2021.03.16 Work Session 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
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
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
Attachment 2
Hennepin County Sherriff Water Patrol permit requirements
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:
Attachment 3
Resident responses to joint-City letter
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