2021.03.16 Council Meeting Packet
4141 Douglas Drive North • Crystal, Minnesota 55422-1696
Tel: (763) 531-1000 • Fax: (763) 531-1188 • www.crystalmn.gov
Posted: March 12, 2021
City Council Meeting Schedule
Tuesday, March 16, 2021
Time Meeting Location
6:30 p.m.
City Council work session to discuss:
1. Twin Lake slalom course request update.
2. Blue Line Extension update.
3. City manager monthly check-in.
4. New business.
5. Announcements.
Council Chambers/Zoom
7:00 p.m. City Council meeting Council Chambers/Zoom
Auxiliary aids are available upon request to individuals with disabilities by calling the City Clerk at (763) 531-1145 at
least 96 hours in advance. TTY users may call Minnesota Relay at 711 or 1-800-627-3529.
In accordance with a statement issued by Mayor Jim Adams pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.021, due
to the pandemic this meeting will be conducted as an electronic meeting. The public may monitor and participate in
the meeting by connecting to it through one of the methods identified below. A limited number of the public may
attend the meeting in-person in the Council Chambers, provided social distancing and face covering requirements
are followed. City council members and staff are not required to attend the meeting in-person, but some may
participate in-person. All votes will be taken by roll-call vote.
Topic: Crystal Council Work Session & Regular City Council Meeting
Time: Mar 16, 2021 06:30 PM Central Time (US and Canada)
Join Zoom Meeting
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/85853603769?pwd=V1JLSzUzMHBSd0RiR1RLMTg3cFJKZz09
Meeting ID: 858 5360 3769
Passcode: 414141
One tap mobile
+13017158592,,85853603769#,,,,*414141# US (Washington DC)
+13126266799,,85853603769#,,,,*414141# US (Chicago)
Dial by your location
+1 301 715 8592 US (Washington DC)
+1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago)
+1 929 205 6099 US (New York)
+1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma)
+1 346 248 7799 US (Houston)
+1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose)
888 475 4499 US Toll-free
877 853 5257 US Toll-free
Meeting ID: 858 5360 3769
Passcode: 414141
Find your local number: https://us02web.zoom.us/u/kc7Iut7nrk
4141 Douglas Drive North • Crystal, Minnesota 55422-1696
Tel: (763) 531-1000 • Fax: (763) 531-1188 • www.crystalmn.gov
Posted: March 12, 2021
City Council
Work Session Agenda
Tuesday, March 16, 2021
6:30 p.m.
Council Chambers/Zoom Meeting
Pursuant to due call and notice given in the manner prescribed by Section 3.01 of the City
Charter, the work session of the Crystal City Council was held on Tuesday, March 16, 2021 at
______ p.m. electronically via Zoom and in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 4141 Douglas
Drive, Crystal, Minnesota.
I. Attendance
Council members Staff
____ LaRoche ____ Norris
____ Parsons ____ Ray
____ Adams ____ Revering
____ Banks ____ Sutter
____ Budziszewski ____ Biggerstaff
____ Cummings ____ Serres
____ Kiser
II. Agenda
The purpose of the work session is to discuss the following agenda items:
1. Twin Lake slalom course request update.
2. Blue Line Extension update.
3. City manager monthly check-in.
4. New business. *
5. Announcements. *
III. Adjournment
The work session adjourned at ______ p.m.
* Denotes no supporting information included in the packet.
Auxiliary aids are available upon request to individuals with disabilities by calling the City Clerk at (763)
531-1145 at least 96 hours in advance. TTY users may call Minnesota Relay at 711 or 1-800-627-3529.
Memorandum
DATE: March 16, 2021
TO: Crystal City Council
Andrew Hogg, Assistant City Engineer, City of Brooklyn Center
FROM: Mark Ray, PE, Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: Proposed Water Ski Slalom course update
Background
Earlier this year, both the City of Brooklyn Center and Crystal were contacted by Chuck Kendall (5630
Twin Lake Terrace, Crystal) and Nick Ellering (5652 Twin Lake Terrace, Crystal) asking about a letter from
both cities providing written permission for a permanent (for the season) water ski slalom course on
Upper Twin Lake. For reference, attachment 1 of this memo is the initial information on the course
provided by the applicants. Since neither City has gone through this process before we mailed a joint
letter to all the properties on Upper Twin Lake requesting their input. Of important note, this joint-City
input effort only relates to Item #1 of the Hennepin County Sheriff’s Office Water Patrol (Water Patrol)
permit requirements.
Communication with Water Patrol
Attachment #2 to this memo are the permit requirements from Water Patrol. City staff have been in
direct communication with Water Patrol staff to make sure everyone remains on the same page. Staff
has gotten confirmation from Water Patrol that based on the documented properties opposed, the
application would not satisfy requirement #2 of the permit. Requirement #2 is “All property owners
which the course directly affects must give written permission.”
Communication with Water Patrol
In the letter that was sent to all the properties around Upper Twin it was stated that the comments
received will be provided to both Councils. Attachment #3 of this memo contains all the comments
received. Every property owner that contacted the City is included in the comments but some additional
minor communications (generally process questions) that were received are not included.
Attachments
1) Materials provided by applicant
2) Hennepin County Sheriff Water Patrol permit requirements
3) Resident responses to joint-City letter
Requested Council Action
Since the applicant does not meet Water Patrol requirement #2, no action is needed from either City
Council at this time.
Attachment 1
Materials provided by applicant
Attachment 2
Hennepin County Sherriff Water Patrol permit requirements
Attachment 3
Resident responses to joint-City letter
1
Mark Ray
From:Chuck Kendall <chuck.kendall68@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, January 30, 2021 9:04 AM
To:Andrew Hogg; Mark Ray
Cc:Nick Ellering
Subject:Can Nick and I get a letter from the city providing written consent for our submersible
course?
Happy New Year! We will be on the water in no time enjoying the sun.
We provided you a copy of the signatures of impacted homeowners at our meeting, but need a letter from the city to
attain our permit from the Hennepin County Sheriff.
Since the lake covers both cities, we want to ensure we attain both cities' approval.
On another note, this spring we will investigate the inlets and garbage to pull that data together.
Thanks
Chuck Kendall
5630 Twin Lake Terrace N
Crystal, MN 55429
**** This is an EXTERNAL email - which originated outside of the City of Crystal. Please exercise caution. DO NOT open
attachments or click links from unknown senders or in unexpected email from known senders. ****
have signed this
form
For all questions, call Chuck 763-354-4125
Again, neighbors like the submersible because it will not
attract jet skis and be out of the way when not in use
Hennepin County Sheriff’s Office
Enforcement Services Division – Water Patrol Unit
TEMPORARY STRUCTURE PERMIT REGULATIONS for
SLALOM COURSES
A regulation length Slalom Course is normally over 800 feet long and because it
restricts the public use of such a large area, the following regulations are to be
followed closely:
1.The cities that are affected must give written permission.
2.All property owners which the course directly affects must give written permission.
3.Surface floats must be submerged or removed when the course is not in use.
4.The permit number must be displayed on the end floats.
5.The course cannot exceed 900 feet in length.
6.The course cannot be a navigational hazard.
7.The permit will be renewed annually and the previous years’ complaints (if any) will be
reviewed.
8.When you return the Temporary Structure Application, you must include copies of all
letters of permission.
**FOR LAKE MINNETONKA ONLY**
Slalom courses on Lake Minnetonka MUST BE REMOVED. No submerging
allowed. Courses on Lake Minnetonka do not need a permit, but must be
removed when not actively using the course.
Courses on county lakes and rivers that are removed after each use do
not need a permit. All permanent courses need the following:
HalifaxTwinLakeOrchard53rd
54t h
52nd
52nd
56th
58th
TwinLakeFranceI
ndi
a
na
PerryWilshire
Bernard
Eckberg
57th
QuailLakeside53rdQuail MajorJ
u
n
e
PerryGreat View57t h
56th
Bur qu es t
OakCP
5 1 s t
¹
0 500 1,000250
Feet
Upper (North) Twin Lake
Response:
OPPOSE
SUPPORT
Support
A.
Paul Oman
5239 E. Twin Lake Blvd.
Brooklyn Center
I wholeheartedly support this. I use the area frequently for barefoot skiing (which doesn't use a
course) and am comfortable that this plan will likely result in even less course exposure due to
less time setting up and taking down and lower motivation to leave it up over night when
planning to ski the next morning. There's very little fishing on Upper Twin (too shallow for
decent fish habitat) and thus snagging fish lines shouldn't be a problem.
Thank you,
Paul Oman
B.
Dan Priem
5309 Twin Lake Blvd
Brooklyn Center
Hi Mark,
I have been a homeowner and boating enthusiast on Upper Twin Lake for 27 years. I fully
support the permit approval of the submersible slalom course. In my experience, the people
using the course are very experienced boaters and usually among the most responsible and
courteous boaters as they understand the value and privilege Twin Lake provides them. Many
of the skiers using the portable course in recent years have lived on or near the lake so have a
vested interest in Twin Lake, our community, and maintaining a positive relationship with the
homeowners and other boaters on the lake so as not to jeopardize the privilege. I fully expect
this to continue with approval of a submersible course.
Thank you for considering this permit request.
Thank-you,
Oppose
C. – Same address as D.
Michael J. Larson
5451 Twin Lake Blvd E
Brooklyn Center
WILDLIFE should take a higher priority. Herons and a wide range of Ducks like to spend time on
these peninsulas in our experience.
WETLAND ISSUES like neighbors that dump most of their lawn waste in the wetlands don't
seem to be monitored at all.
The WATERSHED people seem inoperative in our experience. WATER QUALITY monitoring
seems to be far below an appropriate level.
We face the pond on the right side of your map... it seems we're seeing far fewer herons and
other wildlife... maybe water is having a tougher time getting to this pond by there seems to be
a need for the broader issues.
THANKS for the opportunity to express our doubts... use of the word PRIVATE seems
problematic as well. It should be owned by the CITY in our view.
D. – Same address as C.
Marijane Tessman
5451 Twin Lake Blvd. E.
Brooklyn Center, MN
I am against giving a permit to one homeowner on Twin Lake to operate a private slalom
course.
Twin Lake is a gem in Crystal & Brooklyn Center. It is a special environment and a ski course will
upset this ecosystem. It is home to many species of fish and duck and is part of the territories
of heron, owl, hawk, occasional eagles & common birds. We see fox, muskrat, deer and and
even coyote. This concentrated activity of gasoline motors to operate ski boats, ski lifts and jet
skis will upset the wildlife on Twin Lake.
If a government permit is given to this private group, the character of the lake will permanently
change. This activity will increase water pollution, air pollution, noise pollution and
create unsafe conditions.
The Single Creek and West Mississippi Watershed Management Commission website states that
Upper and Lower Twin Lakes have a sensitive ecology. The balance of the "fish and zooplankton
communities" are threatened. Twin Lake is already struggling to maintain a "clear-water state".
Upper Twin Lake does not need a government sanctioned, private slalom operation.
E.
Jay Martin
5740 Twin Lake Terrace
Crystal, MN
Mark, From what I've seen over the 7 years I 've been here, the course has mostly been on the
other side of the island. Thats the East side. It provides more space for turning and staying out
of the way of others. The proposed course on the West side would put the boat and skier on
more of a collision path with anything going through the channel. Also on the south end many
boats and swimmers park by the small island. This is another place of interference. The West
side leaves much more room for error. Thats probably why I have seen it mostly on the East
side of the Island.
Regards, Jay Martin
F.
Dan Johnson
5446 ORCHARD AVE N
CRYSTAL MN
It’s a huge no!! When it’s set up, most of the people that use this course act as if they own the
LAKE, there sometimes RUDE! And if you boat by slow or paddle boat they give you a awful
stare.. It’s really unfair AND SHOULD TOTALLY BE ON THE OTHER SIDE!!
1st That’s the 1st problem
2nd problem is all the jet skiers run through the course 70 miles per hr using it as a speed
course.
There should NOT be a course in front of these homes? The waves are larger than you think.
AND THERE MUSIC IS SOooo Loud?
And it’s a consistent thing then right in front of our homes that WE PAY BIG TAXES FOR!!
And most of the people that use this course of course don’t EVEN live on this LAKE?
If they want to set up a course the best spot is ((directly on the other side))?
That is used much much less and there NOT INTERFERING with us who have to deal with these
problems like I addressed!!
3 of the 12 houses in front of this course would use it all the time?? And it’s been set up where
there are no houses many many times and it does not cause a problem on the
East side of that island and it’s just as good as in front of OUR HOMES THAT WE PAY FOR, and
want it quite!! And NOT A RACE TRACK!!!
It’s a BIG NO!
*** Follow up email from Dan***
I’ve been chatting with a few other neighbors, they seem to think it would end up being a freak
show and then all the new boaters from other lakes coming to the free landing and coming to
use this course? It’s very scary to us in front of this island?? Again not mentioning all the crazy
jet skiers that come in that don’t follow lake rules anyway etc.
And our kids are out there swimming and paddle boarding and kayaking..
SURE HOPE YOU GUYS THINK OF ALL THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE LIVED HERE FOR MANY MANY
YEARS.. And it takes them 25 minutes to set up the course and use it for a hr then they pick it
back up?? This lake is WAY TO SMALL FOR ALL THESE NEW BOATERS TAKING OVER FOR A NEW
CITY PERMIT!
Why do you think they are not on Minnetonka and medicine lake?
G.
Sherry Weko
5508 Orchard.
Crystal, MN
We do not support the idea of a private slalom course on Twin Lakes as it faces lake frontage of
property owners.
Our first reaction to the letter was very negative as the letter stated, "All homeowners that
have frontage where the course will be set up have signed their support." This is the first we
have heard about this so how can someone say we signed our support. It feels like someone is
not being honest. That alone tells us to say no support.
The letter says this is a private group but it doesn't say how many people are in the group. In
the past, the family who set up a course has not always set it up on the west side of the island.
They have also skied on the east side of the island. If the course is always on the west side and
not knowing how many people, boats or how often it will be used, there will be more erosion to
our lakefront. I'd prefer they suggest the east side where the wake will hit the wetlands instead
of homeowners property. I enjoy watching people ski but there's no guarantee how often or
how many people will use this course. The letter states the course was put up 2-4 times per
week last summer but it doesn't say how much it would be used now that it is permanent. It
could be a lot more.
The letter also states that this group has been skiing for over 25 years. The homeowners that
have lived on the west side of the island for over 25 years do not ski anymore. The family that
has skied over 25 years live on the east side of the lake so it makes more sense for them to
put the course on the east side of the island if they are the group.
We are not giving our support at this time.
H.
Mark Allen
5427 Twin Lake Blvd E
Brooklyn Center, MN
Curt & Meg,
We and most of our neighbors on Twin Lake received this letter in the mail this week. Of coarse
by using the cities of BC and Crystal’s logo’s, they make it appear that there is buy in of this idea
from the cities.
I have many concerns about this, and I’m sure other neighbors do as well. Last night while I was
ice fishing on the lake, I met Laurie and Tim Melby who live on the Crystal side of our lake, so
naturally this letter came up in conversation.
This couple informed me that while they have Lake frontage where this project would go, that
neither them or at least one of their neighbors has ever heard of this project, let alone “signed
their support for the course”.
They also explained to me that the City of Brooklyn Center and Crystals border runs along their
shoreline, so this project, if it were to move forward will be inside of BC’s boundaries entirely.
Having said all of that, I assume that this is more of a DNR or State of MN issue, as the Lake
does not belong to any of us. It actually belongs to the residents of the State of MN.
My concerns are the following:
1. This water ski group, thinks they “own” the part of the lake, wherever they set up their ski
course. My personal experience, is of having been told that “you can’t fish here, because this is
our ski course”.
2. They make reference that the course will be raised and lowered when not in use. If the lake
and the rights to use it, is for everyone then so should the use of this course, not for just a
select few.
3. The times they are saying they will use it, are pretty much the premium boating, fishing and
recreational hours.
There are other concerns as well, but I’ll let this suffice for now, until I find out if this is even a
viable idea.
Would appreciate any input you might have.
thanks,
Mark
I.
Wilma and John Frantz (also co-signed Jane’s letter)
5432 Twin Lake Terrace
Crystal, MN
This note is to express our desire to have the proposed ski slalom course moved to the north
corner of the lake (on the east side of the ‘big’ island). Wilma & John Frantz
J.
Olena Pavlik (mailed a letter as well which is attached and co-signed a letter from 5700 Twin
Lake Terrace)
5708 Twin Lake Terr. N.
Crystal, MN
February 26, 2021
To: City of Crystal, City of Brooklyn Center, Hennepin County Water Patrol, Department of
Natural Resources
Dear Sir,
It is with a great amount of concern and even alarm that I am writing this response of mine to
the letter I recently received regarding the proposed installation of a private slalom course on
the Upper Twin Lake. I am a property owner on this lake. I have several concerns about this
proposal, which I would like to bring to the attention of the above mentioned organizations and
departments.
Primarily, I am disturbed by the statement in the first Course note that says: “All Homeowners
that have frontage where the course will be set up have signed their support from the course.”
My home is on the northwest end of the lake. Some summers prior to 2020 there was a
temporary slalom course installed in different locations around the lake, most frequently on the
other side of the island, away from the residential area. While last summer, the situation
drastically changed. Myself, and several of my neighbors, watched the use of the course right
in front of our homes several days a week. The map presented on the letter does not truthfully
reflect the actual usage of this part of the lake. The turn-around for the course is directly in
front of our homes, and the boats use most of the width between the island (and wetland
peninsula from the other side) and our frontage, to turn around. I HAVE DEFINITELY NOT signed
my support for the course as is stated in the letter. Actually, I had no idea of the existence of
this proposal until I received the letter a few days ago. Also, because my home is at the area
where the boats turn around, there is a lot of wave action, boat noise and noise made by the
participants. Per the sixth course note ‘The ski boats are designed to have the smallest wake
possible…’, but that was not what it was like last summer – in some instances waves were going
over my dock and the boat lift and damaging the shoreline.
The third course note in the letter referred to a “private group” having had a temporary course
on the lake for 25 years, and yet in the beginning of the letter a referral was made to “a
property owner” as proposing this permanent course. I am wondering if it is a group or an
individual? Who is actually trying to get such an exclusive right on the use of the public lake
throughout the summer from ‘not early in the morning’ till sunset, thus excluding the other
people.
Another concern of mine is for safety of people using the lake for stand-up paddling, kayaking,
canoeing, etc. Or will there be any monitoring or surveillance done of the area and the
shoreline by a private person/group?
I am also concerned about an increase in boat traffic, not only for its impact on myself and my
lake frontage, but for its impact on plants and animals in the area. There are Great Blue Herons,
rare species of ducks, the deer, the red and black fox and many other animals right in our
corner of the lake, and there are wetland plants right next to the actual turn-around area that
the slalom boats have been using.
Therefore, I want to make it clear that I am NOT in support of this permanent slalom course
installation. I believe it is important (and actually the law) for all of us to share the lake. The
installation of this permanent course would impede balanced use of the lake by all.
Please let me know about the decision-making process on this issue and how I can let my voice
be heard. Thank you for your work on this.
Sincerely,
Olena Pavlik
K.
Lyda and Joe Hasmail (also co-signed Jane’s letter)
5350 Perry Circle Ave
Crystal, MN
Mr. Ray,
We write in response to your letter dated February 16, 2021 regarding a proposed permanent
water ski course on Upper Twin Lake. We recently joined a number of our neighbors in a joint
letter proposing that the course be moved to a different location on the lake, and we
understand that you requested that each of the signatories to that letter contact you
independently to confirm that they in fact agreed with it. We are writing to tell you that we do.
Where we live on Upper Twin Lake, and the location of the proposed permanent course, is a
narrow part of a small shallow lake, and that means that waves created by ski boats are not far
from shore, and they undoubtedly contribute to erosion. Further, this means that the noise
from the ski boats is also close to shore, and it is disruptive. We often have to pause
conversations in our backyard when people are skiing. This makes it difficult to enjoy our
backyard on beautiful days (which also are the days that people like to ski) and makes the lake a
less desirable place to be. The constant stream of ski boats coming full throttle down the lake
also means we feel less safe doing the lake activities we enjoy, like swimming and kayaking with
our toddler. In fact, we’ve had to stop doing these things off our own shore because of skiing.
So, as you can imagine, we were alarmed to learn of the proposal to make the course
permanent on our narrow side of the lake with so little notice. We do think that moving the
proposed course to the other, wider, side of the lake would be a reasonable compromise.
We do not agree that all affected residents have consented to this installation on the narrow
side of our lake – we may not live directly off the shore of the proposed course, but boats
exiting the course often turn around just off our shore. We are also aware of a number of our
neighbors who feel similarly.
As you no doubt are aware, Robbinsdale recently went a different direction in the
administration of South Twin Lake, passing an ordinance restricting motorized boating
there. Robbinsdale City Code § 815.07(b), subd. 5(b). Crystal and Brooklyn Center should be
emulating that approach for all of the Twin Lakes, not encouraging Upper Twin Lake to become
a destination for noisy and disruptive motorized boating, at the detriment of its residents.
Thank you for your attention to this matter,
Lyda and Joe Hashmall
L.
Kari Miller (also co-signed Jane’s letter)
5344 Perry Circle
Crystal, MN
Hi Mark
I have lived on the lake for 21 yrs and I support the letter Jane Shallow submitted.
I hope you truly take our recommendation for this under consideration. I enjoy being a part of
this community and support change but want it to be right for the people that pay taxes to live
on the lake and enjoy it without more traffic and erosion to our shoreline.
Thank you
M.
Pat Campion (also co-signed Jane’s letter))
5320 Perry Ave
Crystal, MN
Hi Mark,
I approve the letter that Jane Shallow provided you.
Thank you for your time.
Pat Campion
N.
Zenith Santee (also co-signed Jane’s letter)
5316 Perry Ave
Crystal, MN
Hi Mark,
I approve the letter that Jane Shallow submitted on our behalf.
Thank you
Zenith Santee
O.
Jody and Ryan Becker (also co-signed Jane’s letter)
5412 Twin Lake Terrace N
Crystal, MN
Mark,
My husband Ryan and I virtually signed a letter sent by Jane Shallow regarding a proposal for a
permanent ski run but I think you requested confirmation directly from us. Consider this our
confirmation.
Thank you,
P.
Tim Hagan (also co-signed Jane’s letter)
5406 Twin Lake Terrace
Crystal, MN
Hi Mark my name is Tim Hagan, and I live at 5406 Twin Lake terr. I totally agree with my other
neighbors againt a water sking ramp.
The shoreline will be damaged by the constance water wake on this narrow side of the
lake. Thank You.
Q.
Tim Melby and Laurel Watkins-Melby – Two letters attached, plus below comments
5700 Twin Lake Terrace
Crystal, MN
Mayor and Council members:
We are writing to let you know our concerns about the proposal of a permanent ski slalom
course on Upper Twin Lake. Also, we are sending a copy of a Statement of Opposition that we,
along with our neighbor, Olena Pavlik, brought to our neighbors on the lake, in the area
affected by this proposed ski course.
Attached is the letter we received in the mail, dated February 16, 2021. That letter states that
"All homeowners that have frontage where the course will be set up have signed their support
from the course." We assume that they meant "for" the course, not "from" but, after talking to
neighbors on this part of the lake, we also do not think this statement is accurate. Also attached
is the Statement of Opposition signed by those neighbors. We did not make contact with
homeowners on the rest of the lake, but would be willing to check with others on the lake if
that is needed. One homeowner we talked to that lives on the other side of Upper Twin Lake
felt that this permanent ski course affects all residents on the lake, and really anyone using the
lake at all.
In addition, the Hennepin County Water Patrol regulation (also attached) states "All property
owners which the course directly affects must give written permission." The regulation does
not say (as the Feb. 16 letter says) support is only needed from those homeowners that have
frontage where the course will be set up. We have not given permission and our homes are
definitely Directly Affected as we are at the north end of the course and in the location that the
boats turn around. Consequently, we receive the most noise(from boat motors stopping and
starting and from participants) and wave action causing significant impact on our docks and
shoreline.
We have other concerns such as safety for non-motorized recreation, long hours of possible use
of the ski course, and impact on plants and animals existing on this part of the lake (great blue
heron, eagles, deer, fox, geese and ducks). These concerns are further explained in our letters
(attached) which we already sent to Mark Ray, PE, Crystal Director of Public Works, Andrew
Hogg PE, Brooklyn Center Assistant City Engineer, Hennepin County Water Patrol and
Department of Natural Resources. The original, Feb. 16 letter was sent by Mark Ray and
Andrew Hogg. Comments on this proposal were requested to be sent by Friday, March 5, 2021.
On February 25, 2021, we did receive a response from Hennepin County Water Patrol stating
"HCSO does not approve these without all homeowners support. As such we will contact the
cities saying we are not going to approve this permit." (attached). Therefore, we are assuming
that this permanent ski slalom course will not be permitted. If there are any questions about
this, we would request that we have an opportunity to explain our position directly to Crystal
and Brooklyn Center City Councils.
Sincerely,
Laurel Watkins-Melby, 5700 Twin Lake Terr. N., Crystal, MN
Tim Melby, 5700 Twin Lake Terr. N., Crystal, MN
Olena Pavlik, 5708 Twin Lake Terr, N., Crystal, MN
R.
Jane Shallow
5418 Twin Lake Terrace
Crystal, MN
Hello Mr. Ray,
We are writing in response to your letter dated February 16, 2021 regarding the proposed
summer permanent slalom water skiing course for Upper Twin Lake.
The fourteen of us comprising nine households have some concerns.
The first is the statement in the letter that all people who have frontage on the proposed
course are in support of this proposal. This is the first we have heard of this proposal so we
have had no input in this process to date. We are therefore very appreciative you have sent out
this citizen input request as our homes are either directly on the run up of the proposed course
or in the turnaround area of the proposed course.
The second question is about the location of the proposed course in Upper Twin Lake. This is
the narrowest part of the lake as you can see from the map you provided, and it is indeed very
narrow.
We believe the current operation of watercraft in the summer already puts a lot of pressure on
the shoreline, our own enjoyment of the lake, and the wildlife in this small area and we are
hesitant to see more, especially since there are at least two more water ski boats on the lake
that to this point have been using the whole lake and would naturally be drawn to the
permanent course, thereby adding yet more traffic, wake, and noise to this small space.
As well, many of us have canoes, kayaks, paddleboards and pontoons, all slow moving craft that
must then negotiate this bottleneck.
We are not in opposition to a permanent summer course except in the currently proposed
location. Our valued neighbor has been skiing on this lake for many years. We would like to
suggest a slalom course be set up on the North corner of the lake, where it has been set up
many times before. The lake is wider, the course can be operated further away from our
houses and the shoreline, and there is less of a bottleneck problem. (See the attached map for
clarification.)
We have several times in the past had a temporary course set up in the area that is
being proposed as a permanent location, the results of which have generated these nine
households in a row that are on the run up and turn around path of the proposed course to join
together to please request an alternate location for the permanent course.
Can you please notify us if there will be further discussions about this prior to action by the
city?
Thank you,
Jane Shallow 5418 Twin Lake Terr. N., Crystal 29 year resident
Rofina Madaba Lutta 5418 Twin Lake Terr. N., 6 year resident
John Frantz 5432 Twin Lake Terr. N., Crystal 30 year resident
Wilma Frantz 5432 Twin Lake Terr. N, Crystal 30 year resident
Jean Maus 5424 Twin Lake Terr. N., Crystal 2 year resident
Jody Becker 5412 Twin Lake Terr. N., Crystal 6 year resident
Ryan Becker 5412 Twin Lake Terr. N., Crystal 6 year resident
Tim Hagen 5406 Twin Lake Terr. N, Crystal 33 year resident
Pam Hagen 5406 Twin Lake Terr. N, Crystal 33 year resident
Joe Hashmall 5350 Perry Circle, Crystal 3 year resident
Lyda Hashmall 5350 Perry Circle, Crystal 3 year resident
Kari Miller 5344 Perry Circle, Crystal 21 year resident
Pat Campion 5320 Perry Avenue, Crystal 50 year resident
Zenith Santee 5316 Perry Avenue, Crystal 22 year resident
S.
Dean and Diane Larson - Letter attached
5724 Twin Lake Terrace
Crystal, MN
T.
Shawn Manley
5600 Twin Lake Terrace North
Crystal, MN 55429
To whom it may concern,
I am writing in regards to the letter I received about the request for a private party to put a
slalom course on the lake. I am concerned about this letter for multiple reasons. First this letter states
that they have a approval from the homeowners that have frontage on the side where the course
will be. That is not completely accurate. I own a house with my partner directly in front of where this
course will be held. My understanding is they spoke to my partner but not myself. Our household is
50/50 for and against this course.
My concerns are as follows:
We recently invested in a brand new shoreline and rip tap that we are very proud of. If this were to
have ANY increased traffic for skiing due to this course being a permanent structure I have concerns
over the wave abuse on our shoreline.
There have been times there are skiers out in the earlier part of the morning so #4 in their letter is not
completely factual either. However, in their defense I have not seen them before sunrise or after
sunset.
Secondly, where do we draw the line? If this group wants this, and the next group comes along with an
idea for extra "permanent equipment" etc then who is to say one group gets precedent over another? I
see no harm in the temporary course they use. If they have been doing it already without any issue then
I see no reason to make this permanent.
Thirdly, I am hearing rumblings of this group possibly wanting to do contests, lessons, etc with this. If
they are charging for this then would the lake association or those around the lake benefit from the
income?? I do know we have a homeowner across the lake who is known for barefoot skiing and
promotes such at other venues. I have heard this individual is also interested looking to utilize this to
the benefit of contests, lessons, and such.
In my opinion, we have already seen an increase in Kayak traffic due to the Parks and Recreation putting
up a kayak rental on the Middle twin and that to continue to increase such permanent structures on an
already beautiful, semi private, and so far not extremely busy lake would only increase traffic on a lake
that every single homeowner on this lake values it for what it is currently.
I see no reason to issue such a permit for a structure that works quite well as a set up and tear down
situation currently. I believe this would also elimate any future issues, disagreements, or
preferences that may arise in the future between our already very close group of homeowners as to
who is allowed what on the lake.
Thank you for your time,
___________________________________________________________________________________
FROM: John Sutter, Community Development Director
TO: Anne Norris, City Manager (for March 16 work session)
DATE: March 11, 2021
SUBJECT: Blue Line Extension update
___________________________________________________________________________________
Metro Transit and Hennepin County (the project team) are exploring alternate routes for the
Blue Line Extension that do not require the use of BNSF Railway property.
In Crystal, as well as Robbinsdale and the southern part of Brooklyn Park, the operating
assumption is that the new alignment would follow Bottineau Boulevard (County Road 81).
This right-of-way is somewhat constrained and the constraints vary depending the
location/segment.
The same is true for land use: From south to north, the Crystal land uses along Bottineau
are residential, industrial, commercial, the airport, commercial and residential again.
The layout concept that emerges may not be the same throughout Crystal, in terms of
where it is (in the median vs. alongside), what it is (at-grade vs. elevated), and so forth.
Today (March 11), the project released route options for the North Minneapolis segment. At
the Robbinsdale/Minneapolis boundary, the route diverges into two options, West Broadway or
Lowry Avenue. As those routes get closer to downtown Minneapolis, the number of potential
options increases. From now through April, the project will seek input on these route options.
Please see the following attachments:
1.Previous Alignment
2.Anticipated Timeline
3.Route Options
4.Briefing Packet
5.FAQs
6.Press Release
7.Star Tribune and CCX Media stories
Later today, after the City Council packet deadline, the Blue Line Extension Corridor
Management Committee (CMC) will discuss these materials. Information about the March 11
CMC discussion will be presented at the March 16 City Council work session.
COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Blue Line Extension Update
Previous Alignment
Attachment 1
Anticipated Timeline Beyond 2021: Confirm environmental approach and conduct analysis to satisfy federal requirementsSeek municipal consent (2022?)Develop construction plans and design details (2023-2024?)Construction (2025-2028?)Note: The out years are a guess by Crystal staff Attachment 2
METRO BLUE LINE LRT EXTENSION
Initial Routes for Consideration • March 2021
Routes for Consideration
The METRO Blue Line Extension is now
seeking feedback on revised routes that do
not use freight rail property as previously
planned. Based on technical considerations,
community input, and past project work, these
options currently represent the best potential
routes for light rail to connect communities
from Minneapolis northwest to Brooklyn Park.
The goal is to identify a single community-
supported route by the end of 2021 to advance
through engineering and environmental review
in the coming years.
Three unique areas in the corridor for the Blue
Line Extension have been identified (shown on
Figure 1).
Background
The Metropolitan Council and Hennepin
County announced in August 2020 the need
to advance the Blue Line Extension project
without using freight railroad property. After
several years of unsuccessful discussions with
the freight railroad, it was time to move the
project forward so that partners could deliver
this critical transportation investment.
To guide our collaborative work moving
forward, project partners and stakeholders
developed a set of Project Principles that
set the project direction and guide decision-
making and engagement.
Robbinsdale
Golden Valley
Crystal
New Hope
Osseo
Maple Grove Coon Rapids
Spring Lake Park
Brooklyn Park
Fridley
Minneapolis
Brooklyn
Center
OAK GROVE STATION
93RD AVENUE STATION
85TH AVENUE
STATION
BROOKLYN BOULEVARD STATION
WEST BROADWAY WEST BROADWAY
ROUTEROUTE
BOTTINEAU BLVDBOTTINEAU BLVDROUTEROUTE
[Miles
0 0.5 1
LOWRY ROUTELOWRY ROUTE
TARGET FIELD
STATION
Lowry Ave NLowry Ave N
Bass Lake RdBass Lake Rd
Glenwood Ave NGlenwood Ave NPenn Ave NPenn Ave N68th Ave68th Ave
58th Ave N58th Ave N
77th Ave77th Ave Noble PkwyNoble PkwyZenith AveZenith AveWashington Ave NWashington Ave NW
B
r
o
a
dw
a
y
A
v
eW
B
r
o
a
dw
a
y
A
v
e
¤169
«100
«55
«47
«65
«252
«610
Planned BLRT Stations
2013 Locally Preferred
Alternative (LPA)
Bottineau Blvd (County
Road 81)
Lowry Route
West Broadway Route
Navy Link
Pink Link
Red Link
Yellow Link
Green Link
NOTE: these are a few
of many potential links
between the Lowry
and West Broadway
routes and Target
Field Station
Area 1: The current route and
stations along West Broadway
in Brooklyn Park are expected
to remain the same.
Area 2: Project stakeholders
identifi ed Bottineau Blvd
(County Road 81) as a
potential focus of initial
analysis.
Area 3: There are many
potential routes so
engagement and
in-depth analysis is
needed.
§¨¦94
§¨¦94
Figure 1: Project Areas and Routes for Initial Evaluation
The Blue Line Extension Project Principles have been the starting point for identifying initial routes
for consideration. The represented candidate routes for Area 3 within Minneapolis have taken into
account the following factors:
✓Available Public Right-of-Way – Based on experience
with the existing Blue and Green Lines we know that a
light rail guideway requires approximately 30 feet of width
(more at stations) for street level service (see Figure 2).
✓Continuity – A light rail corridor needs a continuous,
relatively straight alignment to follow for efficient travel
times.
✓Context – A light rail line and its stations are better
suited to some areas and less suited to others. Higher
density residential and commercial areas of employment
are best suited to accommodate light rail and maximize
community and economic development opportunities.
The City of Minneapolis zoning map (Figure 3) illustrates
the existing zoning across Area 3. The majority of
the area is represented as R1A and R2B (multifamily),
with an area of I2 (industrial) east of I-94. There is a
concentration of R4 and R5 (multifamily) and OR2 (high
density office residence district) clustered along Lowry
Avenue N and West Broadway Avenue.
✓Project Principles – Several of the adopted Project
Principles directly influence consideration of candidate
routes including: “minimize residential, commercial and
environmental impacts,” “complement existing and
planned METRO transitways,” and others.
Attachment 3
Using these factors, the
project team reviewed
potential options.
What remained after the
initial review includes
two primary routes
(Lowry Avenue and West
Broadway) and a series
of linking segments in
downtown Minneapolis that
could connect the two in
varying ways.
Next Steps
We want to hear from you!
Visit BlueLineExt.org to
view our interactive map,
provide comments, take
a survey, or connect with
project staff.Mississippi RiverHall
Park
Lowry Ave NLowry Ave N
Golden Valley RdGolden Valley Rd
Glenwood Ave NGlenwood Ave N
W Broadway AveW Broadway Ave Washington Ave NWashington Ave NLyndale Ave NLyndale Ave NFremont Ave NFremont Ave N7th St N7th St N10th Ave N10th Ave NPenn Ave NPenn Ave NRight of Way Width (feet)
[Miles00.50.25
Plymouth Ave NPlymouth Ave N
Olson Memorial HighwayOlson Memorial Highway Emerson Ave NEmerson Ave N26th Ave N26th Ave N
§¨¦94
«10056 - 6061 - 6566 - 7576 - 8586 -100 100 +Minneapolis
Golden Valley
Robbinsdale Mississippi RiverHall
Park
Lowry Ave NLowry Ave N
Golden Valley RdGolden Valley Rd
Glenwood Ave NGlenwood Ave N
W Broadway W Broadway Washington Ave NWashington Ave NLyndale Ave NLyndale Ave NFremont Ave NFremont Ave N7th St N7th St N10th Ave N10th Ave NPenn Ave NPenn Ave NOR2 High Density Offi ce Residence District
R1A Single-family District (low density)
R2B Two-family District (low density)
R4 Multiple-family District (medium density)
R5 Multiple-family District (high Density)
I2 Medium Industrial District
[Miles
0 0.50.25
§¨¦94
Figure 2: Rights-of-Way Width in Area 3
Figure 4: Potential Rotues for Evaluation in Area 3
Figure 3: Existing Zoning in Area 3 (Source:
City of Minneapolis)Mississippi RiverHall
Park
Lowry Ave NLowry Ave N
Golden Valley RdGolden Valley Rd
Glenwood Ave NGlenwood Ave N
W
B
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
A
v
e
W
B
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
A
v
e Washington Ave NWashington Ave NLyndale Ave NLyndale Ave NFremont Ave NFremont Ave N7th St N7th St N10th Ave N10th Ave NPenn Ave NPenn Ave NRight of Way Width (feet)
[Miles00.50.25
Plymouth Ave NPlymouth Ave N
Olson Memorial HighwayOlson Memorial Highway Emerson Ave NEmerson Ave N26th Ave N26th Ave N
§¨¦94
«100 56 - 6061 - 6566 - 7576 - 8586 -100 100 +Minneapolis
Golden Valley
Robbinsdale
What routes do
you want to see
advanced?
What opportunities
do you see?
What challenges
do you see?
Stay Connected!
Project website: BlueLineExt.org
Follow us on Twitter: @BluelineExt
[Miles
0 0.50.25 Mississippi RiverValley View
Park
Hall
Park
Lowry Ave NLowry Ave N
Golden Valley RdGolden Valley Rd
Olson Memorial HighwayOlson Memorial Highway
Glenwood Ave NGlenwood Ave N
W Broadway AveW Broadway Ave Washington Ave NWashington Ave NLyndale Ave NLyndale Ave NFremont Ave NFremont Ave NPenn Ave NPenn Ave NTARGET FIELD
STATION
WEST BROADWAY WEST BROADWAY
ROUTEROUTE
LOWRY ROUTELOWRY ROUTE
NOTE: these are a few
of many potential links
between the Lowry
and West Broadway
routes and Target
Field Station
§¨¦94
Golden Valley
Robbinsdale
Minneapolis
B
o
t
t
i
n
e
a
u
B
l
v
d
B
o
t
t
i
n
e
a
u
B
l
v
d
(
C
o
u
n
t
y
R
o
a
d
8
1
)
(
C
o
u
n
t
y
R
o
a
d
8
1
)
Plymouth Ave NPlymouth Ave N
7th St N7th St N3rd/4th St Ramps3rd/4th St Ramps10th Ave N10th Ave NBottineau Blvd (County
Road 81)
Lowry Route
West Broadway Route
Navy Link
Pink Link
Red Link
Yellow Link
Green Link
For project questions or to invite us to
an event, contact Sophia Ginis, Manager
of Public Involvement:
Sophia.Ginis@Metrotransit.org
1 | Page
Blue Line Extension Briefing Packet
Thursday, March 11 Action: Release of Potential Light Rail Route Options
x Metropolitan Council and Hennepin County will release revised potential route options for the
METRO Blue Line Extension on Thursday, March 11, 2021 to the public and media.
x These potential light rail transit (LRT) routes represent technical and community discussions over
several months since project partners announced a new direction for the project in August 2020.
x The LRT route options provide an opportunity to continue community conversations aimed at
identifying a single community-supported route by end of year to advance through official design
and environmental review processes.
Background
x These revised potential routes were derived from initial public engagement work which took place
from last fall through January 2021.
x Public engagement activities included:
o 5 community listening sessions with approximately 300 attendees
o 10 community stakeholder interviews
o A community survey which received nearly 2000 responses
o Additional meeting with community and neighborhood organizations
x The Project Management Team learned the community is eager to discuss specific routes and
destinations.
x The revised potential routes serve many of the destinations that were identified through the public
engagement work.
x There were other potential routes identified but were not chosen due to major challenges,
negative impacts and/or inconsistent with adopted Project Principles.
x The release of the revised potential routes is a next step in a much larger process before
construction of the Blue Line Extension begins.
x The project’s goal is to identify a single community supported route option by the end of 2021.
Project sponsors will continue to work closely with communities to align technical and engagement
work as well as station locations.
x Following the identification of a single community supported route environmental review and
engineering work will need to take place.
x This is not a short process and construction of the line is still many years away.
x While federal funding is not yet secured for the Blue Line Extension the aim is to remain
competitive in the Federal New Starts Process.
Public Engagement on Potential Route Options: March 11 – April 30, 2021
x The Metropolitan Council and Hennepin County have a robust communications plan in place for the
release of the revised potential routes.
$WWDFKPHQW4
2 | Page
x This includes a news release, social media posts, a project one-pager, and graphical assets to
support receiving feedback from community members on the revised routes and evaluation
process.
x In the coming weeks, project communication staff will continue to update the project’s website
with relevant material, engage with the press and produce a series of videos.
x To aid engagement efforts, a community survey will be shared via social media and the project’s
website (www.bluelineext.org) to gather initial reaction to the potential revised routes. The
deadline for the survey will be April 30.
x Additionally, a series of virtual townhalls are scheduled for Thursday, March 28 and Tuesday,
March 30 to provide community members a space to provide comments and ask questions of
project staff. Information regarding the townhalls are also available on the project’s website.
x Project staff will be making presentations to community, neighborhoods, and business groups to
receive feedback on the possible LRT route options.
x Project staff are also working with city and other agency partners and community groups to amplify
the announcement of the routes and ways to provide feedback.
Community Concerns Raised
x Through the project’s conversations with stakeholders and community members, displacement is a
major concern. The Metropolitan Council and Hennepin County share those concerns as well.
x Preventing displacement is fundamental to the success of this project and will take time, trust, and
involvement from a wide variety of agency and community partners.
x Metropolitan Council and Hennepin County recognize displacement pressures begin with the
announcement of potential routes and working with a shared sense of urgency to address these
concerns quickly and strategically.
Next Steps
x The Metropolitan Council and Hennepin County will continue to engage with the community
following the release of the revised routes. It is essential we build strong responsive relationships
at all levels to move this work forward.
x To move the project forward, input from the community, stakeholders, and policy makers is
necessary. The Blue Line Extension Project is committed to transparency in the decision-making
process, and can only move forward when the community has reached a high level of trust and
buy-in.
x Project sponsors also understand community members are fatigued and facing complex and
compounding pressures related to the impacts of the pandemic on families, social justice priorities,
and the trial of Derek Chauvin.
x Project sponsors are committed to moving at the speed of trust to ensure community members are
feeling heard and valued during these unprecedented times.
Project Contacts:
x Metropolitan Council Project Lead: Sam O’Connell (sam.oconnell@metrotransit.org)
x Hennepin County Project Lead: Dan Soler (daniel.soler@hennepin.us)
x Public Engagement: Sophia Ginis (sophia.ginis@metrotransit.org)
1 | Page
BBlue Line Extension FAQs – March 2021
Background: These FAQs are intended to help answer the public’s questions following the roll-out of the
revised BLRT route options.
FAQs
1. What happened to the prior light rail transit (LRT) alignment?
x After several years of unsuccessful discussions with the freight railroad, it was time to
move the project forward without using freight rail property.
x One of the Project Principles approved by the Corridor Management Committee in
December 2020 was to maintain as much of the existing alignment as possible. To that
end, the current route along West Broadway in Brooklyn Park is likely to be preserved as
it does not require use of BNSF Railway right-of-way. The section of the corridor in
Brooklyn Park, Crystal and Robbinsdale that previously used the BNSF Railway right-of-
way is proposed to shift to Bottineau Boulevard (County Road 81). The section of the
corridor from Robbinsdale to Target Field Station in Minneapolis is where the greatest
deviation from the prior LRT alignment exists, and where multiple routes are under
consideration.
2. Why could an agreement not be reached with BNSF or eminent domain used?
x The BNSF Railway is a private company with property rights that supersede state
eminent domain authority. Significant effort and resources, including offering to
purchase the corridor, were taken at the local, regional, state, and federal level. In order
to advance, approval by BNSF Railway was required. After several years of unsuccessful
discussions, it was time to move the project forward without using freight rail property.
3. Travel patterns have changed a lot with the pandemic, do we still need this type of transit
investment?
x In 2020, Metro Transit experienced a 53% decline in ridership. The pace of the
vaccinations may determine the pace of ridership return in 2021.
x Transit remains important and will continue to be needed at both a local and regional
level to improve accessibility for business needs and the traveling public, while
improving equity and achieving environmental goals.
4. Why did you pick these potential routes?
x The Metropolitan Council and Hennepin County are committed to identifying routes
that equitably serve people and provide access to important local and regional
destinations.
Attachment 5
2 | Page
x These routes were supported by community input and identified because they have
characteristics that would make them good candidates for a light rail alignment
including overall width and surrounding land uses.
5. Are these all the possible LRT route options?
x These are the project team’s recommended routes based on community input, technical
considerations, and past work, but they are not final. The project is seeking suggestions,
comments, and input regarding these options.
6. Are we supposed to vote on our favorite route and how do I do that?
x The final route, called the Locally Preferred Alternative, will be guided by the project’s
Advisory Committee Decision-Making Process which relies heavily on public input.
Please feel free to visit BlueLineExt.org to view the interactive map, provide comments,
take a survey, or connect with project staff.
7. When will the preferred route be identified?
x The goal by the end of 2021 is to have a single community-supported route to advance
to environmental review and design.
8. Who decides the final LRT route?
x The Metropolitan Council in partnership with Hennepin County through the Advisory
Committee Decision-Making Process, which includes the Community Advisory
Committee (CAC), Business Advisory (BAC), and Corridor Management Committee
(CMC).
9. How does public input influence the process?
x Public input is being sought multiple times through the process. At this stage the project
is looking for route validation, what elements are resonating with the community and
any opportunities that can be incorporated into the technical process.
10. Why were roads like Penn Avenue, Freemont Avenue or Emerson Avenue not represented as
possible routes?
x These roadway corridors are relatively narrow which would make implementation of
light rail more disruptive to the surrounding community. In addition, these corridors
already accommodate valuable METRO transit services through the planned D-Line and
existing C-line arterial bus rapid transit (BRT).
3 | Page
11. Why was Highway 100 not considered as a possible route?
x Although the Highway 100 corridor is relatively wide, it does not have the appropriate
land use context for light rail. It also deviates rather far from the original LRT alignment
and would likely serve fewer people and key destinations.
12. Why was Lyndale Avenue not considered as a route from West Broadway to Lowry Avenue?
x North of West Broadway Ave, Lyndale Ave transitions to a two-lane roadway without
much room to accommodate light rail, with houses that closely front the roadway. This
would make implementation of light rail more disruptive to the surrounding
neighborhood.
13. With this new direction for the project, when do we expect the light rail would actually start
operating?
x No projected opening date has yet been forecasted. There will be a minimum of 5 to 7
years before opening day.
x The process to modify the route will require multiple years of environmental review and
design, followed by construction.
14. Is there a chance that the project could fail again?
x There is a high probability of success, however, these complex projects always carry risk
throughout the project’s design and construction.
15. How might the various route options effect existing homes and businesses?
x One of the Project Principles is to minimize residential, commercial, and environmental
impacts. The project’s intent is to work within existing available public rights of way as
much as possible to avoid direct impacts to homes and businesses.
16. Will this project lead to displacement?
x Light rail projects create opportunities to advance community visions for investment
and economic development that can help residents and businesses build wealth in place
and improve quality of life. They can also raise concerns about displacement. Project
partners hear these concerns and take them seriously and will be working closely with
stakeholders at every level to identify existing and new tools to ensure this investment
benefits all current and future corridor residents and prevent displacement.
17. What happens to the LRT stations that were planned in Golden Valley?
x While these stations will mostly likely not be part of the revised project, Metro transit is
committed to deliver environmentally sustainable transportation choices that link
people, jobs and community conveniently, consistently and safely.
4 | Page
18. What happens to safety improvements along Olson Memorial Highway, including bike and
pedestrian connections?
x Without the light rail project other local planning efforts will need to be undertaken to
help implement these solutions. Partnership with MnDOT and other agencies will need
to be part of that process.
1 | Page
Metropolitan Council and Hennepin County Introduce New Blue Line
Extension LRT Route Options
Metropolitan Council media contact: Trevor Roy, 218-590-2465, Trevor.Roy@metrotransit.org
Hennepin County media contact: Kyle Mianulli, 612-596-9875, Kyle.Mianulli@hennepin.us
Minneapolis, Minn. – March 11, 2021 – Today, the Metropolitan Council and Hennepin County released
revised potential route options for the proposed METRO Blue Line Extension which will connect
communities from Downtown Minneapolis northwest to Brooklyn Park. The routes represent technical
and community discussions over several months since project partners announced a new direction for
the project last August. Partners believe they present the best opportunities to deliver a light rail project
that maximizes community benefits and connects even more people to jobs, education, healthcare and
other key destinations.
These route options provide an opportunity to advance a conversation many years in the making with
the goal of identifying a single community-supported route by the end of this year to advance through
official design and environmental review processes.
“The routes released today are a big step
forward for the Blue Line Extension
Project,” said Met Council Chair Charles
Zelle. “The Blue Line Extension is an
important element of the region’s
transportation system. While these
potential routes are a good first step for
seeing this project to completion, much
work remains. We need community input
from all our neighbors and businesses,
because while these new routes begin
the discussion, there will be more
questions than answers at this early
stage. For me the biggest measure of
project success is community support,
and the Met Council is determined to
deliver a project the community feels is
an investment that directly benefits
those who currently live and work in the
corridor cities.
Last fall, project partners worked
together with stakeholders and
community and business members to
create a set of project principles to guide
project work and engagement, including:
$WWDFKPHQW6
Press Release
2 | Page
x Maintain the existing alignment as much as possible
x Engage, inform, and consult diverse communities to co-create project solutions that reduce
disparities
x Complement existing and planned transit investments
x Mitigate negative impacts
x Meet Federal Transit Administration New Starts criteria
View the full Project Principles
Project leaders believe the revised route options meet those goals and are supported by our
engagement conversations thus far. Presenting these possible options is a next step in a larger process
of choosing a revised route and implementing a project that benefits corridor communities and the
region.
“As a Hennepin County Commissioner and North Minneapolis resident, I’m excited for the
transformational benefits light rail will bring to our communities. The new direction of the Blue Line
Extension is positioned to serve among the most racially and economically diverse communities in
Hennepin, while also connecting transit-reliant residents to the broader regional transit system. This will
change the trajectory of what’s possible for so many of our neighbors - connecting students to
education, patients to healthcare, and workers to jobs. To pursue this work equitably, we must also
recognize that large-scale public investments can accelerate patterns of residential and economic
displacement, and work together to ensure this investment benefits corridor residents, builds
community wealth, and meaningfully addresses decades-long patterns of disinvestment,” said Irene
Fernando, Hennepin County District 2 Commissioner and chair of the Regional Railroad Authority.
As project work continues, a new phase of engagement will kick off in the coming weeks. Project
partners will work closely with community consultants to support engagement efforts with a focus on
collecting community and business leaders input on the new route options, as well as potential
community and economic development strategies and initiatives.
Project leaders want to hear from the community about the new routes, potential station locations,
important destinations and what they want to see from their transit system. Project staff will be
performing outreach work in several different ways:
x Virtual townhall meetings are scheduled for Thursday, March 25 and Tuesday, March 30 for
community members to learn more, ask questions and provide feedback on the project.
x A community survey is available on the project website for community members wanting to give
feedback on the initial route options by April 30.
x Project staff are available to provide presentations to community and business groups.
x General projects comments can be submitted here.
x Follow the project on social media: Facebook and Twitter.
To learn about upcoming community townhall meetings, additional outreach efforts and to keep
informed about upcoming Blue Line Extension project announcements, please visit the project website
at www.BlueLineExt.org.
Attachment 7
4141 Douglas Drive North • Crystal, Minnesota 55422-1696
Tel: (763) 531-1000 • Fax: (763) 531-1188 • www.crystalmn.gov
CITY MANAGER WORK PLAN
MONTHLY CHECK IN – MARCH 2021
Objective 1 – Policy Facilitation – strategic planning for continued
implementation of Council priorities:
o Thriving Business Climate
▪ Open To Business assistance available
▪ Information on various business assistance programs provided
to CBA and other Crystal businesses
o Create Strong Neighborhoods
▪ Code enforcement – on-going
▪ Implementation of Master Parks System Plan improvements –
new play areas approved for Yunkers and Valley Place;
spring/summer programming in works for Becker Park
▪ Home improvement loans/rebates available through CEE- on-
going
o Fiscally sound and stable policies and practices
▪ Long term financial planning on-going
o Build inclusive community so all feel welcome
▪ Just Deeds initiative launched for removing discriminatory
covenants from property titles
Objective 2 - Continue to invest in long term plan/saving for capital projects
o Monitoring fiscal impact of pandemic on budget
o Police station project in process
o Beginning work on 2022 budget
Objective 3 - Coordinate community conversations regarding equity and
inclusion
o Facilitator hired; work session with Council scheduled for 3/11/21
Objective 4 - Evaluate operational expectations in light of lessons learned from
pandemic adjustments
o Staff adjusting to remote work and virtual meetings; finding creative
ways to continue to provide services
o Elected officials adjusting to virtual meetings and various options for
public comment and participation
Page 1 of 3
4141 Douglas Drive North • Crystal, Minnesota 55422-1696
Tel: (763) 531-1000 • Fax: (763) 531-1188 • www.crystalmn.gov
Posted: March 12, 2021
City Council Meeting Agenda
Tuesday, March 16, 2021
7 p.m.
Council Chambers/Zoom Meeting
The city manager’s comments are bolded.
1. Call to Order, Roll Call and Pledge of Allegiance
2. Approval of Agenda
The Council will consider approval of the agenda.
3. Consent Agenda
The Council will consider the following items, which are routine and non-controversial in nature,
in a single motion:
3.1 Approval of the minutes from the following meeting:
a. The City Council meeting on March 2, 2021.
3.2 Approval of the list of license applications submitted by the city clerk to the City Council, a list
that is on file in the office of the city clerk.
3.3 Acceptance of the resignation of Meredith Torres-Walsh from the Parks and Recreation
Commission.
3.4 Approval of a resolution to apply for a Minnesota Department of Natural Resources grant for
renovating courts at Becker Park.
4. Open Forum
(The City Council appreciates hearing from citizens about items of concern and desires to set
aside time during each meeting for Open Forum. To provide ample opportunity for all, speaking
time is limited to three minutes and topic discussion is limited to ten minutes. The Mayor may, as
presiding officer, extend the total time allowed for a topic. By rule, no action may be taken on
any item brought before the Council during Open Forum. The Council may place items discussed
during Open Forum onto subsequent council meeting agendas).
Page 2 of 3
5. Public Hearing
5.1 The Mayor will open a public hearing to receive comment and the Council will consider a
resolution approving a Tax Increment Financing (TIF) plan modification for District #4.
As discussed at a recent Economic Development Authority meeting, tax increment funds
from the Lamplighter TIF district (#2155) are used towards the city’s two home
improvement programs, the Home Improvement Grant and Community Fix-Up Fund
Interest Write-Down. TIF district #2155 will expire at the end of 2025, which means no
additional increment will be collected in subsequent tax years. With the proposed TIF plan
modification, it is expected there will be sufficient funds to continue the program until the
TIF district’s fund balance is expended in early 2029. Modification of the TIF plan for district
#4 (#2155) is necessary to revise the budget to reflect anticipated expenditures for these
home improvement programs and tax increment to be received during the remaining life of
the district. After holding the public hearing, recommend approval of the resolution
approving the modification to the TIF plan.
6. Regular Agenda
6.1 The Council will consider approval of disbursements over $25,000 submitted by the finance
department to the City Council, a list that is on file in the office of the finance department.
Recommend approval of disbursements over $25,000.
6.2 The Council will consider a resolution approving a conditional use permit application for
Ambiance Café event space, 351 Willow Bend.
Tiesa Bogard, tenant of the commercial space at 351 Willow Bend, has applied for a
conditional use permit to operate an event center. Event centers are conditional uses in the
commercial zoning district. At its March 8 meeting, the Planning Commission held a public
hearing on the conditional use permit application and heard from one resident with
concerns about noise from the event center. Events will be held within the building which
will buffer any noise to the residents to the west. The Planning Commission recommended
approval of the conditional use permit.
6.3 The Council will consider the following resolutions awarding contracts and agreements for the
2021 Street Resurfacing Project.
a. Resolution awarding the construction contract for the 2021 Street Resurfacing project.
b. Resolution authorizing execution of a joint powers agreement with the city of Robbinsdale
regarding costs associated with the 2021 Street Resurfacing project.
c. Resolution authorizing execution of a joint powers agreement with the city of Golden
Valley regarding costs associated with the 2021 Street Resurfacing project.
d. Resolution authorizing execution of a joint powers agreement with the city of New Hope
regarding costs associated with the 2021 Street Resurfacing project.
Earlier this year the Council approved the plans and specifications and authorized
advertising for bids for this year’s street resurfacing (mill and overlay) project. Bids were
received and came in below the estimate. Recommend approval of the resolution awarding
the contract for the 2021 street resurfacing project and approval of the resolutions for joint
Page 3 of 3
powers agreements with Robbinsdale, Golden Valley, and New Hope for costs associated
with this project.
6.4 The Council will consider a resolution approving plans and specifications and authorizing bids
for the new police station facility.
Earlier this year the City Council rejected bids received last year for the police station project
to allow for revisions to the plans and specifications required by the State as part of the
State funds received for the project. Wold Architects and Kraus Anderson have revised the
plans to meet various State requirements and the plans essentially preserve the features
included in the original design as well as the exterior appearance. Recommend adoption of
the resolution approving the updated plans and specifications and authorizing bids for the
new police station facility.
6.5 The Council will consider approving a 2021 Labor Agreement with International Union of
Operating Engineers, Local 49 (Public Works).
After several mediation sessions, the 2021 contract with one of the city’s bargaining units,
the International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 49 (Public Works) has been approved.
The wage adjustment of 2% is consistent with Council direction and the 2021 budget and
the city and employees share in the cost of health insurance. Recommend approval of the
2021 labor agreement with IUOE, Local 49.
6.6 The Council will consider approving 2021 wage and benefit contributions for non-represented
employees.
The City Council has a history of maintaining equity among bargaining units and non-
represented employees. Assuming the Council approves the 2021 labor agreement with
IUOE, Local 49, in the previous item, recommend approval of the same wage and insurance
adjustments for 2021 for non-represented employees.
7. Announcements
a. The next City Council meeting is Tuesday, April 6, at 7 p.m. in the Council Chambers at City
Hall and via Zoom.
b. City Council meetings and work sessions are open to the public. Current and previous
meetings are available for viewing and listening at www.crystalmn.gov.
8. Adjournment
Have a great weekend. See you at Tuesday’s meeting.
Crystal City Council meeting minutes March 2, 2021
Page 1 of 3
1.Call to Order
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the regular meeting of the Crystal City Council was held on
March 2, 2021 at 7:00 p.m. electronically via Zoom and in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 4141
Douglas Dr. N. in Crystal, Minnesota. Mayor Adams called the meeting to order.
Roll Call
Mayor Adams asked the deputy city clerk to call the roll for elected officials. Upon roll call, the
following attendance was recorded:
Council members present in the Council Chambers at City Hall: Kiser, LaRoche, Adams, Banks, and
Budziszewski.
Council Member Cummings was present via Zoom.
Council Member Parsons was absent.
City staff present in the Council Chambers at City Hall: City Manager A. Norris, Police Chief S.
Revering, Recreation Director J. Elholm, Public Works Director M. Ray, Community Development
Director J. Sutter, City Attorney T. Gilchrist and Deputy City Clerk K. Jones.
Assistant City Manager/HR Manager K. Therres was present via Zoom.
Pledge of Allegiance
Mayor Adams led the Council and audience in the Pledge of Allegiance.
2.Approval of Agenda
The Council considered approval of the agenda.
Moved by Council Member LaRoche and seconded by Council Member Banks to approve the agenda.
By roll call and voting aye: Cummings, Kiser, LaRoche, Adams, Banks, and Budziszewski.
Absent, not voting: Parsons.
Motion carried.
3.Consent Agenda
The Council considered the following items, which are routine and non-controversial in nature, in a
single motion:
3.1 Approval of the minutes from the following meetings:
a.The City Council work session on February 11, 2021.
b.The City Council meeting on February 16, 2021.
c.The City Council work sessions on February 16, 2021.
3.2 Approval of the list of license applications submitted by the city clerk to the City Council, a list
that is on file in the office of the city clerk.
3.3 Approval of Resolution No. 2021-19, accepting the following donations:
$41 from donation boxes for Crystal Police Explorers.
Moved by Council Member Banks and seconded by Council Member Kiser to approve the
consent agenda.
3.1
Crystal City Council meeting minutes March 2, 2021
Page 2 of 3
By roll call and voting aye: Kiser, LaRoche, Adams, Banks, Budziszewski, and Cummings.
Absent, not voting: Parsons.
Motion carried.
4. Open Forum
No public comment was given during open forum.
5. Regular Agenda
5.1 The Council considered approval of disbursements over $25,000 submitted by the finance
department to the city council, a list that is on file in the office of the finance department.
Moved by Council Member LaRoche and seconded by Council Member Budziszewski to approve
the list of disbursements over $25,000.
By roll call and voting aye: LaRoche, Adams, Banks, Budziszewski, Cummings, and Kiser.
Absent, not voting: Parsons.
Motion carried.
5.2 The Council considered resolutions approving the plans and specifications and ordering the
advertisement for bids for the 2021 Utility Reconstruction Project.
Public Works Director Mark Ray addressed the Council.
Moved by Council Member Banks and seconded by Council Member Kiser to adopt the following
resolutions in one motion:
RESOLUTION NO. 2021-20
APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE
2021 UTILITY RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT
RESOLUTION NO. 2021-21
ORDERING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR THE
2021 UTILITY RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT
By roll call and voting aye: Adams, Banks, Budziszewski, Cummings, Kiser, and LaRoche.
Absent, not voting: Parsons.
Motion carried, resolutions declared adopted.
5.3 The Council considered a resolution approving the purchase of play areas for Yunkers Park and
Valley Place Park.
Recreation Director John Elholm addressed the Council.
Moved by Council Member LaRoche and seconded by Council Member Kiser to adopt the
following resolution:
3.1
Crystal City Council meeting minutes March 2, 2021
Page 3 of 3
RESOLUTION NO. 2021-22
RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF PURCHASING PLAY AREAS
FOR YUNKERS PARK AND VALLEY PLACE PARK
By roll call and voting aye: Adams, Banks, Budziszewski, Cummings, Kiser, and LaRoche.
Absent, not voting: Parsons.
Motion carried, resolution declared adopted.
6. Announcements
The Council made announcements about upcoming events.
7. Adjournment
Moved by Council Member Budziszewski and seconded by Council Member LaRoche to adjourn the
meeting.
By roll call and voting aye: Banks, Budziszewski, Cummings, Kiser, LaRoche, and Adams.
Absent, not voting: Parsons.
Motion carried.
The meeting adjourned at 7:19 p.m.
_____________________________________
Jim Adams, Mayor
ATTEST:
__________________________________
Katrina Jones, Deputy City Clerk
3.1
Page 1 of 1
City of Crystal Council Meeting
March 16, 2021
Applications for City License
Rental – New
2712 Louisiana Ave N – Hennepin RP Funding LLC (Conditional)
4527 Welcome Ave N – Thomas Kackman (Conditional)
5808-5812 36th Ave N – Haru Management LLC (Conditional)
Rental – Renewal
5630 Adair Ave N – Steve Mohn (Conditional)
4547 Colorado Ave N – Maria Basurto
3000 Douglas Dr N – Minnesota Senior Living LLC (Conditional)
4825 Georgia Ave N – James Carroll
2817 Hampshire Ave N – Jose Bernal (Conditional)
2942 Idaho Ave N – CRGV Properties LLC
6910 Jersey Cir N – Justin Peterson (Conditional)
4649 Louisiana Ave N – Hee Yoon Kim
3533 Quail Ave N – Adrian Jimenez
3010 Sumter Ave N – Central Crystal Village LLC (Conditional)
5542 Toledo Ave N – Kathrin Long
4733 Welcome Ave N – Milkeesso Foge (Conditional)
4408 Yates Ave N – Ryan and Mandy Hardy
8009 33rd Pl N – CRGV Properties LLC
7105 52nd Ave N – Steve and Karen Grotting
7733 58th Pl N – Justin Sutkowski (Conditional)
3.2
3.3
4141 Douglas Drive North • Crystal, Minnesota 55422-1696
Tel: (763) 531-1000 • Fax: (763) 531-1188 • www.crystalmn.gov
Memorandum
DATE: March 11, 2021
TO: Mayor and City Council
Anne Norris, City Manager
FROM: John Elholm, Recreation Director
SUBJECT: Grant Application to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
The City of Crystal has a long-term plan for making capital improvements. One project
identified for improvement in 2022 is surfacing and lights for the Becker Park
tennis/pickleball courts. The lights are original to the site, and the courts are over 30 years
old. The basketball court is the same age, and would be included as part of this project.
The current court configuration includes a basketball court in one area and lines for both
pickleball and tennis in another. However, the pickleball courts currently use tennis nets,
which are at a slightly different height. With the area being rebuilt, there may be an
opportunity to create up to six specific pickleball courts as part of this project; while retaining
one tennis court. However, the final layout of this area has not yet been determined.
The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources offers grants through their Outdoor
Recreation Grant Program for projects such as this. The grants are for, “development,
redevelopment or rehabilitation of outdoor recreation facilities on land owned by the
applicant”. “Sports Fields and Courts” are an eligible recreation facility for this grant.
The grant can fund up to 50% of the project with a maximum grant amount of $250,000. The
approximate cost of asphalt work, sport court resurfacing, led lighting and items such as
standards for nets would be $200,000; so, the maximum grant amount would be $100,000.
Matching funds are available in the city’s parks fund. One condition of funding is that “all
land improved or acquired with assistance from the grant program must be retained and
operated solely for outdoor recreation into perpetuity”. This is the same condition that was
put on Becker Park with the recent DNR grant for an inclusive play area.
The grant application is due March 31, and it requires a resolution of support from the
Crystal City Council.
3.4
CITY OF CRYSTAL
RESOLUTION 2021 –
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AN OUTDOOR RECREATION GRANT APPLICATION TO
THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES FOR
SPORTS COURT IMPROVEMENTS AT BECKER PARK
BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Crystal act as legal sponsor for the project contained in the Outdoor
Recreation grant application to be submitted on March 31, 2021 and that Recreation Director John Elholm
is hereby authorized to apply to the Department of Natural Resources for funding of this project on behalf
of the City of Crystal.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the applicant has read the Conflict of Interest Policy contained in the
Outdoor Recreation Grant Program Manual and, upon discovery, certifies it will report to the State any
actual, potential, or perceived individual or organizational conflicts of interest to the application or grant
award.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Crystal has the legal authority to apply for financial
assistance, and it has the financial capability to meet the match requirement (if any) and ensure adequate
construction, operation, maintenance and replacement of the proposed project for its design life.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Crystal has not incurred any development costs and has
not entered into a written purchase agreement to acquire the property described in the Cost Breakdown
section on this application.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Crystal has or will acquire fee title or permanent
easement over the land described in the site plan included in the application.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, upon approval of its application by the State, the City of Crystal
may enter into an agreement with the State for the above-referenced project, and that the City of Crystal
certifies that it will comply with all applicable laws and regulations as stated in the grant agreement
including dedicating the park property for uses consistent with the funding grant program into perpetuity.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Recreation Director John Elholm is hereby authorized to
execute such agreements as are necessary to implement the project on behalf of the applicant.
I CERTIFY THAT the above resolution was adopted by the City Council of the City of Crystal on March
16, 2021
SIGNED: WITNESSED:
(Signature – Jim Adams) (Signature – Christina Serres)
Mayor City Clerk
(Title) (Date) (Title) (Date)
3.4
Page 1 of 2
__________________________________________________________________________
FROM:
DATE:
TO:
John Sutter, Community Development Director
March 10, 2021
Anne Norris, City Manager (for March 16 Council meeting)
SUBJECT: Public hearing - Resolution approving a TIF plan modification
The City of Crystal has two home improvement programs, the Home Improvement Grant and
Community Fix-Up Fund Interest Write-Down. These are financed with a combination of funds
from Tax Increment Financing (TIF) District #4 (#2155) and the EDA tax levy. In 2020,
program expenditures were $237,186 (85%) from TIF and $42,208 (15%) from EDA.
TIF funds are used for projects located in the redevelopment project area when the
household income is ≤100% of area median income (AMI) for 1-2 person households and
≤110% of AMI for 3+ person households.
EDA funds are used for projects that are not eligible for TIF funds but are still eligible for the
programs because their household income is ≤110% AMI regardless of household size. For
example:
‐ A 1-2 person household with an income between 100-110% AMI would need funding
from the EDA funds even if they are located within the redevelopment project area.
‐ Any project located outside the redevelopment project area would need funding from
the EDA funds, subject to the overall maximum household income of 110% AMI.
The TIF district will expire at the end of 2025, which means no additional increment will be
collected in subsequent tax years. Please see the attached charts which provide a forecast of
the revenues, expenditures and fund balance for the TIF district until its anticipated final
expenditures in early 2029. At some point during the years 2026-2028, the City Council and
EDA board will need to decide whether to continue the home improvement programs after
2028, and if so, determine a funding source to be used after the available tax increment is
expended.
The proposed TIF plan modification would revise the budget for District #4 (#2155) to reflect
anticipated expenditures for these home improvement programs and tax increment to be
received during the remaining life of the district. The TIF plan modification is attached.
On March 2, the EDA adopted a resolution approving the TIF plan modification, and on March
8 the Planning Commission adopted a resolution finding it to be in conformance with the
Comprehensive Plan.
COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
TIF Plan Modification
5.1
Page 2 of 2
The final approval needed is from the City Council. After holding the public hearing, Staff
recommends adoption of the attached resolution approving the TIF Plan modification for
District #4 (#2155).
Attachments:
1. Proposed City Council resolution
2. Planning Commission resolution adopted March 8
3. EDA resolution adopted March 2
4. Map showing the Redevelopment Project Area and TIF District #4 (#2155)
5. Charts showing anticipated sources, uses and fund balance for TIF District #4 (#2155)
6. Proposed TIF Plan Modification
5.1
704997v1 MNI CR150-4
CITY OF CRYSTAL, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. _____________
RESOLUTION APPROVING A MODIFICATION TO THE
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
NO. 1 AND TO THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 4
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Crystal, Minnesota (the “City”), as
follows:
Section 1. Recitals
1.01. The City and the Economic Development Authority of the City of Crystal (the “Authority”)
have heretofore established Redevelopment Project No. 1 (the “Redevelopment Project”) and adopted a
redevelopment plan therefor (the “Redevelopment Plan”) and have adopted a tax increment financing plan
(the “TIF Plan”) for Tax Increment Financing District No. 4 (the “TIF District”), located within the
Redevelopment Project, all pursuant to and in conformity with applicable law, including Minnesota Statutes,
Sections 469.001 to 469.047, Sections 469.090 to 469.1082, and Sections 469.174 through 469.1794, as
amended (collectively, the “Act”).
1.02. The City and Authority have adopted previous modifications to the Redevelopment Plan and
TIF Plan to clarify expenditures and to authorize additional expenditures needed to meet the continuing needs
of the Redevelopment Project.
1.03. The City and Authority have now determined a need for additional modification in order to
increase the budget of the TIF District (the “Modification”), as described in the “Modification to
Redevelopment Plan, Redevelopment Project No. 1 and Modification to Tax Increment Financing Plan for
Tax Increment Financing District No. 4” (the “Modified Plan”) presented to the City on this date.
1.04. Pursuant to Section 469.175, subdivision 4, because the Modification will increase the costs
to be paid or financed with tax increment, the City Council may approve such modification only upon the
notice and following the discussion, public hearing, and findings required for the approval of the original TIF
Plan.
1.05. Pursuant to Section 469.175, subdivision 2 of the Act, the Modified Plan and the estimates
of the fiscal and economic implications thereof were presented to the School Board of Independent School
District No. 281 (the “School District”) and the Board of Commissioners of Hennepin County (the “County”)
on February 12, 2021, and both the School District and the County agreed to waive all notice requirements
under the Act.
1.06. The Authority approved the Modified Plan on March 2, 2021, subject to approval of the
Modified Plan by the City Council following a duly noticed public hearing.
1.07. In accordance with the Act, the Modified Plan was referred to the Planning Commission of
the City for consideration on March 8, 2021, and the Planning Commission found that the Modified Plan
conforms to the general plan for the development of the City as a whole.
1.08. On the date hereof, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing relating to the
Attachment 1
5.1
704997v1 MNI CR150-4
proposed Modified Plan, and the views of all interested parties were heard at the public hearing.
Section 2. Findings; Redevelopment Project
2.01. It is found and determined that the Redevelopment Plan remains in full force and effect
and that the goal of the Redevelopment Plan is to encourage development and redevelopment in
accordance with the general plan of development of the City as a whole.
Section 3. Findings; TIF District No. 4
3.01. It is found and determined that it is necessary and desirable for the sound and orderly
development of the Redevelopment Project, and for the protection and preservation of the public health,
safety, and general welfare, that the authority of the Act be exercised by the City to provide public
financial assistance to the TIF District and the Redevelopment Project.
3.02. It is further found and determined, and it is the reasoned opinion of the City, that the
development proposed in the Modified Plan could not reasonably be expected to occur solely through
private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future and that therefore the use of tax increment
financing is necessary.
3.03. The proposed public improvements to be financed in part through tax increment
financing are necessary to permit the City to realize the full potential of the TIF District and the
Redevelopment Project in terms of improved and diverse housing stock within the City.
3.04. The TIF Plan, as modified, conforms to the general plan of development of the City as a
whole.
3.05. The TIF Plan, as modified, will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound
needs of the City as a whole, for the development of the TIF District and the Redevelopment Project by
private enterprise.
3.06. The Modified Plan does not change the classification or boundaries of the TIF District.
The TIF District remains classified as a housing district under Section 469.174, subdivision 11 of the Act
as applicable as of the date of request for certification.
3.07. Reasons and facts supporting the above findings are set forth in the Modified Plan and
are incorporated herein by reference. The City Council has also relied upon the reports and
recommendations of its staff and consultants as well as the personal knowledge of members of the City
Council in reaching its conclusions regarding the Modified Plan.
Section 4. Modified Plan Adopted; Filing
4.01. The Modified Plan is hereby approved and adopted.
4.02. The geographic boundaries of the Redevelopment Project and the TIF District are not
changed by this action.
4.03. City staff is authorized and directed to file a copy of the Modified Plan with the Hennepin
County Taxpayer Services Division, the Office of the State Auditor and the Minnesota Commissioner of
Revenue as required by the Act; provided that nothing herein shall be deemed to constitute a request for
certification of any parcel or TIF District.
5.1
704997v1 MNI CR150-4
Approved by the City Council of the City of Crystal, Minnesota this 16th day of March, 2021.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
5.1
5.1
Attachment 2
5.1
5.1
Attachment 3
5.1
5.1
Attachment 4
5.1
5.1
Attachment 5
5.1
5.1
02',),&$7,21727+(
5('(9(/230(173/$1
5HGHYHORSPHQW3URMHFW1R
$1'
02',),&$7,21727+(7$;,1&5(0(17
),1$1&,1*3/$1
7D[,QFUHPHQW'LVWULFW1R
DKRXVLQJGLVWULFW
&U\VWDO(FRQRPLF'HYHORSPHQW$XWKRULW\
&LW\RI&U\VWDO+HQQHSLQ&RXQW\0LQQHVRWD
$GRSWHG )HEUXDU\
0RGLILFDWLRQ 0DUFK
0RGLILFDWLRQ 'HFHPEHU
0RGLILFDWLRQ 'HFHPEHU
0RGLILFDWLRQ3XEOLF+HDULQJ 0DUFK
Attachment 6
5.1
&U\VWDO(FRQRPLF'HYHORSPHQW$XWKRULW\
7D[,QFUHPHQW'LVWULFW1R
7DEOHRI&RQWHQWV
0RGLILFDWLRQWRWKH5HGHYHORSPHQW3ODQIRU5HGHYHORSPHQW3URMHFW1R
)RUHZRUG
7D[,QFUHPHQW)LQDQFLQJ3ODQIRU7D[,QFUHPHQW'LVWULFW1R
)RUHZRUG
6WDWXWRU\$XWKRULW\
6WDWHPHQWRI2EMHFWLYHV
2ULJLQDO7D[&DSDFLW\7D[5DWHDQG(VWLPDWHG&DSWXUHG1HW7D[&DSDFLW\9DOXH,QFUHPHQW
DQG1RWLILFDWLRQRI3ULRU3ODQQHG,PSURYHPHQWV
6RXUFHVRI5HYHQXH%RQGVWREH,VVXHG
8VHVRI)XQGV
(VWLPDWHG,PSDFWRQ2WKHU7D[LQJ-XULVGLFWLRQV
$SSHQGL[$ 0DSRI5HGHYHORSPHQW3URMHFW1RDQGWKH7,)'LVWULFW$
$SSHQGL[% (VWLPDWHG%XGJHWIRUWKH'LVWULFW%
$SSHQGL[& 2ULJLQDO'LVWULFW3ODQDQG3ULRU0RGLILFDWLRQVWR'LVWULFW&
5.1
&U\VWDO(FRQRPLF'HYHORSPHQW$XWKRULW\
7D[,QFUHPHQW'LVWULFW1R
0RGLILFDWLRQWRWKH5HGHYHORSPHQW3ODQIRU
5HGHYHORSPHQW3URMHFW1R
)RUHZRUG
7KH IROORZLQJ WH[W UHSUHVHQWV D 0RGLILFDWLRQ WR WKH 5HGHYHORSPHQW 3ODQ IRU 5HGHYHORSPHQW
3URMHFW1R7KLVPRGLILFDWLRQUHSUHVHQWVDFRQWLQXDWLRQRIWKHJRDOVDQGREMHFWLYHVVHWIRUWKLQ
WKH5HGHYHORSPHQW3ODQIRU5HGHYHORSPHQW3URMHFW1R*HQHUDOO\WKHVXEVWDQWLYHFKDQJHV
LQFOXGHWKHPRGLILFDWLRQRI7D[,QFUHPHQW'LVWULFW1R
)RUIXUWKHULQIRUPDWLRQDUHYLHZRIWKH5HGHYHORSPHQW3ODQIRU5HGHYHORSPHQW3URMHFW1RLV
UHFRPPHQGHG,WLVDYDLODEOHIURPWKH&RPPXQLW\'HYHORSPHQW'LUHFWRUDWWKH&LW\RI&U\VWDO
2WKHU UHOHYDQW LQIRUPDWLRQ LV FRQWDLQHG LQ WKH 7D[ ,QFUHPHQW )LQDQFLQJ 3ODQV IRU WKH 7D[
,QFUHPHQW)LQDQFLQJ'LVWULFWVORFDWHGZLWKLQ5HGHYHORSPHQW3URMHFW1R
5.1
&U\VWDO(FRQRPLF'HYHORSPHQW$XWKRULW\
7D[,QFUHPHQW'LVWULFW1R
7D[,QFUHPHQW)LQDQFLQJ3ODQIRU7D[,QFUHPHQW
'LVWULFW1R
)RUHZRUG
7KH&U\VWDO(FRQRPLF'HYHORSPHQW$XWKRULW\ WKH('$ WKH&LW\RI&U\VWDO WKH&LW\ VWDII
DQGFRQVXOWDQWVKDYHSUHSDUHGWKHIROORZLQJLQIRUPDWLRQWRH[SHGLWHWKH0RGLILFDWLRQWRWKH7D[
,QFUHPHQW)LQDQFLQJ3ODQ WKH³7,)3ODQ´ IRU7D[,QFUHPHQW'LVWULFW1R WKH'LVWULFW D
KRXVLQJWD[LQFUHPHQWILQDQFLQJGLVWULFWORFDWHGLQ5HGHYHORSPHQW3URMHFW1R
6WDWXWRU\$XWKRULW\
:LWKLQWKH&LW\WKHUHH[LVWDUHDVZKHUHSXEOLFLQYROYHPHQWLVQHFHVVDU\WRFDXVHGHYHORSPHQW
RUUHGHYHORSPHQWWRRFFXU7RWKLVHQGWKH('$DQG&LW\KDYHFHUWDLQVWDWXWRU\SRZHUVSXUVXDQW
WRMinnesota Statutes ("M.S."), Sections 469.124 - 469.133, 469.090 - 469.1082LQFOXVLYHDV
DPHQGHGDQGM.S., Sections 469.174 to 469.1794LQFOXVLYHDVDPHQGHG WKH7D[,QFUHPHQW
)LQDQFLQJ$FWRU7,)$FW WRDVVLVWLQILQDQFLQJSXEOLFFRVWVUHODWHGWRWKLVSURMHFW
7KLVGRFXPHQWFRQWDLQVWKH0RGLILFDWLRQWRWKH7,)3ODQIRUWKH'LVWULFW7KHRULJLQDO7,)3ODQDQG
SUHYLRXVPRGLILFDWLRQVDUHORFDWHGLQ$SSHQGL[&2WKHUUHOHYDQWLQIRUPDWLRQLVFRQWDLQHGLQWKH
0RGLILFDWLRQWRWKH5HGHYHORSPHQW3ODQIRU5HGHYHORSPHQW3URMHFW1R
6WDWHPHQWRI2EMHFWLYHV
7KH'LVWULFWFXUUHQWO\FRQVLVWVRISDUFHOVRIODQGDQGDGMDFHQWDQGLQWHUQDOULJKWVRIZD\7KH
'LVWULFWZDVFUHDWHGWRIDFLOLWDWHDIIRUGDEOHKRXVLQJLQWKH&LW\,QWKH('$HQWHUHGLQWRDQ
DJUHHPHQW ZLWK 'RPLQLXP ,QF DV WKH GHYHORSHU 7KH 'RPLQLXP GHYHORSPHQW LQFOXGHG WKH
FRQVWUXFWLRQRIXQLWVRIDIIRUGDEOHUHQWDOKRXVLQJIRUVHQLRUV$WOHDVWRIWKHXQLWVZLOOEH
DIIRUGDEOHWRVHQLRUVDWRUEHORZRIWKH$UHD0HGLDQ,QFRPH $0, 7KHUHPDLQLQJXQLWV
PXVW EH DIIRUGDEOH WR VHQLRUV DW RU EHORZ RI WKH $0, 7KHGHYHORSPHQW ZDV EHLQJ
FRQVWUXFWHG RXWVLGH 'LVWULFW ERXQGDULHV EXW ZLWKLQ 5HGHYHORSPHQW3URMHFW1RDQGLV
FRPSOHWHG7KHPRVWUHFHQWPRGLILFDWLRQWRWKH7,)3ODQZDVDSSURYHGRQ'HFHPEHULQ
FRQMXQFWLRQZLWKWKLVGHYHORSPHQW
7KH ('$ DQG &LW\ XWLOL]H WD[ LQFUHPHQW JHQHUDWHG IURP WKH 'LVWULFW IRU WKH &LW\¶V +RPH
,PSURYHPHQW*UDQW3URJUDPDQG&)8),QWHUHVW:ULWH'RZQ3URJUDP7KH+RPH,PSURYHPHQW
,QFHQWLYH5HEDWH3URJUDPSURYLGHVPDWFKLQJJUDQWVWRLQFRPHHOLJLEOHKRPHRZQHUV DWRUEHORZ
RIWKH$0,IRUDIDPLO\RIRUOHVVDQGDWRUEHORZRIWKH$0,IRUDIDPLO\RIRU
PRUH RIXSWRRIWKHFRVWWRFRPSOHWHUHQRYDWLRQVWRWKHLUVLQJOHIDPLO\KRPHV7KH&)8)
,QWHUHVW:ULWH'RZQ3URJUDPUHGXFHVWKHLQWHUHVWUDWHRQ&RPPXQLW\)L[8S)XQG/RDQVWRPDNH
WKHPPRUHDIIRUGDEOHIRULQFRPHHOLJLEOHKRPHRZQHUV DWRUEHORZRIWKH$0,IRUDIDPLO\
RIRUOHVVDQGDWRUEHORZRIWKH$0,IRUDIDPLO\RIRUPRUH +RPHVUHFHLYLQJDVVLVWDQFH
IURPERWKSURJUDPVDUHORFDWHGRXWVLGHWKH7,)'LVWULFWERXQGDULHVEXWZLWKLQ5HGHYHORSPHQW
3URMHFW1R7KHXVHRIWD[LQFUHPHQWIRUWKHVHSXUSRVHVZLOOUHTXLUHDEXGJHWDU\PRGLILFDWLRQ
WRWKH7,)3ODQ7KLVSURSRVHGPRGLILFDWLRQLVH[SHFWHGWRDFKLHYHPDQ\RIWKHREMHFWLYHVRXWOLQHG
LQWKH5HGHYHORSPHQW3ODQIRU5HGHYHORSPHQW3URMHFW1R
5.1
&U\VWDO(FRQRPLF'HYHORSPHQW$XWKRULW\
7D[,QFUHPHQW'LVWULFW1R
7KHDFWLYLWLHVFRQWHPSODWHGLQWKH0RGLILFDWLRQWRWKH5HGHYHORSPHQW3ODQDQGWKH7,)3ODQGR
QRWSUHFOXGHWKHXQGHUWDNLQJRIRWKHUTXDOLILHGGHYHORSPHQWRUUHGHYHORSPHQWDFWLYLWLHV7KHVH
DFWLYLWLHVDUHDQWLFLSDWHGWRRFFXURYHUWKHOLIHRI5HGHYHORSPHQW3URMHFW1RDQGWKH'LVWULFW
2ULJLQDO 7D[ &DSDFLW\ 7D[ 5DWH DQG (VWLPDWHG &DSWXUHG 1HW 7D[
&DSDFLW\ 9DOXH,QFUHPHQW DQG 1RWLILFDWLRQ RI 3ULRU 3ODQQHG
,PSURYHPHQWV
3XUVXDQWWRM.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 7 and M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 1WKH2ULJLQDO1HW
7D[&DSDFLW\ 217& DVFHUWLILHGIRUWKH'LVWULFWZDVEDVHGRQWKHPDUNHWYDOXHVSODFHGRQWKH
SURSHUW\E\WKHDVVHVVRULQ IRUWD[HVSD\DEOH
3XUVXDQWWR M.S., Section 469.177, Subds. 1 and 2WKH&RXQW\$XGLWRUKDVFHUWLILHGDQGZLOO
FRQWLQXHWRFHUWLI\LQHDFK\HDU EHJLQQLQJLQWKHSD\PHQW\HDU WKHDPRXQWE\ZKLFKWKH
RULJLQDOYDOXHKDVLQFUHDVHGRUGHFUHDVHGDVDUHVXOWRI
&KDQJHLQWD[H[HPSWVWDWXVRISURSHUW\
5HGXFWLRQRUHQODUJHPHQWRIWKHJHRJUDSKLFERXQGDULHVRIWKHGLVWULFW
&KDQJHGXHWRDGMXVWPHQWVQHJRWLDWHGRUFRXUWRUGHUHGDEDWHPHQWV
&KDQJHLQWKHXVHRIWKHSURSHUW\DQGFODVVLILFDWLRQ
&KDQJHLQVWDWHODZJRYHUQLQJFODVVUDWHV RU
&KDQJHLQSUHYLRXVO\LVVXHGEXLOGLQJSHUPLWV
,QDQ\\HDULQZKLFKWKHFXUUHQW1HW7D[&DSDFLW\ 17& YDOXHRIWKH'LVWULFWGHFOLQHVEHORZWKH
217&QRYDOXHZLOOEHFDSWXUHGDQGQRWD[LQFUHPHQWZLOOEHSD\DEOHWRWKH('$RU&LW\
7KHRULJLQDOORFDOWD[UDWHIRUWKH'LVWULFWZDVWKHORFDOWD[UDWHIRUWD[HVSD\DEOH 7KH217&
DQGWKH2ULJLQDO/RFDO7D[5DWHIRUWKH'LVWULFWDSSHDULQWKHWDEOHEHORZ
3XUVXDQWWRM.S., Section 469.174 Subd. 4 and M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 1, 2, and 4WKH
HVWLPDWHG&DSWXUHG1HW7D[&DSDFLW\ &7& RIWKH'LVWULFWZLWKLQ5HGHYHORSPHQW3URMHFW1R
XSRQ FRPSOHWLRQ RI WKH SURMHFWV ZLWKLQ WKH 'LVWULFW ZLOO DQQXDOO\ DSSUR[LPDWH WD[ LQFUHPHQW
UHYHQXHVDVVKRZQLQWKHWDEOHEHORZ7KH('$DQG&LW\UHTXHVWSHUFHQWRIWKHDYDLODEOH
LQFUHDVHLQWD[FDSDFLW\IRUUHSD\PHQWRILWVREOLJDWLRQVDQGFXUUHQWH[SHQGLWXUHV7KH3URMHFW
7D[&DSDFLW\ 37& OLVWHGLVDQHVWLPDWHRIYDOXHVZKHQWKHSURMHFWVZLWKLQWKH'LVWULFWDUH
FRPSOHWHG
5.1
&U\VWDO(FRQRPLF'HYHORSPHQW$XWKRULW\
7D[,QFUHPHQW'LVWULFW1R
3URMHFWHVWLPDWHG7D[&DSDFLW\XSRQFRPSOHWLRQ
2ULJLQDOHVWLPDWHG1HW7D[&DSDFLW\
)LVFDO'LVSDULWLHV
(VWLPDWHG&DSWXUHG7D[&DSDFLW\
2ULJLQDO/RFDO7D[5DWH
(VWLPDWHG$QQXDO7D[,QFUHPHQW
3HUFHQW5HWDLQHGE\WKH&LW\
3URMHFW7D[&DSDFLW\
1RWH 7D[&DSDFLW\PD\LQFUHDVHSULRUWRWKHH[SLUDWLRQRIWKH'LVWULFW7KHDERYHWD[FDSDFLW\UHSUHVHQWVWKHPRVW
UHFHQWYDOXHVDYDLODEOHDWWKHWLPHRIWKHPRGLILFDWLRQ
6RXUFHVRI5HYHQXH%RQGVWREH,VVXHG
7KHWRWDOHVWLPDWHGWD[LQFUHPHQWUHYHQXHVIRUWKH'LVWULFWDUHVKRZQLQWKHWDEOHEHORZ
2ULJLQDO 0RGLILFDWLRQ1R 0RGLILFDWLRQ1R 0RGLILFDWLRQ1R
)HEUXDU\ 0DUFK 'HFHPEHU 0DUFK
6285&(6
7D[,QFUHPHQW
,QWHUHVW
6DOHRI3URSHUW\
'HYHORSHU5HLPEXUVHPHQW
/RDQ5HSD\PHQWV
727$/
1RWH 7KHHVWLPDWHRIWKHLQFUHPHQWLQFOXGHVDVVXPHGLQIODWLRQIURPWKHPRVWFXUUHQWLQFUHPHQWVUHFHLYHG7KH
DFWXDOLQIODWLRQDU\DPRXQWLVXQNQRZQ
7KHFRVWVRXWOLQHGLQWKH8VHVRI)XQGVZLOOEHILQDQFHGSULPDULO\WKURXJKWKHDQQXDOFROOHFWLRQRI
WD[LQFUHPHQWV7KH('$RU&LW\UHVHUYHVWKHULJKWWRLQFXUERQGVRURWKHULQGHEWHGQHVVDVD
UHVXOWRIWKH7,)3ODQ$VSUHVHQWO\SURSRVHGWKHSURMHFWVZLWKLQWKH'LVWULFWZLOOEHILQDQFHGE\
SD\DV\RXJRQRWHVDQGDQLQWHUIXQGORDQ$Q\UHIXQGLQJDPRXQWVZLOOEHGHHPHGDEXGJHWHG
FRVWZLWKRXWDIRUPDO7,)3ODQ0RGLILFDWLRQ7KLVSURYLVLRQGRHVQRWREOLJDWHWKH('$RU&LW\WR
LQFXUGHEW7KH('$RU&LW\ZLOOLVVXHERQGVRULQFXURWKHUGHEWRQO\XSRQWKHGHWHUPLQDWLRQWKDW
VXFKDFWLRQLVLQWKHEHVWLQWHUHVWRIWKH&LW\
7KH('$RU&LW\PD\LVVXHERQGV DVGHILQHGLQWKH7,)$FW VHFXUHGLQZKROHRULQSDUWZLWKWD[
LQFUHPHQWVIURPWKH'LVWULFWLQDPD[LPXPSULQFLSDODPRXQWRI 6XFKERQGVPD\EH
LQWKHIRUPRISD\DV\RXJRQRWHVUHYHQXHERQGVRUQRWHVJHQHUDOREOLJDWLRQERQGVRULQWHUIXQG
ORDQV7KLVHVWLPDWHRIWRWDOERQGHGLQGHEWHGQHVVLVDFXPXODWLYHVWDWHPHQWRIDXWKRULW\XQGHU
WKLV7,)3ODQDVRIWKHGDWHRIDSSURYDO
5.1
&U\VWDO(FRQRPLF'HYHORSPHQW$XWKRULW\
7D[,QFUHPHQW'LVWULFW1R
8VHVRI)XQGV
&XUUHQWO\XQGHUFRQVLGHUDWLRQIRUWKH'LVWULFWLVDSURSRVDOWRIDFLOLWDWHD%XGJHW0RGLILFDWLRQ7KH
('$DQG&LW\KDYHGHWHUPLQHGWKDWLWZLOOEHQHFHVVDU\WRSURYLGHDVVLVWDQFHWRVXSSRUWWKH
SURJUDPVGHVFULEHGLQWKH6WDWHPHQWRI2EMHFWLYHV
7KH('$KDVVWXGLHGWKHIHDVLELOLW\RIWKHGHYHORSPHQWRUUHGHYHORSPHQWRISURSHUW\LQDQG
DURXQGWKH'LVWULFW7RIDFLOLWDWHWKHHVWDEOLVKPHQWDQGGHYHORSPHQWRUUHGHYHORSPHQWRIWKH
'LVWULFWWKLV7,)3ODQDXWKRUL]HVWKHXVHRIWD[LQFUHPHQWILQDQFLQJWRSD\IRUWKHFRVWRIFHUWDLQ
HOLJLEOHH[SHQVHV7KHHVWLPDWHRISXEOLFFRVWVDQGXVHVRIIXQGVDVVRFLDWHGZLWKWKH'LVWULFWLV
RXWOLQHGLQWKHIROORZLQJWDEOH
2ULJLQDO 0RGLILFDWLRQ1R 0RGLILFDWLRQ1R 0RGLILFDWLRQ1R
)HEUXDU\ 0DUFK 'HFHPEHU 0DUFK
86(6
/DQG%XLOGLQJ$FTXLVLWLRQ
6LWH,PSURYHPHQWV3UHSDUDWLRQ
8WLOLWLHV
2WKHU4XDOLI\LQJ,PSURYHPHQWV
$GPLQLVWUDWLYH&RVWV XSWR
352-(&7&2676727$/
,QWHUHVW
352-(&7$1',17(5(67&2676727$/
7KHWRWDOSURMHFWFRVWLQFOXGLQJILQDQFLQJFRVWV LQWHUHVW OLVWHGLQWKHWDEOHDERYHGRHVQRWH[FHHG
WKHWRWDOSURMHFWHGWD[LQFUHPHQWVIRUWKH'LVWULFWDVVKRZQLQWKH6RXUFHVRI5HYHQXHVHFWLRQ
(VWLPDWHGFRVWVDVVRFLDWHGZLWKWKH'LVWULFWDUHVXEMHFWWRFKDQJHDPRQJFDWHJRULHVZLWKRXWD
PRGLILFDWLRQWRWKLV7,)3ODQ7KHFRVWRIDOODFWLYLWLHVWREHFRQVLGHUHGIRUWD[LQFUHPHQWILQDQFLQJ
ZLOOQRWH[FHHGZLWKRXWIRUPDOPRGLILFDWLRQWKHEXGJHWDERYHSXUVXDQWWRWKHDSSOLFDEOHVWDWXWRU\
UHTXLUHPHQWV7KH('$PD\H[SHQGIXQGVIRUTXDOLILHGKRXVLQJDFWLYLWLHVRXWVLGHRIWKH'LVWULFW
ERXQGDULHV
(VWLPDWHG,PSDFWRQ2WKHU7D[LQJ-XULVGLFWLRQV
7KHHVWLPDWHGLPSDFWRQRWKHUWD[LQJMXULVGLFWLRQVDVVXPHVWKDWWKHUHGHYHORSPHQWFRQWHPSODWHG
E\WKH7,)3ODQZRXOGRFFXUZLWKRXWWKHFUHDWLRQRIWKH'LVWULFW+RZHYHUWKH('$RU&LW\KDV
GHWHUPLQHG WKDW VXFK GHYHORSPHQW RU UHGHYHORSPHQW ZRXOG QRW KDYH RFFXUUHG EXW IRU WD[
LQFUHPHQWILQDQFLQJDQGWKDWWKHUHIRUHWKHILVFDOLPSDFWRQRWKHUWD[LQJMXULVGLFWLRQVLV7KH
HVWLPDWHGILVFDOLPSDFWRIWKH'LVWULFWZRXOGEHDVIROORZVLIWKHEXWIRUWHVWZDVQRWPHW
5.1
&U\VWDO(FRQRPLF'HYHORSPHQW$XWKRULW\
7D[,QFUHPHQW'LVWULFW1R
(QWLW\
3D\
3UHOLPLQDU\7RWDO
1HW7D[&DSDFLW\
(VWLPDWHG
&DSWXUHG7D[
&DSDFLW\ &7&
XSRQFRPSOHWLRQ
3HUFHQWRI&7&
WR(QWLW\7RWDO
&RXQW\
&LW\
,6'
,PSDFWRQ7D[%DVH
(QWLW\
3UHOLPLQDU\3D\
([WHQVLRQ
5DWH
3HUFHQWRI7RWDO &7& 3RWHQWLDO7D[HV
&RXQW\
&LW\
,6'
2WKHU
,PSDFWRQ7D[5DWHV
7KHHVWLPDWHVOLVWHGDERYHGLVSOD\WKHFDSWXUHGWD[FDSDFLW\ZKHQDOOFRQVWUXFWLRQLVFRPSOHWHG
7KHWD[UDWHXVHGIRUFDOFXODWLRQVLVWKH3UHOLPLQDU\3D\UDWH7KHWRWDOQHWFDSDFLW\IRUWKH
HQWLWLHVOLVWHGDERYHDUHEDVHGRQWKH3UHOLPLQDU\3D\ILJXUHV7KH'LVWULFWZDVRULJLQDOO\
FHUWLILHGXQGHUWKH3D\ UDWHV
3XUVXDQWWRM.S. Section 469.175 Subd. 2(b)
(VWLPDWHRIWRWDOWD[LQFUHPHQW,WLVHVWLPDWHGWKDWWKHWRWDODPRXQWRIWD[LQFUHPHQW
WKDWZLOOEHJHQHUDWHGRYHUWKHOLIHRIWKH'LVWULFWLV
3UREDEOHLPSDFWRIWKH'LVWULFWRQFLW\SURYLGHGVHUYLFHVDQGDELOLW\WRLVVXHGHEW
7KHUHLVQRQHZGHYHORSPHQWH[SHFWHGLQWKLV'LVWULFW$VDUHVXOWWKH&LW\GRHVQRW
H[SHFW D QHHG IRU QHZ FDSLWDO LQYHVWPHQW RU DGGLWLRQDO SROLFH FDOOV GXH WR WKH
PRGLILFDWLRQ
7KHSUREDEOHLPSDFWRIWKHPRGLILFDWLRQWRWKH'LVWULFWRQILUHSURWHFWLRQLVQRWH[SHFWHG
WREHVLJQLILFDQW7KHLQYHVWPHQWVIURPWKH+RPH,PSURYHPHQW,QFHQWLYH5HEDWH
3URJUDPPD\GHFUHDVHWKHULVNRIILUHE\SURYLGLQJIXQGVWRXSGDWHEXLOGLQJWRFXUUHQW
ILUHFRGH7KH&LW\GRHVQRWH[SHFWWKDWWKHQHHGIRUQHZFDSLWDOLQYHVWPHQWLQYHKLFOHV
RUIDFLOLWLHVGXHWRWKHPRGLILFDWLRQ
7KHLPSDFWRIWKH'LVWULFWRQSXEOLFLQIUDVWUXFWXUHLVH[SHFWHGWREHPLQLPDO7KH
GHYHORSPHQWLVQRWH[SHFWHGWRVLJQLILFDQWO\LPSDFWDQ\WUDIILFPRYHPHQWVLQWKHDUHD
7KHFXUUHQWLQIUDVWUXFWXUHIRUVDQLWDU\VHZHUVWRUPVHZHUDQGZDWHULVDEOHWRKDQGOH
WKHYROXPHJHQHUDWHGIURPWKHDOUHDG\FRPSOHWHGGHYHORSPHQW7KH&LW\GRHVQRW
H[SHFWWKDWWKHSURSRVHGPRGLILFDWLRQWRWKHEXGJHWZLOOSURYLGHDQ\QHZVDQLWDU\
VHZHU 6$& DQGZDWHU :$& FRQQHFWLRQIHHV
5.1
&U\VWDO(FRQRPLF'HYHORSPHQW$XWKRULW\
7D[,QFUHPHQW'LVWULFW1R
7KHSUREDEOHLPSDFWRIDQ\'LVWULFWJHQHUDOREOLJDWLRQWD[LQFUHPHQWERQGVRQWKH
DELOLW\WRLVVXHGHEWIRUJHQHUDOIXQGSXUSRVHVLVH[SHFWHGWREHPLQLPDO,WLVQRW
DQWLFLSDWHGWKDWWKHUHZLOOEHDQ\JHQHUDOREOLJDWLRQGHEWLVVXHGLQUHODWLRQWRWKLV
PRGLILFDWLRQWKHUHIRUHWKHUHZLOOEHQRLPSDFWRQWKH&LW\
VDELOLW\WRLVVXHIXWXUHGHEW
RURQWKH&LW\
VGHEWOLPLW
(VWLPDWHGDPRXQWRIWD[LQFUHPHQWDWWULEXWDEOHWRVFKRROGLVWULFWOHYLHV,WLVHVWLPDWHG
WKDWWKHDPRXQWRIWD[LQFUHPHQWVRYHUWKHOLIHRIWKH'LVWULFWWKDWZRXOGEHDWWULEXWDEOH
WRVFKRROGLVWULFWOHYLHVDVVXPLQJWKHVFKRROGLVWULFW
VVKDUHRIWKHWRWDOORFDOWD[UDWH
IRUDOOWD[LQJMXULVGLFWLRQVUHPDLQHGWKHVDPHLV
(VWLPDWHGDPRXQWRIWD[LQFUHPHQWDWWULEXWDEOHWRFRXQW\OHYLHV,WLVHVWLPDWHGWKDWWKH
DPRXQWRIWD[LQFUHPHQWVRYHUWKHOLIHRIWKH'LVWULFWWKDWZRXOGEHDWWULEXWDEOHWRFRXQW\
OHYLHVDVVXPLQJWKHFRXQW\
VVKDUHRIWKHWRWDOORFDOWD[UDWHIRUDOOWD[LQJMXULVGLFWLRQV
UHPDLQHGWKHVDPHLV
$GGLWLRQDOLQIRUPDWLRQUHTXHVWHGE\WKHFRXQW\RUVFKRROGLVWULFW7KH&LW\LVQRWDZDUH
RIDQ\VWDQGDUGTXHVWLRQVLQDFRXQW\RUVFKRROGLVWULFWZULWWHQSROLF\UHJDUGLQJWD[
LQFUHPHQWGLVWULFWVDQGLPSDFWRQFRXQW\RUVFKRROGLVWULFWVHUYLFHV7KHFRXQW\RUVFKRRO
GLVWULFWPXVWUHTXHVWDGGLWLRQDOLQIRUPDWLRQSXUVXDQWWRM.S. Section 469.175 Subd. 2(b)
ZLWKLQGD\VDIWHUUHFHLSWRIWKHWD[LQFUHPHQWILQDQFLQJSODQ
1RUHTXHVWVIRUDGGLWLRQDOLQIRUPDWLRQIURPWKHFRXQW\RUVFKRROGLVWULFWUHJDUGLQJWKH
SURSRVHGGHYHORSPHQWIRUWKH'LVWULFWKDYHEHHQUHFHLYHG
5.1
Crystal Economic Development Authority
Tax Increment District No. 4 A-1
Appendix A: Map of Redevelopment Project No. 1 and the TIF District
5.1
Appendix B: Estimated Budget for the District
TIF Plan Budget Summary
Original Modification No 1 Modification No 2 Modification No 3
February 16, 1999 March 21, 2000 December 1, 2008 March 16, 2021
SOURCES
Tax Increment $ 5,416,506 $ 5,416,506 $ 5,416,506 $ 5,725,000
Interest - - 500,000 572,500
Sale of Property - - 300,000 300,000
Developer Reimbursement - - 25,000 -
Loan Repayments - - - 550,000
TOTAL $ 5,416,506 $ 5,416,506 $ 6,241,506 $ 7,147,500
USES
Land/Building Acquisition $ 1,125,000 $ 1,230,000 $ 1,200,000 $ 150,000
Site Improvements/Preparation 515,000 525,000 1,417,000 1,725,000
Utilities - 150,000 675,000 -
Other Qualifying Improvements 1,352,000 900,000 375,000 3,777,500
Administrative Costs (up to 10%) 631,351 535,000 541,651 645,000
PROJECT COSTS TOTAL $ 3,623,351 $ 3,340,000 $ 4,208,651 $ 6,297,500
Interest 1,793,155 2,076,506 2,032,855 850,000
PROJECT AND INTEREST COSTS TOTAL $ 5,416,506 $ 5,416,506 $ 6,241,506 $ 7,147,500
5.1
5.1
DATE:March 9, 2021
TO:Anne Norris, City Manager
City of Crystal City Council
FROM:Jean McGann, Contracted Finance Director
RE:Expenditures over $25,000
Payee Amount
City of Brooklyn Park Annual recycling administration fee $75,080.00
Center for Energy & Environment Home improvement loan program costs $38,117.16
Golden Valley JWC January water costs and 2021 capital improvement $530,460.36
Electric Pump South lift #3 pump replacement $29,211.57
Street Smart Rental, Inc.New truck mounted message boards $25,190.00
Wold Architects and Engineers New police station building architect fees $39,051.53
HealthPartners, Inc.March health insurance premiums $124,678.00
MN PERA Employee & city required contributions for 03/05/21 pay date $60,660.17
Metropolitan Council Environ Svs Wastewater service for March $143,035.56
Waste Management (HRG)January HRG recycling costs $52,400.41
$1,117,884.76
Description
6.1
351 WILLOW BEND – CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATION
PAGE 1 OF 5
___________________________________________________________________________
FROM: Dan Olson, City Planner
___________________________________________________________________________
TO: Anne Norris, City Manager (for March 16 Meeting)
DATE: March 11, 2021
RE: Consider adoption of a resolution approving a conditional use permit to allow
Tiesa Bogard to operate an event center at 351 Willow Bend at the Crystal
Shopping Center
A.INTRODUCTION
Tiesa Bogard (nickname is Tiesha) is proposing to operate an event center at 351
Willow Bend (formerly Caribou Coffee) at the Crystal Shopping Center located at 6801
–56th Avenue North. The property is zoned Commercial (C) and event centers are a
conditional use within that zoning district.
Notice of the March 8 public hearing was published in the Sun Post on February 25 and
mailed to property owners within 500 feet (see attachment A), and posted to the
Becker, Broadway and North Lions neighborhoods on Nextdoor. A sign was also posted
on the property and a hearing notice was sent to the City of New Hope since the
property is adjacent to the New Hope/Crystal boundary line.
At the March 8 Planning Commission public hearing, the Commission unanimously
recommended approval of the conditional use permit (CUP) application.
Attachments:
A.Site location map showing public hearing notification area
B.Existing zoning map
C.Project narrative submitted by applicant
D.Existing floor plan
E.Resolution
COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Event Center – 351 Willow Bend
(Crystal Shopping Center)
6.2
351 WILLOW BEND – CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATION
PAGE 2 OF 5
2020 Aerial Photo:
6.2
351 WILLOW BEND – CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATION
PAGE 3 OF 5
B. BACKGROUND
Existing use
The 1,600 square foot commercial unit will, upon opening, be used for a restaurant
called the “Ambiance Café”, which is a permitted principal use. The applicant leases the
space from the shopping center owner.
Adjacent uses
The following are the existing land uses and zoning districts surrounding th e space:
• North and West – Businesses on 56th Ave N/Bass Lake Road (Commercial in
Crystal, Community Business in New Hope)
• Southwest – Single-family residential (Low Density Residential)
• South – Crystal Shopping Center property (Commercial)
• East – Crystal Shopping Center property (Commercial)
Proposed use
The applicant is proposing to add another principal use, an event center, to be located
within the café space, but operating independently from the restaurant. Event centers
are defined in the Unified Development Code (UDC) as follows:
A facility or building available for lease by private parties that may include kit chen
facilities for the preparation or catering of food or the sale of alcoholic beverages
for on-premises consumption during scheduled events which are not open to the
public. The facility space may be used by various groups for social gatherings,
meetings, parties, weddings, receptions, or dances.
Despite the relatively small scale of this particular event center, it clearly meets the
definition of an event center in the UDC and a Conditional Use Permit is required.
With the CUP, the event center will be an approved principal use in addition to and not
dependent on the café. This means the business owner can close the café and use the
space as an event center as often as customer demand dictates.
The applicant is not making any alterations to the building exterior or to the site itself.
The events will be smaller in scale, such as business meetings and birthday parties.
These events are currently held off-site, but the applicant is proposing to hold these
events indoors on this property if the CUP is approved.
The West Metro Fire Rescue District (WMFRD) has reviewed this proposal and has
indicated that the maximum number of people that can occupy the space , whether for
café use or special events, is 99. The applicant has indicated that the café will be closed
at those times when the special events are held. Since parking was deemed adequate
for the café use, and the maximum number of patrons is the same for the event center,
parking is found to be adequate for the event center use. In addition, parking spaces in
the shopping center are for use by all businesses, and these businesses operate on
staggered schedules. This schedule provides for space availability at different times of
the day.
6.2
351 WILLOW BEND – CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATION
PAGE 4 OF 5
Public Comment
At the March 8 Planning Commission public hearing, one member of the public
expressed concern about the proposal:
➢ The event center may have loud music and attendees will park in the residential
neighborhood west of the shopping center.
Staff response: Since the events will be held entirely within the building and be
buffered from the residential neighborhood by other commercial buildings, it is
unlikely that noise will disturb the residents. It is also unlikely that attendees will
park in the neighborhood since that area is quite far from the event center and
attendees will find it easier to park in the shopping center.
C. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
CUP criteria
The following are the relevant criteria in city code sectio n 510.19 for approval of CUPs.
The applicant has also provided their own response to th ese criteria in attachment C.
(a) The proposed use has been approved as a conditional use in the zoning district
for which it is proposed.
Findings: Event centers are a conditional use in the Commercial (C) zoning
district.
(b) The conditional use will be in accordance with the general object ives, or with any
specific objective, of the city’s comprehensive plan and this UDC .
Findings: On the 2040 Planned Land Use map, the property is guided as
Mixed Use. The event center conforms to that designation.
(c) The conditional use will be designed, c onstructed, operated, and maintained so
as to be harmonious and appropriate in appearance with the existing or intended
character of the general vicinity and that such use will not change the essential
character of the same area.
Findings: The property has been a commercial use for many years and the
addition of an event center will not change the character of the area. The
existing restaurant space is located approximately 200’ from the property
line of the nearest residential property.
(d) Impacts such as noise, hours of activity, and exterior lighting have been
sufficiently addressed to mitigate negative impacts on nearby uses.
Findings: The proposed event center will not generate unusual noise
impacts beyond those normally associated with a restaurant.
(e) Parking is adequately provided for the proposed conditional use.
6.2
351 WILLOW BEND – CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATION
PAGE 5 OF 5
Findings: As described in section B, above, parking is adequately provided
for the proposed event center.
(f) In the approval of a conditional use permit, the City Council may impose such
conditions as it determines is necessary to make the use compatible with other
uses allowed in the same district zone or vicinity.
Findings: Staff is not recommending any conditions for approval of the CUP.
D. REQUESTED ACTION
At the March 8, 2021 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission recommended by
a vote of 8 to 0 (one member absent) that the City Council approve the conditional use
permit to operate an event center at 351 Willow Bend in the Crystal Shopping Center
located at 6801 - 56th Avenue North.
City Council motion is requested to approve the proposed resolution (attachment E).
6.2
Site Location and Public Hearing Notice Mailing Map
351 Willow Bend at Crystal
Shopping Center
4141 Douglas Dr. N.
Crystal MN 55422
Attachment A
6.2
Zoning Map
351 Willow Bend at Crystal
Shopping Center
4141 Douglas Dr. N.
Crystal MN 55422
Attachment B
6.2
Conditional Use Permit Project Narrative
a) The current zoning district for the property is commercial zoning
b)The existing use for the property is currently a café
c)The proposed use for the property would remain a café in addition to a micro event location
providing a space for bridal/baby showers, business luncheons, micro weddings & birthday
dinners
d)The purposed use is allowed in the applicable zoning district as a conditional use
e)Restaurants are in accordance with objectives to this property and purpose use will be
complimentary to café use
f)No alterations or changes to space will be made everything will remain the same
g)Noise will be controlled by keeping all events indoors event sizes will be smaller in size not
accommodating larger group sizes any music played at an event will be kept at a decent sound
staying compliant to code and all music ending by 10pm Sunday-Thursday and midnight on
Fridays and Saturday . No Exterior lighting will be added location currently already has adequate
exterior lighting.Hours of operation for any events planned on Sunday-Thursday will not go past
10pm and any events on Friday & Saturday will not go after midnight
h)Parking is adequately provided for the proposed use per city code section 515 to make sure
adequate parking is available Café will be closed during any micro event to reduce the extra
need of parking
i)In the future Ambiance Café will consider applying for a wine and beer license through the state
j)The property is not located on a floodplain
Attachment C 6.2
Attachment D 6.2
DOCSOPEN-CR225-30-707371.v2-3/8/21
CITY OF CRYSTAL
MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 2021- _______
RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT FOR AN EVENT CENTER
WHEREAS, Tiesa Bogard (“Applicant”) submitted an application to the City of Crystal
(“City”) for a conditional use permit to allow the operation of an event center at 351 Willow
Bend at the Crystal Shopping Center located at 6801 – 56th Avenue North in Crystal, which is
legally described in Exhibit A (“Property”); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding the Applicant’s
request on March 8, 2021 and voted to forward the application to the City Council with a
recommendation that the requested conditional use permit be approved with certain conditions;
and
WHEREAS, the City Planner’s report (“the Planner’s Report”) dated March 11, 2021
regarding this matter, which is attached hereto as Exhibit B, is incorporated herein and made part
of this conditional use permit, except that the conditions set out below are controlling; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the conditional use permit as recommended by
the Planning Commission would be in compliance with the applicable rules and regulations of
the Crystal City Code.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Crystal,
based on the record of this matter and the findings and determinations contained herein and in the
Planner’s Report, hereby approves and issues a conditional use permit to allow for the operation
of an event center on the Property, subject to compliance with the Crystal City Code and all of
the following conditions of approval:
1.Compliance. This conditional use permit is subject to the applicable requirements of
the Crystal city code. The Applicant is required to comply with all applicable federal,
state, and local laws, rules, regulations, and ordinances, and is required to obtain such
other permits and permissions as may be required.
2.No Waiver. Failure by the City to take action with respect to any violation of any
condition, covenant or term of this conditional use permit shall not be deemed to be a
waiver of such condition, covenant, or term or any subsequent violation of the same
or any other condition, covenant, or term.
Attachment E
6.2
DOCSOPEN-CR225-30-707371.v2-3/8/21
3. Revocation. The violation of any terms or conditions of this conditional use permit
including, but not limited to, any applicable federal, state, or local laws, rules,
regulations, and ordinances, may result in revocation of the conditional use permit.
The applicant shall be given written notice of any violation and reasonable time, as
determined by the City, to cure the violation before a revocation of the permit will
occur.
4. Binding Effect. This conditional use permit, and the conditions placed on it, are
binding on the applicant, their successors and assigns, shall run with the property, and
shall not in any way be affected by the subsequent sale, lease, or other change from
current ownership, until the conditional use permit is terminated or revoked as
provided herein. The obligations of the applicant under this conditional use permit
shall also be the obligations of the current and any subsequent owners of the property.
5. Acceptance of Conditions. Utilization of the property for any of the uses allowed by
this conditional use permit shall automatically be deemed acceptance of, and
agreement to, the terms and conditions of this conditional use permit without
qualification, reservation, or exception.
Adopted by the Crystal City Council this 16th day of March 2021.
____________________________
Jim Adams, Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Chrissy Serres, City Clerk
6.2
DOCSOPEN-CR225-30-707371.v2-3/8/21
EXHIBIT A
Legal Description of the Property
Lot 1, Block 1, Crystal Shopping Center Addition, and situate in Hennepin County, Minnesota.
6.2
DOCSOPEN-CR225-30-707371.v2-3/8/21
EXHIBIT B
Planner’s Report
(attached hereto)
6.2
Memorandum
DATE: March 16, 2021
TO: City Council
FROM: Mark Ray, PE, Director of Public Works
Mick Cyert, Engineering Project Manager
SUBJECT: Awarding contracts and agreements for 2021 Street Resurfacing Project
On January 19, 2021 the Council approved the plans and specs and ordered the advertisement for bids
for the 2021 Street Resurfacing Project. Bids for the project were opened electronicly via QuestCDN.com
vBid and read aloud virtually via ZOOM Meeting on March 9, 2021. Nine bids were received and listed
below:
1)GMH Asphalt Corporation $982,667.70
2)Northwest $995,662.70
3)T. A. Schifsky & Sons, Inc $999,762.47
4)Asphalt Surface Technologies Corp.$1,021,316.20
5)North Valley, Inc.$1,038,224.57
6)Park Construction Company $1,052,288.80
7)C.S. McCrossan Construction, Inc.$1,100,169.50
8)Valley Paving, Inc $1,110,110.00
9)Bituminous Roadways Inc.$1,225,000.00
Staff has reviewed the bids and found them to be accurate and in order. GMH Asphalt Corporation has
done similar work in neighboring cities (Golden Valley).
Project Cost
The project cost above includes $25,678.15 for the Cities of New Hope, Robbinsdale and Golden Valley
share of project. Crystal’s total portion of the project is $956,989.55. The total available funding for the
project is $1,318,436. Crystal’s project construction cost is $361,473.45 under the engineer’s estimate.
There will be no special assessments for this project.
Based on the bid pricing, staff will be looking to include some additional streets that were going to be
delayed to 2022’s project due to budget concerns. Even with the additional work, the overall City project
will still be under budget by at least $235,000.
6.3
Joint Powers Agreements
As has occurred with past projects where the project limits included other cities, the other Cities will be
paying for their portion of the work. This project includes work in New Hope, Golden Valley, and
Robbinsdale. The Joint Powers Agreement with each City is basically the same as has been used for
previous projects.
Project Communication
After staff has met with the contractor and the schedule has been determined, a mailing will be sent to
all the properties in the project area providing an update. Mailings will also go to streets that are being
added to the project.
Schedule
• The work is scheduled to be completed by October, 2021
Attachments
• Project Location Map
• Construction Contract
• Joint Powers Agreement with New Hope
• Joint Powers Agreement with Golden Valley
• Joint Powers Agreement with Robbinsdale
Recommended Action
Motion authorizing the contract with GMH Asphalt Corporation for the 2021 Street Resurfacing Project.
6.3
40th Ave N
Adair Ave NAdair Ave NAdair Ave NAdair Ave NZane Ave NZane Ave NZane Ave NZane Ave NZane Ave NZane Ave NXenia AveNWelcome Ave N34th Ave N 34th Ave N 34th Ave N 34th Ave N
36th Ave N 36th Ave N 36th Ave N 36th Ave N 36th Ave N 36th AveN
36thAve N 36th Ave N 36th Ave N 36th Ave NVeraCruzAveN
RegentAveNRegent Ave NRegent Ave NRegent Ave NRegent Ave NT oledoAveNUnityAveN38th Ave N 38th Ave N
Quail AveN41 1/2 Ave N
Douglas Dr NDouglas Dr NDouglas Dr NDouglas Dr NDouglas Dr N40th Ave N
40th Ave NL
a
k
e
l
a
n
d
A
v
e
NScottAv
e
N41stAveNW
e
s
t
B
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
W
e
s
t
B
r
o
a
d
w
a
yLake Dr42nd Ave N 42nd Ave N 42nd Ave N 42nd Ave N
42nd Ave N
42nd Ave N 42nd Ave N 42nd Ave N
33rd Ave N Noble Ave NNoble Ave NNoble Ave N41st Ave N
34th Ave N 34th Ave N 43rd Ave N41st Ave N
37th AveN40th Ave NEdgewood Ave NGeorgia Ave NNevadaAveNLouisiana Ave NLouisianaA
v
e
N41st Ave N
38th Ave N Lakel a ndAve
N
35th Ave N
35th Ave N
41st A v e N
Kentucky Ave NKentuckyAveNWelcomeAveNWelcome Ave NWelcome Ave NNevada AveNHu
b
b
a
r
d
A
v
e
N
H
u
b
b
a
r
d
A
v
e
N
38th Ave NJ
erseyAveN
4 0th Ave N
43rd Ave N 43rd Ave N
Vera Cruz Ave NVera Cruz Ave NYates Ave NYates Ave NYates Ave NXenia Ave NXenia Ave N41st Ave N
Idaho Ave NIdaho Ave NR
a
i
l
r
o
a
d
A
v
e
N
39th Ave N37th Ave N Brunswick Ave NHampshire Ave NHampshire Ave NFlorida Ave N40 1/2 Ave NMarkwood Dr NMarkwood Dr N38th Ave N
Lilac DrNLee Ave NLeeAveNLee Ave NParkerTrlColorado Ave NGeorgia Ave NHampshire Ave N40th Ave N
L
a
ke
Rd
41st Pl N
38th Ave N 38th Ave N
39th Ave N
39th Ave N
35th Ave N 35th Ave N
39th Ave N
41st Ave N
40th Ave N
40th Ave N
39th Ave N
Jersey Ave N37th Ave NParkerGrn HalifaxAveN39 1/2AveN42 1/2Ave NJune Ave NKyle Ave NMajor Ave NMajorAveNMajor Ave NStateHighway100State Highway 100StateHighway100StateHighway10040 1/2Ave N
Edgewood Ave NScott Ave N
42 1/2 Ave N
Perry Ave NScottAveNHalifa
x
A
ve
NParker
C
irColorado Ave NOrchard AveNBrunswick Ave NBrunswick Ave NJersey Ave NJerseyAveNJersey Cir N
M
a
j
o
r
A
v
e
N
H
u
b
b
a
r
d
A
v
e
NMaryland AveNIndiana Ave NLakeCurveLouisiana Ave NMaryland Ave N3 9 t h A veNC
o
u
n
t
y
R
o
a
d
8
1
County
R
o
a
d
8
1Xenia Ave NR
a
i
l
r
o
a
d
A
v
e
NScott Ave NLakeland
A
v
eNValley Pl N Xenia Ave NUnity Ave N35th Pl N
Quail Ave NQuail Ave NQuail Ave NHill Pl N
Orchard Ave NOrchard Ave NOrchard Ave NPerry Ave NPerry Ave NPerry Ave NLa
k
eland
Ave
N
Georgia Ave NIdaho Ave NToledoAveNQuail Ave NDra ke Rd
La
k
e
v
i
e
w
A
v
e
N
39th Ave N
37th Ave N
Welcome Ave NXenia Ave NYatesAveNAdair Ave NVeraCruzAveNFlorida Ave NB
N
S
F
R
a
i
l
r
o
a
d
B
N
S
F
R
a
i
l
r
o
a
d
B
N
S
F
R
a
i
l
r
o
a
d
B
N
S
F
R
a
i
l
r
o
a
d
B
N
SFRai
l
r
oadBNSF RailroadLakeland
AveN
Indiana
Av
e
NMaryland Ave N34th Pl NYatesAveN
´
0 0.25 0.5
Miles
City of Crystal 2021 Bituminous Street Resurfacing
City Project 2021-02
4141 Douglas Drive NorthCrystal, MN 55422 Highway 1002021 Mill & Overlay
Crystal
Hwy 10042nd Ave
58th Ave
27th Ave
36th Ave Winnetka AveDouglas DriveBass Lake Road-56th Ave
42nd Ave
36th Ave
W
e
s
t
B
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
Louisiana Ave0 ¼½¾1 1¼
Miles
Project AreasC.R
.
8
1
/B
o
t
t
i
n
e
a
u
L akelandAveN
Wilshire BlvdBN
S
F
R
a
i
l
r
o
a
d
BN
S
F
R
a
i
l
r
o
a
d
CP Railroad
CP Railroad
C
o
u
nty
R
o
a
d
8
1
C
o
u
n
t
y
R
o
a
d
8
1Xenia Ave NL
a
k
e
l
a
n
d
A
v
e
N
L
a
k
e
l
a
n
d
A
v
e
N
Hanson
Ct
N
Exhibit B
6.3
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
City of Crystal
2021 Bituminous Street Resurfacing and Street Reconstruction
Project No. ___2021-02___
This Construction Contract (“Contract”) is made and entered into this _____ day of
______________, 2021, by and between the City of Crystal, a Minnesota municipal corporation,
4141 Douglas Drive North, Crystal, MN 55422 (“City”) and ______________________, a
________________ _______________ (“Contractor”).
RECITALS
A. The City desires to hire a contractor to provide all equipment, materials, and personnel as
may be needed to provide the services described in the attached Exhibit G (“Project”);
B. The City undertook the sealed bid procedure and awarded the contract for the Project (the
“Contract”) to the Contractor; and
C. The Contractor is agreeable to and desirous of the work as needed to complete the Project in
accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract documents.
AGREEMENT
In consideration of the mutual promises and agreements contained herein, and intending
to be legally bound, the City and the Contractor hereby agree as follows:
1. Contract Documents. The following, together with this Construction Contract document,
constitute the contract documents for this Project and are incorporated in and made part of
the Contract:
(a) Advertisement for Bids (attached as Exhibit A);
(b) Project Location Map (attached as Exhibit B);
(c) Instructions to Bidders (attached as Exhibit C);
(d) Contractors Bid (attached as Exhibit D);
(e) General Contract Provisions (attached as Exhibit E);
(f) General Requirements and Covenants (attached as Exhibit F);
(g) Special Contract Provisions (attached as Exhibit G);
(h) Plan Sheets (attached as (Exhibit H);
(i) Contractor’s Bid Bond, Performance Bond and Payment Bond;
(j) Contractor’s Certificates of Insurance; and
2. Work. The Contractor agrees to provide all equipment, materials, and personnel as needed to
complete the Project in accordance with standards, specifications, and plans adopted by the
6.3
City for the Project and the terms and conditions of the Contract, which incorporates all of
the identified contract documents attached hereto as Exhibits A-H (collectively the “Work”)
3. Contract Price. City agrees to pay Contractor consistent with the General Contract
Provisions in Exhibit E for the satisfactory completion of the Work in accordance with the
Contractor’s bid, attached as Exhibit D, and the actual quantities of the unit price items used
to complete the Work.
4. Insurance Requirements. The Contractor shall maintain during the entire term of this
Contract at least the following insurances with at least the following coverage amounts, all of
which shall comply with applicable provisions of the General Contract Provisions:
(a) Workers’ Compensation:
(1) State: Statutory
Amounts
(2) Applicable Federal: Statutory
Amounts
(3) Employer’s Liability:
i. Bodily Injury by Accident $100,000 Each Accident
ii. Bodily Injury by Disease $100,000 Each Accident
iii. Bodily Injury by Disease $500,000 Policy Limit
(b) Commercial General Liability:
(1) General Aggregate $2,000,000
(2) Each Occurrence(Bodily Injury/Property Damage) $1,500,000
(3) Excess or Umbrella Liability
i. General Aggregate $5,000,000
ii. Each Occurrence $5,000,000
(c) Automobile Liability:
(1) Bodily Injury:
i. Each Person $1,000,000
ii. Each Accident $1,000,000
(2) Property Damage:
i. Each Accident $1,000,000
ii. Each Accident $1,000,000
(3) Combined Single Limit: $1,000,000
5. Project Timing. The Work shall be completed in accordance with the following schedule:
(a) Substantial completion on or before October 1, 2021.
(b) Final completion on or before October 15, 2021
(c) Ready for final payment on or before December 3, 2021
6. Required Submittals. The Contractor agrees to provide the City all of the following before
commencing any of the Work on the Project:
6.3
(a) Certificates of insurance showing the types and amounts of insurance required by this
Contract and naming the City as an additional insured on the Contractor’s commercial
general liability policy;
(b) Performance bond and payment bond each for the total amount of the Contractor’s bid;
(c) List of all subcontractors;
(d) Responsible Contractor Statements from the Contractor and all subcontractors; and
(e) Affidavit of Non-Collusion.
7. Notices. Any notices provided under this Contract shall be delivered or mailed to the
following:
(a) To the City at: Mark Ray
City Engineer
City of Crystal
4141 Douglas Drive North
Crystal, MN 55422
(b) To the Contractor at: _________________
_________________
_________________
8. Controlling Provisions. The provisions of the documents constituting the Contract shall be
read together and reconciled to the greatest extent reasonably possible. To the extent there
are any conflicting provisions that cannot be reconciled, the more specific provision shall
generally be controlling. To the extent the conflicting provision is contained in the Special
Contract Provisions (Exhibit G) or in the General Requirements and Covenants (Exhibit F),
the provisions contained in such documents shall be controlling.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Contract as of the date and year
first written above.
CONTRACTOR
By:
Print Name
Its:
Title
Signature
Date:
6.3
CITY OF CRYSTAL
By:
Its Mayor
Signature
By:
Its Manager
Signature
Date:
6.3
G:\Projects\2021\2021-02 2021 Contract Mill & Overlay\Agreements\New Hope\JPA_for_MO_NH_and_CRY FINAL 11.30.20.docx
2021 – 38th AVENUE NORTH BITUMINOUS STREET RESURFACING PROJECT
CRYSTAL – NEW HOPE JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT
THIS JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) is made and entered into
this _____day of ___________, 2021, by and between the City of Crystal, a municipal
corporation under the laws of the State of Minnesota (“Crystal”), and the City of New
Hope, a municipal corporation under the laws of the State of Minnesota (“New Hope”),
collectively referred to as the “Cities” and individually as a “City.”
RECITALS
A. The Cities have been planning on coordinating street maintenance work on 38th
Avenue North between Louisiana Avenue North and Douglas Drive, which shares a
common boundary between the Cities.
B. 38th Avenue North is due for bituminous resurfacing.
C. The Cities desire to work jointly to complete the contracted Bituminous Street
Resurfacing project on 38th Avenue North between Louisiana Avenue North and
Douglas Drive (collectively, the “Work” or “Project”).
D. Minnesota Statutes, section 471.59 authorizes two or more governmental units to
enter into agreements to jointly or cooperatively exercise any power common to the
contracting parties or any similar power.
E. The scope of the Work has been negotiated between the Cities and has been
incorporated into the plan set entitled “2021 Bituminous Street Resurfacing” as
prepared by Crystal (the “Scope of Work”).
F. Crystal has developed the plans and specifications for the Work (“Plans and
Specifications”).
G. Crystal prepared a cost estimate for the Project (“Pre Bid Project Cost Estimate”),
attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A. The Pre Bid Project Cost
Estimate includes the estimated construction cost of two thousand, nine hundred and
twelve dollars and twenty cents ($2,912.20) for the portion of the Project located within
the corporate limits of New Hope. The administrative costs (as those terms are defined
herein) are in addition to this estimated construction cost and bring the total Pre Bid
Project Cost Estimate to three thousand, four hundred ninety four dollars and
64 cents ($3,494.64).
H. New Hope has reviewed and approved the Scope of Work and agreed to pay the cost
of the Work within the corporate limits of New Hope.
6.3
2
I. Crystal has agreed to pay the cost of the Work within the corporate limits of Crystal
and to administer and supervise the Work in accordance with the Scope of Work and
the Plans and Specifications.
AGREEMENT
In consideration of the mutual undertakings and understandings expressed herein, the
Cities hereby agree as follows:
1. Design and Bidding. The Plans and Specifications, as they may be amended from
time to time, are incorporated into and made part of this Agreement. Crystal is
responsible for advertising for bids for the Project, receiving and opening bids
pursuant to said advertisement and entering into one or more contracts with the
successful bidder (“Contractor”) at the unit prices specified in the successful bid, all
according to the applicable procedures under Minnesota law. The contract (the
“Contract”) shall include the Plans and Specifications and reflect the Scope of Work.
Crystal shall require the Contractor to name New Hope as an additional insured on
its commercial general liability insurance policy.
2. Project Administration. Crystal shall administer all aspects of the Project and shall
inspect all completed Work. The New Hope City Engineer shall cooperate with the
Crystal City Engineer and the Crystal City Engineer’s staff upon request to aid in the
administration of the Project, but shall have no responsibility for the supervision of
any of the Work.
3. Additional Work. Crystal may, in its sole discretion, make changes to the Scope of
Work so long as all changes are reasonably necessary to complete the Work and
are conceptually consistent with the original Scope of Work. Crystal may carry out
the changes authorized by this paragraph by entering into change orders or
supplemental agreements with the Contractor for the performance of any and all
additional or new work it deems necessary, advantageous, or desirable. If a
proposed change exceeds the original Scope of Work jointly contemplated by the
Cities, Crystal shall not make the change unless it is first approved by the New Hope
City Engineer.
4. Construction Easements. New Hope shall grant Crystal a temporary license for
construction, at no cost to Crystal, over those lands owned by New Hope that are a
part of the right-of-way required for the completion of the Work.
J. Apportionment of Cost. The total cost of the Work shall be apportioned between
the parties as follows:
a. Each City shall pay the quantity price of items attributable to the portion of
the Work occurring within its own municipal boundaries (the “Quantity
Price”). The Quantity Price shall be determined based on the unit process
set forth in the Contract with the Contractor and the final quantities as
measured by the Crystal City Engineer. The Cities understand and agree
6.3
3
that the Crystal City Engineer’s Pre Bid Project Cost Estimate is only an
estimate and the Quantity Price may be more or less that the figures shown
in the Pre Bid Project Cost Estimate.
b. In addition to the Quantity Price, New Hope shall pay to Crystal an amount
equal to 20% of its share of the Quantity Price to cover its share of the legal,
engineering, and City staff time (the “Administrative Costs”) incurred by
Crystal for the Project.
5. Payment. Upon acceptance of the successful bid, Crystal shall provide New Hope
an estimated construction cost based upon the contract prices and estimated
quantities in the Contractor’s bid, the Administrative Costs, and all other costs
required to complete the Work (collectively, the “Post Bid Estimated Cost”). Within
60 days after receipt of the Post Bid Estimated Cost, New Hope shall deposit with
the Crystal Director of Finance 90% of New Hope’s share of the Post Bid Estimated
Cost. All remaining amounts due from New Hope, including any amounts resulting
from change orders or other changes or additions to the Work shall be paid to
Crystal within 60 days of final completion of the Work. Upon completion of the Work,
Crystal shall submit to New Hope a copy of the Crystal City Engineer’s Quantity
Price report, which shall show each City’s final share of the Quantity Price, and the
amount of Administrative Costs owed by New Hope. Upon payment by Crystal of
the final amount due to the Contractor, any amount payed by New Hope above its
agreed upon share of the Quantity Price and Administrative Costs shall be returned
to New Hope.
6. Record Drawings. Crystal shall provide record drawings to New Hope within 90
days of Crystal’s final payment to the Contractor. All records kept by either City with
respect to this Agreement shall be subject to examination by the representatives of
the other City and the public in accordance with the Minnesota Government Data
Practices Act.
7. Traffic Control. If detouring of traffic is necessary during the Work, the detour
routes shall be mutually agreed upon by the Cities. Crystal shall require the
Contractor to furnish, install, and maintain any guide signs, regulatory signs, and
pavement markings that may be needed. Crystal shall not be responsible for any
damage caused by increased traffic on any municipal streets located in New Hope
that arise out of or relate to the Work.
8. Cooperative Activity. To the fullest extent permitted by law, all activities by the
Cities under this Agreement are intended to be and shall be construed as a
“cooperative activity,” and it is the intent of the Cities that they shall be deemed a
“single governmental unit” for the purposes of determining total liability, as set forth
in Minnesota Statutes, section 471.59, subd. 1a. Nothing in this Agreement is
intended to alter, or shall be interpreted as altering, the treatment of the Cities as a
single governmental unit. For purposes of Minnesota Statutes, section 471.59,
subdivision 1a, each City expressly declines responsibility for the acts or omissions
of the other City.
6.3
4
9. Insurance & Indemnity. The Cities shall carry policies of liability insurance in at
least the amounts specified as the extent of their individual liability under Minnesota
Statutes, section 466.04, as amended. Nothing herein shall be deemed to waive
any statutory limits of liability granted to the Cities. Each City agrees to defend,
indemnify and hold harmless (including reasonable attorney’s fees) the other City,
their elected officials, officers, agents and employees from any liability, claims,
demands, damages, personal injury, costs, judgments or expenses arising from any
act or omission of the indemnifying City relating to the Project. Neither City shall be
required to pay to the other City any amount as indemnification under this
Agreement, whether arising pursuant to this Agreement, expressly, by operation of
law or otherwise, in excess of the limits of liability applicable to the indemnifying City
under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 466, or in the event that Minnesota Statutes,
Chapter 466 does not apply, the maximum amount of insurance coverage available
to the indemnifying City. In those instances in which a City is directly liable for
damages as well as for indemnification to the other City, the combined liability of the
indemnifying City shall not exceed the limits of liability under Minnesota Statutes,
Chapter 466 or, in the event that Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 466 does not apply,
the maximum amount of insurance coverage available to the indemnifying City.
10. Employees; Worker’s Compensation. Any and all employees of each City and all
other persons engaged by that City in the performance of the Work or any other work
or services required or contemplated by this Agreement shall not be considered
employees of the other City. Any and all claims that might arise under the Worker’s
Compensation Act or the Unemployment Compensation Act of the State of Minnesota
on behalf of said employees while so engaged, and any and all claims made by any
third parties as a consequence of any act or omission on the part of said employees
while so engaged, shall in no way be the obligation or responsibility of the other City.
11. Audit. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 16C.05, subdivision 5, any books,
records, documents, and accounting procedures and practices of each City relevant
to the Agreement are subject to examination by the other City and either the
Legislative Auditor or the State Auditor as appropriate. The Cities agree to maintain
these records for a period of at least six years from completion of the Project.
12. Term. This Agreement shall commence as of the date indicated above and shall
continue until the Project is completed and all required payments have been made.
The indemnification and audit obligations shall survive the termination of this
Agreement.
13. Entire Agreement. This document, including the recitals, the exhibits, and any
documents incorporated by reference, shall constitute the entire agreement between
the Cities regarding construction of the Project. This Agreement supersedes all prior
negotiations, representations, or agreements between the Cities regarding the
Project, whether written or oral. No modifications to this Agreement shall be in effect
unless they are reduced to writing and are signed by both Cities.
6.3
5
14. No Third Party Rights. This Agreement is solely for the benefit of the Cities. This
Agreement shall not create or establish any rights in or for the benefit of any third
party.
15. Applicable Law. This Agreement shall be interpreted under the laws of Minnesota.
16. Compliance. Each City shall comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws,
rules, regulations, and ordinances, and shall obtain such permits and permissions as
may be required, in carrying out their respective duties under this Agreement.
17. Discrimination. The provisions of Minnesota Statutes, section 181.59 and of any
applicable local ordinance relating to civil rights and discrimination shall be considered
a part of this Agreement as though fully set forth herein.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be
executed by their respective duly authorized officers as of the day and year first above
written.
CITY OF NEW HOPE
By: ____________________________
Kathi Hemken
Its: Mayor
By: ____________________________
Kirk McDonald
Its: Manager
CITY OF CRYSTAL
By: ____________________________
Jim Adams
Its: Mayor
By: ____________________________
Anne Norris
Its: Manager
6.3
6
EXHIBIT A
Pre Bid Project Construction Cost Estimate
(attached hereto)
6.3
CITY OF CRYSTAL 2021 MILL AND OVERLAY 3/9/2021 LOCAL
ENGINEERS POST BID ESTIMATE
CRYSTAL PROJECT NO. 2021-02
S.A.P. 116-332-003, S.A.P. 116-329-003 and S.A.P. 116-331-004
Item No.Item Unit Est. QuantityGMH
ASPHALT
Unit Price Total Price Est. Quantity Total Price Est. Quantity Total Price Est. Quantity Total Price Est. Quantity Total Price Est. Quantity Total Price Est. Quantity Total Price Est. Quantity Total Price 2021.501 Mobilization LS 1 $45,000.00 $45,000.00 0.09 $4,050.00 0.03 $1,440.00 0.04 $1,800.00 0.01 $450.00 $0.00 0.01 $450.00 0.82 $36,810.00
2104.503 Remove Concrete Curb & Gutter LF 4100 $6.70 $27,470.00 370 $2,479.00 65 $435.50 170 $1,139.00 45 $301.50 $0.00 25 $167.50 3425 $22,947.50
2104.503 Sawing Concrete Pavement LF 450 $5.50 $2,475.00 75 $412.50 35 $192.50 20 $110.00 5 $27.50 $0.00 5 $27.50 310 $1,705.00
2104.503 Sawing Bituminous Pavement LF 300 $3.00 $900.00 20 $60.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 280 $840.00
2104.504 Remove Bituminous Pavement SY 2050 $0.01 $20.50 170 $1.70 25 $0.25 70 $0.70 20 $0.20 $0.00 11 $0.11 1754 $17.54
2104.604
Remove and Replace Concrete Driveway
Pavement (6") - High Early SY 20 $123.80 $2,476.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 20 $2,476.00
2104.504
Remove (7") Concrete Valley Gutter Pavement
With Reinforcement SY 50 $13.50 $675.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 50 $675.00
2104.604
Remove and Replace Concrete Valley Gutter
Pavement (7") With Reinforcement -
High Early SY 190 $117.00 $22,230.00
32
$3,744.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 158 $18,486.00
2104.518 Remove Concrete Sidewalk SF 5050 $3.25 $16,412.50 1330 $4,322.50 350 $1,137.50 860 $2,795.00 100 $325.00 $0.00 60 $195.00 2350 $7,637.50
2105.507 Common Excavation (EV) (P) CY 275 $36.00 $9,900.00 60 $2,160.00 10 $360.00 28 $1,008.00 6 $216.00 $0.00 6 $216.00 165 $5,940.00
2123 Street Sweeper (With Pickup Broom) HR 40 $132.00 $5,280.00 2 $264.00 2 $264.00 2 $264.00 1 $0.00 1 $132.00 32 $4,224.00
2211.509 Aggregate Base, Class 5 TON 560 $10.00 $5,600.00 70 $700.00 8 $80.00 35 $350.00 3 $30.00 $0.00 3 $30.00 441 $4,410.00
2231.603 Butuminous Surface Crack Repair LF 240 $3.00 $720.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 240 $720.00
2231.604 Bituminous Pavement Breakup Repair SY 170 $18.00 $3,060.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 170 $3,060.00
2232.504 Mill Bituminous Pavement ( 1 1/2") SY 75700 $1.63 $123,391.00 5325 $8,679.75 2900 $4,727.00 2670 $4,352.10 850 $1,385.50 390 $635.70 940 $1,532.20 62625 $102,078.75
2301.502
Drill and Grout/Wet Cast Reinforcement/Dowel
Bar (Epoxy Coated)EA 190 $10.55 $2,004.50 46 $485.30 10 $105.50 10 $105.50 6 $63.30 $0.00 6 $63.30 112 $1,181.60
2357.506 Bituminous Material for Tack Coat GAL 4550 $3.30 $15,015.00 320 $1,056.00 175 $577.50 160 $528.00 55 $181.50 25 $82.50 60 $198.00 3755 $12,391.50
2360.504
Type SP 9.5 Wearing Course Mixture (2,C) 2.5"
Thick (Driveway) SY 170 $17.00 $2,890.00 10 $170.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 160 $2,720.00
2360.509 Type SP 12.5 Wearing Course Mixture (2,C) TON 8000 $54.85 $438,800.00 550 $30,167.50 300 $16,455.00 280 $15,358.00 90 $4,936.50 40 $2,194.00 100 $5,485.00 6640 $364,204.00
2360.509 Type SP 19 Non Wearing Course Mixture (2,B) TON 310 $0.01 $3.10 22 $0.22 4 $0.04 10 $0.10 3 $0.03 $0.00 2 $0.02 269 $2.69
2506.502 Adjust Frame and Ring Casting (Catch Basin) EA 35 $381.00 $13,335.00 $0.00 1 $381.00 2 $762.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 32 $12,192.00
2506.502 Adjust Frame and Ring Casting (Manhole) EA 15 $821.00 $12,315.00 1 $821.00 1 $821.00 1 $821.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 12 $9,852.00
2506.502 Adjust Misc. Casting - Riser Adjustment EA 60 $25.00 $1,500.00 4 $100.00 4 $100.00 4 $100.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 48 $1,200.00
2521.518 4-inch Concrete Walk SF 3100 $7.90 $24,490.00 880 $6,952.00 266 $2,101.40 695 $5,490.50 58 $458.20 $0.00 18 $142.20 1183 $9,345.70
2521.518 6-inch Concrete Pedestrian Ramp SF 1950 $17.80 $34,710.00 450 $8,010.00 84 $1,495.20 165 $2,937.00 42 $747.60 $0.00 42 $747.60 1167 $20,772.60
2531.503 Concrete Curb and Gutter, Design B618 (< 5') LF 250 $49.75 $12,437.50 5 $248.75 $0.00 $0.00 5 $248.75 $0.00 $0.00 240 $11,940.00
2531.503 Concrete Curb and Gutter, Design B618 (>5') LF 3050 $25.90 $78,995.00 305 $7,899.50 20 $518.00 40 $1,036.00 40 $1,036.00 $0.00 28 $725.20 2617 $67,780.30
2531.503 Concrete Curb and Gutter, Design B624 LF 825 $30.40 $25,080.00 60 $1,824.00 45 $1,368.00 130 $3,952.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 590 $17,936.00
2531.604
7-inch Concrete Valley Gutter Pavement with
Reinforcement - High Early SY 32 $127.00 $4,064.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 32 $4,064.00
2531.618 Truncated Domes (2x2)SF 544 $47.50 $25,840.00 144 $6,840.00 24 $1,140.00 48 $2,280.00 12 $570.00 $0.00 12 $570.00 304 $14,440.00
2563.601 Traffic Control LS 1 $9,495.00 $9,495.00 0.09 $854.55 0.03 $284.85 0.04 $379.80 0.01 $94.95 $0.00 0.01 $94.95 0.82 $7,785.90
2573.502 Strom Drain Inlet Protection EA 100 $108.00 $10,800.00 8 $864.00 8 $864.00 8 $864.00 4 $432.00 $0.00 4 $432.00 68 $7,344.00
2574.507 Boulevard Topsoil Borrow (Mn.DOT 3877.2F) CY 360 $0.01 $3.60 20 $0.20 4 $0.04 10 $0.10 2 $0.02 $0.00 2 $0.02 322 $3.22
2575.604 Hydroseeding (MnDOT 25-151)SY 2000 $2.64 $5,280.00 125 $330.00 20 $52.80 60 $158.40 10 $26.40 $0.00 10 $26.40 1775 $4,686.00
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST $982,667.70 $93,496.47 $34,901.08 $46,591.20 $11,530.95 $2,912.20 $11,235.00 $781,868.80
10% CONTINGENCY $98,266.77 $9,349.65 $3,490.11 $4,659.12 $1,153.10 $291.22 $1,123.50 $78,186.88
TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $1,080,934.47 $102,846.12 $38,391.19 $51,250.32 $12,684.05 $3,203.42 $12,358.50 $860,055.68
CRYSTAL
SAP 116-329-003
34th Avenue 38th Avenue
Welcome-38thNoble-Kyle
Vera Cruz Avenue
Louisiana-City Limits
ROBBINDALE
Douglas-Yates 36th - 38th
38th Avenue
NEW HOPE
SAP 116-332-003
36th - 38th
SAP 116-331-004
MSA
GOLDEN VALLEYCRYSTAL
Adair Avenue
CRYSTAL CRYSTAL
Welcome Avenue
6.3
2021 – 34th AVENUE NORTH BITUMINOUS STREET RESURFACING PROJECT
CRYSTAL – GOLDEN VALLEY JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT
THIS JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) is made and entered into
this15th day of December, 2020, by and between the City of Crystal, a municipal
corporation under the laws of the State of Minnesota (“Crystal”), and the City of Golden
Valley, a municipal corporation under the laws of the State of Minnesota (“Golden
Valley”), collectively referred to as the “Cities” and individually as a “City.”
RECITALS
A.The Cities have been planning on coordinating street maintenance work on 34th
Avenue North between Regent Avenue North and Kyle Avenue North, which shares
a common boundary between the Cities.
B.34th Avenue North is due for bituminous resurfacing.
C.The Cities desire to work jointly to complete the contracted Bituminous Street
Resurfacing project on 34th Avenue North between Regent Avenue North and Kyle
Avenue North (collectively, the “Work” or “Project”).
D.Minnesota Statutes, section 471.59 authorizes two or more governmental units to
enter into agreements to jointly or cooperatively exercise any power common to the
contracting parties or any similar power.
E.The scope of the W ork has been negotiated between the Cities and has been
incorporated into the plan set entitled “2021 Bituminous Street Resurfacing” as
prepared by Crystal (the “Scope of Work”).
F.Crystal has developed the plans and specifications for the Work (“Plans and
Specifications”).
G.Crystal prepared a cost estimate for the Project (“Pre Bid Project Cost Estimate”),
attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A. The Pre Bid Project Cost
Estimate includes the estimated construction cost of fourteen thousand, seven
hundred and seven dollars and eighty-three cents ($14,707.83) for the portion of the
Project located within the corporate limits of Golden Valley. The administrative costs
(as those terms are defined herein) are in addition to this estimated construction cost
and bring the total Pre Bid Project Cost Estimate to seventeen thousand, six
hundred and forty-nine dollars and 40 cents ($17,649.40).
H.Golden Valley has reviewed and approved the Scope of Work and agreed to pay the
cost of the Work within the corporate limits of Golden Valley.
DocuSign Envelope ID: A6B7BB6A-2266-4AB1-BC62-B622FFF785F4
6.3
2
I.Crystal has agreed to pay the cost of the Work within the corporate limits of Crystal
and to administer and supervise the Work in accordance with the Scope of Work and
the Plans and Specifications.
AGREEMENT
In consideration of the mutual undertakings and understandings expressed herein, the
Cities hereby agree as follows:
1.Design and Bidding. The Plans and Specifications, as they may be amended from
time to time, are incorporated into and made part of this Agreement. Crystal is
responsible for advertising for bids for the Project, receiving and opening bids
pursuant to said advertisement and entering into one or more contracts with the
successful bidder (“Contractor”) at the unit prices specified in the successful bid, all
according to the applicable procedures under Minnesota law. The contract (the
“Contract”) shall include the Plans and Specifications and reflect the Scope of Work.
Crystal shall require the Contractor to name Golden Valley as an additional insured
on its commercial general liability insurance policy.
2.Project Administration. Crystal shall administer all aspects of the Project and shall
inspect all completed Work. The Golden Valley City Engineer shall cooperate with
the Crystal City Engineer and the Crystal City Engineer’s staff upon request to aid in
the administration of the Project, but shall have no responsibility for the supervision
of any of the Work.
3.Additional Work. Crystal may, in its sole discretion, make changes to the Scope of
Work so long as all changes are reasonably necessary to complete the Work and
are conceptually consistent with the original Scope of Work. Crystal may carry out
the changes authorized by this paragraph by entering into change orders or
supplemental agreements with the Contractor for the performance of any and all
additional or new work it deems necessary, advantageous, or desirable. If a
proposed change exceeds the original Scope of Work jointly contemplated by the
Cities, Crystal shall not make the change unless it is first approved by the Golden
Valley City Engineer.
4.Construction Easements. Golden Valley shall grant Crystal a temporary license
for construction, at no cost to Crystal, over those lands owned by Golden Valley that
are a part of the right-of-way required for the completion of the Work.
5.Apportionment of Cost. The total cost of the Work shall be apportioned between
the parties as follows:
a.Each City shall pay the quantity price of items attributable to the portion of
the Work occurring within its own municipal boundaries (the “Quantity
Price”). The Quantity Price shall be determined based on the unit process
set forth in the Contract with the Contractor and the final quantities as
measured by the Crystal City Engineer. The Cities understand and agree
DocuSign Envelope ID: A6B7BB6A-2266-4AB1-BC62-B622FFF785F4
6.3
3
that the Crystal City Engineer’s Pre Bid Project Cost Estimate is only an
estimate and the Quantity Price may be more or less that the figures shown
in the Pre Bid Project Cost Estimate.
b.In addition to the Quantity Price, Golden Valley shall pay to Crystal an
amount equal to 20% of its share of the Quantity Price to cover its share of
the legal, engineering, and City staff time (the “Administrative Costs”)
incurred by Crystal for the Project.
6.Payment. Upon acceptance of the successful bid, Crystal shall provide Golden
Valley an estimated construction cost based upon the contract prices and estimated
quantities in the Contractor’s bid, the Administrative Costs, and all other costs
required to complete the Work (collectively, the “Post Bid Estimated Cost”). Within
60 days after receipt of the Post Bid Estimated Cost, Golden Valley shall deposit
with the Crystal Director of Finance 90% of Golden Valley’s share of the Post Bid
Estimated Cost. All remaining amounts due from Golden Valley, including any
amounts resulting from change orders or other changes or additions to the Work
shall be paid to Crystal within 60 days of final completion of the Work. Upon
completion of the Work, Crystal shall submit to Golden Valley a copy of the Crystal
City Engineer’s Quantity Price report, which shall show each City’s final share of the
Quantity Price, and the amount of Administrative Costs owed by Golden Valley.
Upon payment by Crystal of the final amount due to the Contractor, any amount
payed by Golden Valley above its agreed upon share of the Quantity Price and
Administrative Costs shall be returned to Golden Valley.
7.Record Drawings. Crystal shall provide record drawings to Golden Valley within 90
days of Crystal’s final payment to the Contractor. All records kept by either City with
respect to this Agreement shall be subject to examination by the representatives of
the other City and the public in accordance with the Minnesota Government Data
Practices Act.
8.Traffic Control. If detouring of traffic is necessary during the Work, the detour
routes shall be mutually agreed upon by the Cities. Crystal shall require the
Contractor to furnish, install, and maintain any guide signs, regulatory signs, and
pavement markings that may be needed. Crystal shall not be responsible for any
damage caused by increased traffic on any municipal streets located in Golden
Valley that arise out of or relate to the Work.
9.Cooperative Activity. To the fullest extent permitted by law, all activities by the
Cities under this Agreement are intended to be and shall be construed as a
“cooperative activity,” and it is the intent of the Cities that they shall be deemed a
“single governmental unit” for the purposes of determining total liability, as set forth
in Minnesota Statutes, section 471.59, subd. 1a. Nothing in this Agreement is
intended to alter, or shall be interpreted as altering, the treatment of the Cities as a
single governmental unit. For purposes of Minnesota Statutes, section 471.59,
subdivision 1a, each City expressly declines responsibility for the acts or omissions
of the other City.
DocuSign Envelope ID: A6B7BB6A-2266-4AB1-BC62-B622FFF785F4
6.3
4
10. Insurance & Indemnity. The Cities shall carry policies of liability insurance in at
least the amounts specified as the extent of their individual liability under Minnesota
Statutes, section 466.04, as amended. Nothing herein shall be deemed to waive
any statutory limits of liability granted to the Cities. Each City agrees to defend,
indemnify and hold harmless (including reasonable attorney’s fees) the other City,
their elected officials, officers, agents and employees from any liability, claims,
demands, damages, personal injury, costs, judgments or expenses arising from any
act or omission of the indemnifying City relating to the Project. Neither City shall be
required to pay to the other City any amount as indemnification under this
Agreement, whether arising pursuant to this Agreement, expressly, by operation of
law or otherwise, in excess of the limits of liability applicable to the indemnifying City
under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 466, or in the event that Minnesota Statutes,
Chapter 466 does not apply, the maximum amount of insurance coverage available
to the indemnifying City. In those instances in which a City is directly liable for
damages as well as for indemnification to the other City, the combined liability of the
indemnifying City shall not exceed the limits of liability under Minnesota Statutes,
Chapter 466 or, in the event that Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 466 does not apply,
the maximum amount of insurance coverage available to the indemnifying City.
11. Employees; Worker’s Compensation. Any and all employees of each City and all
other persons engaged by that City in the performance of the Work or any other work
or services required or contemplated by this Agreement shall not be considered
employees of the other City. Any and all claims that might arise under the Worker’s
Compensation Act or the Unemployment Compensation Act of the State of Minnesota
on behalf of said employees while so engaged, and any and all claims made by any
third parties as a consequence of any act or omission on the part of said employees
while so engaged, shall in no way be the obligation or responsibility of the other City.
12. Audit. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 16C.05, subdivision 5, any books,
records, documents, and accounting procedures and practices of each City relevant
to the Agreement are subject to examination by the other City and either the
Legislative Auditor or the State Auditor as appropriate. The Cities agree to maintain
these records for a period of at least six years from completion of the Project.
13. Term. This Agreement shall commence as of the date indicated above and shall
continue until the Project is completed and all required payments have been made.
The indemnification and audit obligations shall survive the termination of this
Agreement.
14. Entire Agreement. This document, including the recitals, the exhibits, and any
documents incorporated by reference, shall constitute the entire agreement between
the Cities regarding construction of the Project. This Agreement supersedes all prior
negotiations, representations, or agreements between the Cities regarding the
Project, whether written or oral. No modifications to this Agreement shall be in effect
unless they are reduced to writing and are signed by both Cities.
DocuSign Envelope ID: A6B7BB6A-2266-4AB1-BC62-B622FFF785F4
6.3
5
15. No Third Party Rights. This Agreement is solely for the benefit of the Cities. This
Agreement shall not create or establish any rights in or for the benefit of any third
party.
16. Applicable Law. This Agreement shall be interpreted under the laws of Minnesota.
17. Compliance. Each City shall comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws,
rules, regulations, and ordinances, and shall obtain such permits and permissions as
may be required, in carrying out their respective duties under this Agreement.
18. Discrimination. The provisions of Minnesota Statutes, section 181.59 and of any
applicable local ordinance relating to civil rights and discrimination shall be considered
a part of this Agreement as though fully set forth herein.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be
executed by their respective duly authorized officers as of the day and year first above
written.
CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY
By: ____________________________
Shepard M. Harris
Its: Mayor
By: ____________________________
Timothy J. Cruikshank
Its: Manager
CITY OF CRYSTAL
By: ____________________________
Jim Adams
Its: Mayor
By: ____________________________
Anne Norris
Its: Manager
DocuSign Envelope ID: A6B7BB6A-2266-4AB1-BC62-B622FFF785F4
6.3
6
EXHIBIT A
Pre Bid Project Construction Cost Estimate
(attached hereto)
DocuSign Envelope ID: A6B7BB6A-2266-4AB1-BC62-B622FFF785F4
6.3
CITY OF CRYSTAL 2021 MILL AND OVERLAY 11/19/2020 LOCAL
ENGINEERS ESTIMATE/COST SPLITS
CRYSTAL PROJECT NO. 2021-02
S.A.P. 116-332-003, S.A.P. 116-329-003 and S.A.P. 116-331-004
Item No.Item Unit Est. QuantityEst. Unit
Price Total Price Est. Quantity Total Price Est. Quantity Total Price Est. Quantity Total Price Est. Quantity Total Price Est. Quantity Total Price Est. Quantity Total Price Est. Quantity Total Price 2021.501 Mobilization LS 1 $37,500.00 $37,500.00 0.09 $3,375.00 0.03 $1,200.00 0.04 $1,500.00 0.01 $375.00 $0.00 0.01 $375.00 0.82 $30,675.00
2104.503 Remove Concrete Curb & Gutter LF 4100 $8.50 $34,850.00 370 $3,145.00 65 $552.50 170 $1,445.00 45 $382.50 $0.00 25 $212.50 3425 $29,112.50
2104.503 Sawing Concrete Pavement LF 450 $5.00 $2,250.00 75 $375.00 35 $175.00 20 $100.00 5 $25.00 $0.00 5 $25.00 310 $1,550.00
2104.503 Sawing Bituminous Pavement LF 300 $2.50 $750.00 20 $50.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 280 $700.00
2104.504 Remove Bituminous Pavement SY 2050 $5.25 $10,762.50 170 $892.50 25 $131.25 70 $367.50 20 $105.00 $0.00 11 $57.75 1754 $9,208.50
2104.504
Remove and Replace Concrete Driveway
Pavement (6") - High Early SY 20 $90.00 $1,800.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 20 $1,800.00
2104.504
Remove (7") Concrete Valley Gutter Pavement
With Reinforcement SY 50 $16.00 $800.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 50 $800.00
2104.504
Remove and Replace Concrete Valley Gutter
Pavement (7") With Reinforcement -
High Early SY 190 $115.00 $21,850.00
32
$3,680.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 158 $18,170.00
2104.518 Remove Concrete Sidewalk SF 5050 $1.70 $8,585.00 1330 $2,261.00 350 $595.00 860 $1,462.00 100 $170.00 $0.00 60 $102.00 2350 $3,995.00
2105.507 Common Excavation (EV) (P) CY 275 $39.00 $10,725.00 60 $2,340.00 10 $390.00 28 $1,092.00 6 $234.00 $0.00 6 $234.00 165 $6,435.00
2123.610 Street Sweeper (With Pickup Broom) HR 40 $175.00 $7,000.00 2 $350.00 2 $350.00 2 $350.00 1 $0.00 1 $175.00 32 $5,600.00
2211.509 Aggregate Base, Class 5 TON 560 $26.70 $14,952.00 70 $1,869.00 8 $213.60 35 $934.50 3 $80.10 $0.00 3 $80.10 441 $11,774.70
2231.603 Crack Repair LF 240 $12.00 $2,880.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 240 $2,880.00
2231.604 Bituminous Pavement Breakup Repair SY 170 $65.00 $11,050.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 170 $11,050.00
2232.504 Mill Bituminous Pavement ( 1 1/2") SY 75700 $1.25 $94,625.00 5325 $6,656.25 2900 $3,625.00 2670 $3,337.50 850 $1,062.50 390 $487.50 940 $1,175.00 62625 $78,281.25
2301.502
Drill and Grout/Wet Cast Reinforcement/Dowel
Bar (Epoxy Coated)EA 190 $19.00 $3,610.00
46 $874.00 10 $190.00 10 $190.00 6 $114.00 $0.00 6 $114.00 112 $2,128.00
2357.506 Bituminous Material for Tack Coat GAL 4550 $2.75 $12,512.50 320 $880.00 175 $481.25 160 $440.00 55 $151.25 25 $68.75 60 $165.00 3755 $10,326.25
2360.504
Type SP 9.5 Wearing Course Mixture (2,C) 2.5"
Thick (Driveway) SY 170 $35.00 $5,950.00
10 $350.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 160 $5,600.00
2360.509 Type SP 12.5 Wearing Course Mixture (2,C) TON 8000 $70.00 $560,000.00 550 $38,500.00 300 $21,000.00 280 $19,600.00 90 $6,300.00 40 $2,800.00 100 $7,000.00 6640 $464,800.00
2360.509 Type SP 19 Non Wearing Course Mixture (2,B) TON 310 $115.00 $35,650.00 22 $2,530.00 4 $460.00 10 $1,150.00 3 $345.00 $0.00 2 $230.00 269 $30,935.00
2506.502 Adjust Frame and Ring Casting (Catch Basin) EA 35 $610.00 $21,350.00 $0.00 1 $610.00 2 $1,220.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 32 $19,520.00
2506.502 Adjust Frame and Ring Casting (Manhole) EA 15 $790.00 $11,850.00 1 $790.00 1 $790.00 1 $790.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 12 $9,480.00
2506.502 Adjust Misc. Casting - Riser Adjustment EA 60 $29.50 $1,770.00 4 $118.00 4 $118.00 4 $118.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 48 $1,416.00
2521.518 4-inch Concrete Walk SF 3100 $8.00 $24,800.00 880 $7,040.00 266 $2,128.00 695 $5,560.00 58 $464.00 $0.00 18 $144.00 1183 $9,464.00
2521.518 6-inch Concrete Pedestrian Ramp SF 1950 $13.20 $25,740.00 450 $5,940.00 84 $1,108.80 165 $2,178.00 42 $554.40 $0.00 42 $554.40 1167 $15,404.40
2531.503 Concrete Curb and Gutter, Design B618 (< 5') LF 250 $35.00 $8,750.00 5 $175.00 $0.00 $0.00 5 $175.00 $0.00 $0.00 240 $8,400.00
2531.503 Concrete Curb and Gutter, Design B618 (>5') LF 3050 $26.50 $80,825.00 305 $8,082.50 20 $530.00 40 $1,060.00 40 $1,060.00 $0.00 28 $742.00 2617 $69,350.50
2531.503 Concrete Curb and Gutter, Design B624 LF 825 $35.00 $28,875.00 60 $2,100.00 45 $1,575.00 130 $4,550.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 590 $20,650.00
2531.604
7-inch Concrete Valley Gutter Pavement with
Reinforcement - High Early SY 32 $98.00 $3,136.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 32 $3,136.00
2531.618 Truncated Domes (2x2)SF 544 $62.00 $33,728.00 144 $8,928.00 24 $1,488.00 48 $2,976.00 12 $744.00 $0.00 12 $744.00 304 $18,848.00
2563.601 Traffic Control LS 1 $27,500.00 $27,500.00 0.09 $2,475.00 0.03 $825.00 0.04 $1,100.00 0.01 $275.00 $0.00 0.01 $275.00 0.82 $22,550.00
2573.502 Strom Drain Inlet Protection EA 100 $155.00 $15,500.00 8 $1,240.00 8 $1,240.00 8 $1,240.00 4 $620.00 $0.00 4 $620.00 68 $10,540.00
2574.507 Boulevard Topsoil Borrow (Mn.DOT 3877.2F) CY 360 $49.50 $17,820.00 20 $990.00 4 $198.00 10 $495.00 2 $99.00 $0.00 2 $99.00 322 $15,939.00
2575.604 Hydroseeding (MnDOT 25-151)SY 2000 $3.50 $7,000.00 125 $437.50 20 $70.00 60 $210.00 10 $35.00 $0.00 10 $35.00 1775 $6,212.50
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST $1,186,746.00 $106,443.75 $40,044.40 $53,465.50 $13,370.75 $3,356.25 $13,158.75 $956,731.60
10% CONTINGENCY $118,674.60 $10,644.38 $4,004.44 $5,346.55 $1,337.08 $335.63 $1,315.88 $95,673.16
TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $1,305,420.60 $117,088.13 $44,048.84 $58,812.05 $14,707.83 $3,691.88 $14,474.63 $1,052,404.76
MSA
GOLDEN VALLEYCRYSTAL
Adair Avenue
CRYSTAL CRYSTAL
Welcome Avenue
ROBBINDALE
Douglas-Yates 36th - 38th
38th Avenue
NEW HOPE
SAP 116-332-003
36th - 38th
SAP 116-331-004
CRYSTAL
SAP 116-329-003
34th Avenue 38th Avenue
Welcome-38thNoble-Kyle
Vera Cruz Avenue
Louisiana-City Limits
DocuSign Envelope ID: A6B7BB6A-2266-4AB1-BC62-B622FFF785F4
6.3
G:\Projects\2021\2021-02 2021 Contract Mill & Overlay\Agreements\Robbinsdale\JPA_for_MO_RB_and_CRY FINAL.docx
2021 –BITUMINOUS STREET RESURFACING PROJECT
CRYSTAL – ROBBINSDALE JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT
THIS JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) is made and entered into
this _____day of ___________, 2021, by and between the City of Crystal, a municipal
corporation under the laws of the State of Minnesota (“Crystal”), and the City of
Robbinsdale, a municipal corporation under the laws of the State of Minnesota
(“Robbinsdale”), collectively referred to as the “Cities” and individually as a “City.”
RECITALS
A. The Cities have been planning on coordinating street maintenance work on Vera Cruz
Avenue North between Welcome Avenue North and 38th Avenue North, which shares
a common boundary between the Cities.
B. Vera Cruz Avenue North is due for bituminous resurfacing.
C. The Cities desire to work jointly to complete the contracted Bituminous Street
Resurfacing project on Vera Cruz Avenue North between Welcome Avenue North and
38th Avenue North (collectively, the “Work” or “Project”).
D. Minnesota Statutes, section 471.59 authorizes two or more governmental units to
enter into agreements to jointly or cooperatively exercise any power common to the
contracting parties or any similar power.
E. The scope of the Work has been negotiated between the Cities and has been
incorporated into the plan set entitled “2021 Bituminous Street Resurfacing” as
prepared by Crystal (the “Scope of Work”).
F. Crystal has developed the plans and specifications for the Work (“Plans and
Specifications”).
G. Crystal prepared a cost estimate for the Project (“Pre Bid Project Cost Estimate”),
attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A. The Pre Bid Project Cost
Estimate includes the estimated construction cost of fourteen thousand, four hundred
seventy-four dollars and sixty-three cents ($14,474.63) for the portion of the Project
located within the corporate limits of Robbinsdale. The administrative costs (as those
terms are defined herein) are in addition to this estimated construction cost and bring
the total Pre Bid Project Cost Estimate to seventeen thousand, three hundred
sixty-nine dollars and 55 cents ($17,369.55).
H. Robbinsdale has reviewed and approved the Scope of Work and agreed to pay the
cost of the Work within the corporate limits of Robbinsdale.
6.3
2
I. Crystal has agreed to pay the cost of the Work within the corporate limits of Crystal
and to administer and supervise the Work in accordance with the Scope of Work and
the Plans and Specifications.
AGREEMENT
In consideration of the mutual undertakings and understandings expressed herein, the
Cities hereby agree as follows:
1. Design and Bidding. The Plans and Specifications, as they may be amended from
time to time, are incorporated into and made part of this Agreement. Crystal is
responsible for advertising for bids for the Project, receiving and opening bids
pursuant to said advertisement and entering into one or more contracts with the
successful bidder (“Contractor”) at the unit prices specified in the successful bid, all
according to the applicable procedures under Minnesota law. The contract (the
“Contract”) shall include the Plans and Specifications and reflect the Scope of Work.
Crystal shall require the Contractor to name Robbinsdale as an additional insured on
its commercial general liability insurance policy.
2. Project Administration. Crystal shall administer all aspects of the Project and shall
inspect all completed Work. The Robbinsdale City Engineer shall cooperate with the
Crystal City Engineer and the Crystal City Engineer’s staff upon request to aid in the
administration of the Project, but shall have no responsibility for the supervision of
any of the Work.
3. Additional Work. Crystal may, in its sole discretion, make changes to the Scope of
Work so long as all changes are reasonably necessary to complete the Work and
are conceptually consistent with the original Scope of Work. Crystal may carry out
the changes authorized by this paragraph by entering into change orders or
supplemental agreements with the Contractor for the performance of any and all
additional or new work it deems necessary, advantageous, or desirable. If a
proposed change exceeds the original Scope of Work jointly contemplated by the
Cities, Crystal shall not make the change unless it is first approved by the
Robbinsdale City Engineer.
4. Construction Easements. Robbinsdale shall grant Crystal a temporary license for
construction, at no cost to Crystal, over those lands owned by Robbinsdale that are
a part of the right-of-way required for the completion of the Work.
J. Apportionment of Cost. The total cost of the Work shall be apportioned between
the parties as follows:
a. Each City shall pay the quantity price of items attributable to the portion of
the Work occurring within its own municipal boundaries (the “Quantity
Price”). The Quantity Price shall be determined based on the unit process
set forth in the Contract with the Contractor and the final quantities as
measured by the Crystal City Engineer. The Cities understand and agree
6.3
3
that the Crystal City Engineer’s Pre Bid Project Cost Estimate is only an
estimate and the Quantity Price may be more or less that the figures shown
in the Pre Bid Project Cost Estimate.
b. In addition to the Quantity Price, Robbinsdale shall pay to Crystal an amount
equal to 20% of its share of the Quantity Price to cover its share of the legal,
engineering, and City staff time (the “Administrative Costs”) incurred by
Crystal for the Project.
5. Payment. Upon acceptance of the successful bid, Crystal shall provide
Robbinsdale an estimated construction cost based upon the contract prices and
estimated quantities in the Contractor’s bid, the Administrative Costs, and all other
costs required to complete the Work (collectively, the “Post Bid Estimated Cost”).
Within 60 days after receipt of the Post Bid Estimated Cost, Robbinsdale shall
deposit with the Crystal Director of Finance 90% of Robbinsdale’s share of the Post
Bid Estimated Cost. All remaining amounts due from Robbinsdale, including any
amounts resulting from change orders or other changes or additions to the Work
shall be paid to Crystal within 60 days of final completion of the Work. Upon
completion of the Work, Crystal shall submit to Robbinsdale a copy of the Crystal
City Engineer’s Quantity Price report, which shall show each City’s final share of the
Quantity Price, and the amount of Administrative Costs owed by Robbinsdale. Upon
payment by Crystal of the final amount due to the Contractor, any amount payed by
Robbinsdale above its agreed upon share of the Quantity Price and Administrative
Costs shall be returned to Robbinsdale.
6. Record Drawings. Crystal shall provide record drawings to Robbinsdale within 90
days of Crystal’s final payment to the Contractor. All records kept by either City with
respect to this Agreement shall be subject to examination by the representatives of
the other City and the public in accordance with the Minnesota Government Data
Practices Act.
7. Traffic Control. If detouring of traffic is necessary during the Work, the detour
routes shall be mutually agreed upon by the Cities. Crystal shall require the
Contractor to furnish, install, and maintain any guide signs, regulatory signs, and
pavement markings that may be needed. Crystal shall not be responsible for any
damage caused by increased traffic on any municipal streets located in Robbinsdale
that arise out of or relate to the Work.
8. Cooperative Activity. To the fullest extent permitted by law, all activities by the
Cities under this Agreement are intended to be and shall be construed as a
“cooperative activity,” and it is the intent of the Cities that they shall be deemed a
“single governmental unit” for the purposes of determining total liability, as set forth
in Minnesota Statutes, section 471.59, subd. 1a. Nothing in this Agreement is
intended to alter, or shall be interpreted as altering, the treatment of the Cities as a
single governmental unit. For purposes of Minnesota Statutes, section 471.59,
subdivision 1a, each City expressly declines responsibility for the acts or omissions
of the other City.
6.3
4
9. Insurance & Indemnity. The Cities shall carry policies of liability insurance in at
least the amounts specified as the extent of their individual liability under Minnesota
Statutes, section 466.04, as amended. Nothing herein shall be deemed to waive
any statutory limits of liability granted to the Cities. Each City agrees to defend,
indemnify and hold harmless (including reasonable attorney’s fees) the other City,
their elected officials, officers, agents and employees from any liability, claims,
demands, damages, personal injury, costs, judgments or expenses arising from any
act or omission of the indemnifying City relating to the Project. Neither City shall be
required to pay to the other City any amount as indemnification under this
Agreement, whether arising pursuant to this Agreement, expressly, by operation of
law or otherwise, in excess of the limits of liability applicable to the indemnifying City
under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 466, or in the event that Minnesota Statutes,
Chapter 466 does not apply, the maximum amount of insurance coverage available
to the indemnifying City. In those instances in which a City is directly liable for
damages as well as for indemnification to the other City, the combined liability of the
indemnifying City shall not exceed the limits of liability under Minnesota Statutes,
Chapter 466 or, in the event that Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 466 does not apply,
the maximum amount of insurance coverage available to the indemnifying City.
10. Employees; Worker’s Compensation. Any and all employees of each City and all
other persons engaged by that City in the performance of the Work or any other work
or services required or contemplated by this Agreement shall not be considered
employees of the other City. Any and all claims that might arise under the Worker’s
Compensation Act or the Unemployment Compensation Act of the State of Minnesota
on behalf of said employees while so engaged, and any and all claims made by any
third parties as a consequence of any act or omission on the part of said employees
while so engaged, shall in no way be the obligation or responsibility of the other City.
11. Audit. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 16C.05, subdivision 5, any books,
records, documents, and accounting procedures and practices of each City relevant
to the Agreement are subject to examination by the other City and either the
Legislative Auditor or the State Auditor as appropriate. The Cities agree to maintain
these records for a period of at least six years from completion of the Project.
12. Term. This Agreement shall commence as of the date indicated above and shall
continue until the Project is completed and all required payments have been made.
The indemnification and audit obligations shall survive the termination of this
Agreement.
13. Entire Agreement. This document, including the recitals, the exhibits, and any
documents incorporated by reference, shall constitute the entire agreement between
the Cities regarding construction of the Project. This Agreement supersedes all prior
negotiations, representations, or agreements between the Cities regarding the
Project, whether written or oral. No modifications to this Agreement shall be in effect
unless they are reduced to writing and are signed by both Cities.
6.3
5
14. No Third Party Rights. This Agreement is solely for the benefit of the Cities. This
Agreement shall not create or establish any rights in or for the benefit of any third
party.
15. Applicable Law. This Agreement shall be interpreted under the laws of Minnesota.
16. Compliance. Each City shall comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws,
rules, regulations, and ordinances, and shall obtain such permits and permissions as
may be required, in carrying out their respective duties under this Agreement.
17. Discrimination. The provisions of Minnesota Statutes, section 181.59 and of any
applicable local ordinance relating to civil rights and discrimination shall be considered
a part of this Agreement as though fully set forth herein.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be
executed by their respective duly authorized officers as of the day and year first above
written.
CITY OF ROBBINSDALE
By: ____________________________
William Blonigan
Its: Mayor
By: ____________________________
Marcia Glick
Its: Manager
CITY OF CRYSTAL
By: ____________________________
Jim Adams
Its: Mayor
By: ____________________________
Anne Norris
Its: Manager
6.3
6
EXHIBIT A
Pre Bid Project Construction Cost Estimate
(attached hereto)
6.3
6.3
RESOLUTION NO. 2021- ___
AWARD CONTRACT FOR
2021 STREET RESURFACING PROJECT
WHEREAS, the Crystal City Council approved the 2021 Street Resurfacing plans
and specifications on January 19, 2021; and
WHEREAS, the Crystal City Council authorized solicitation of public bids on
January 19, 2021; and
WHEREAS, adequate funds are available in the Street Maintenance Fund and
have been budgeted by the Council; and
WHEREAS, nine bids were received and publicly opened on March 9, 2021; and
WHEREAS, GMH Asphalt Corporation was the lowest qualified bidder.
WHEREAS, GMH Asphalt Corporation has completed the similar type of work
for neighboring Cities previously.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Crystal City Council hereby
awards the contract for 2021 Street Resurfacing Project to GMH Asphalt Corporation in
the amount of $982,667.70.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor and City Manager are hereby
authorized to sign said contract.
Adopted by the Crystal City Council this 16th day of March, 2021.
Jim Adams, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________________
Christina Serres, City Clerk
6.3
RESOLUTION NO. 2021- _____
AUTHORIZING THE JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF NEW HOPE
FOR 2021 STREET RESURFACING PROJECT
WHEREAS, the Crystal City Council is committed to providing and maintaining quality
infrastructure that is essential for everyday residential, commercial, industrial, and recreational activities
in the City; and
WHEREAS, the City of Crystal has awarded a construction contract for the 2021 Street
Resurfacing Project; and
WHEREAS, a portion of the project area is in the City of New Hope; and
WHEREAS, the City of Crystal is acting as lead agency for the project; and
WHEREAS, the City of New Hope as agreed to pay for their portion of work;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Crystal City Council hereby authorizes the
joint powers agreement with the City of New Hope for 2021 Street Resurfacing City Project.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor and/or City Manager are authorized to sign this
agreement.
Adopted by the Crystal City Council this 16th day of March 2021.
Jim Adams, Mayor
ATTEST:
Christina Serres, City Clerk
6.3
RESOLUTION NO. 2021- _____
AUTHORIZING THE JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF GOLDEN
VALLEY FOR 2021 STREET RESURFACING PROJECT
WHEREAS, the Crystal City Council is committed to providing and maintaining quality
infrastructure that is essential for everyday residential, commercial, industrial, and recreational activities
in the City; and
WHEREAS, the City of Crystal has awarded a construction contract for the 2021 Street
Resurfacing Project; and
WHEREAS, a portion of the project area is in the City of Golden Valley; and
WHEREAS, the City of Crystal is acting as lead agency for the project; and
WHEREAS, the City of Golden Valley as agreed to pay for their portion of work;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Crystal City Council hereby authorizes the
joint powers agreement with the City of Golden Valley for 2021 Street Resurfacing City Project.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor and/or City Manager are authorized to sign this
agreement.
Adopted by the Crystal City Council this 16th day of March 2021.
Jim Adams, Mayor
ATTEST:
Christina Serres, City Clerk
6.3
RESOLUTION NO. 2021- _____
AUTHORIZING THE JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF ROBBINSDALE
FOR 2021 STREET RESURFACING PROJECT
WHEREAS, the Crystal City Council is committed to providing and maintaining quality
infrastructure that is essential for everyday residential, commercial, industrial, and recreational activities
in the City; and
WHEREAS, the City of Crystal has awarded a construction contract for the 2021 Street
Resurfacing Project; and
WHEREAS, a portion of the project area is in the City of Robbinsdale; and
WHEREAS, the City of Crystal is acting as lead agency for the project; and
WHEREAS, the City of Robbinsdale as agreed to pay for their portion of work;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Crystal City Council hereby authorizes the
joint powers agreement with the City of Robbinsdale for 2021 Street Resurfacing City Project.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor and/or City Manager are authorized to sign this
agreement.
Adopted by the Crystal City Council this 16th day of March 2021.
Jim Adams, Mayor
ATTEST:
Christina Serres, City Clerk
6.3
6.4
6.4
6.4
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: March 11, 2021
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Anne Norris, City Manager
Kimberly Therres, Assistant City Manager/Human Resources Manager
RE: 2021 Wages and Benefits for Non-represented Employees
PURPOSE
To request City Council approval of the 2021 wages and city contributions for health insurance
for all non-represented employees.
BACKGROUND
Wages
The Labor Agreement for Local #49 (Public Works) calls for a wage increase of 2% in 2021.
The Local #56 (Police Supervisors) is being negotiated and the Local #44 (Police Officers)
contract will be going to arbitration in April. We are recommending a 2% increase for non-
represented employees in the City of Crystal. The percentage increase is consistent internally,
with wage settlements of other metro are cities and with council direction.
Health Insurance: (Employer Contribution)
Likewise, we are recommending the following contributions for health insurance:
2021 (Employer Contribution):
2020
Employer
Contribution
Towards
Premium
2021
Monthly
Premium
$30 Copay
2021
Monthly Premium
$30 Copay w/
90/10 % Coins.
2021
Monthly Premium
HDHP w/HSA
2021
Employer
Contribution
Towards Premium
Employee Single $897.50 1,157.00 1,101.00 750.50 $961.50
Employee Child(ren) $1,355.00 2,314.00 2,201.00 1,500.50 $1,483.00
Employee + Spouse $1,418.00 2,429.50 2,311.50 1,575.50 $1,552.00
Family $1,766.00 3,008.00 2,861.50 1,950.50 $1,932.00
The City has a long-standing practice of providing the same health insurance benefit package to all its
employees.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
The 2021 adopted Budget includes sufficient funds for the proposed benefit settlement.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Approval of the 2021 proposed wage and city contribution for health insurance increase for all non-
represented employees.
6.6