
Minnesota Statutes, chapter 13, the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act (“Act”).
The Vendor shall be required to comply with the Act as provided in Minnesota Statutes,
section 13.05. The Vendor shall be required to notify the Board if it receives a data
request and to work with the Fencing Consortium to respond to it.
13.3 Notices. Any notice required or permitted to be given to the Fencing Consortium under
this Agreement shall be given in writing, and shall be sent by first class mail to its current
address. Notice to each Member shall be given in writing by first class mail or email to
the Member’s chief of police or other designated contact person.
13.4 Waiver. The delay or failure of any party of this Agreement at any time to require
performance or compliance by any other party of any of its obligations under this
Agreement shall in no way be deemed a waiver of those rights to require such
performance or compliance.
13.5 Governing Law. The respective rights, obligations and remedies of the parties under
this Agreement and the interpretation thereof shall be governed by the laws of the State
of Minnesota which pertain to agreements made and to be performed in the State of
Minnesota.
13.6 Headings and Captions. The headings and captions of these paragraphs and sections of
this Agreement are included for convenience or reference only and shall not constitute a
part hereof.
13.7 No Third-Party Rights. This Agreement is entered into for the sole benefit of the
Members and no other parties are intended to be direct or incidental beneficiaries of this
Agreement, and no third party shall have any right in, under, or to this Agreement.
13.8 Good Faith. Each Member shall act in good faith. In exercising its rights and fulfilling
its obligations under this Agreement, each party acknowledges that this Agreement
contemplates cooperation between and among the parties.
13.9 Entire Agreement. This Agreement, including the recitals and all of the Membership
Resolutions, contains the entire understanding between the Members concerning the
subject matter hereof.
13.10 Amendments. Amendments to this Agreement may be proposed by the Board or by at
least 10% of the Members submitting a proposed amendment to the Board. The Board
shall forward proposed amendments to the Members in the form of an amendment
resolution. The Board will only forward amendments proposed by Members if it
determines the proposed amendments are lawful and not contrary to the primary purposes
of this Agreement. Members adopting the amendment resolution shall return a copy of
19
CR225-476-758705.v8
the executed resolution to the Board. A proposed amendment shall be considered
approved if the amendment resolution is adopted by at least 90% of the then current
Members.
13.11 Examination of Books. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 16C.05, Subd. 5, the
books, records, documents and accounting procedures and practices of the Fencing
Consortium and the Vendor are subject to examination by the State. Members may
examine the financial records of the Fencing Consortium upon reasonable request.
13.12 Recitals and Exhibits Incorporated. The recitals contained herein, and the
Membership Resolutions, are incorporated in and made part of this Agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Members have, by adoption and execution of the
Membership Resolution, entered into this Agreement as of the Effective Date or, if an Additional
Member, as of the date of acceptance by the Board of the Membership Resolution.
[A list of all Members is maintained by the Fencing Consortium.]