## City of Blaine ## City Council Workshop May 18, 2026 | 5:30 PM ## Blaine City Hall ## 10801 Town Square Drive NE ## Blaine, MN 55449 ## AGENDA ## NOTICE OF WORKSHOP MEETING In accordance with the provisions of Section 3.01 of the Blaine City Charter, a Council Workshop meeting is scheduled for the following purpose: 1. Call to Order ## 2. Roll Call ## 3. New Business 3.1. 2026-270 Closed Session Pursuant to MN Statute 13D.03 Subd. (1)(b) - Labor ## Negotiations Update (10 Minutes) ## Sponsors: Scott Johnson, Director of Administrative Services ## 3.2. 2026-272 Speed Humps on Quincy Blvd (30 Minutes) ## Sponsors: Daniel Schluender, Director of Engineering 3.3. 2026-257 Pedestrian Bridge for 105th Redevelopment Project (25 Minutes) ## Sponsors: Sheila Sellman, Community Development Director 3.4. 2026-274 Utility Franchise Fee Funding Utilization & Communication Outline (25 ## Minutes) ## Sponsors: Jason Zimmerman, Finance Director 3.5. 2026-252 Closed Session Pursuant to Minnesota Statute 13D.05, Subd. 3(a) City Manager 6-Month Check-In (Held after the Regular Meeting) ## Sponsors: Scott Johnson, Director of Administrative Services ## 4. Other Business 5. Adjournment Page 1 of 112 ## City of Blaine ## Staff Report ## File Number: 2026-272 ## Agenda Date ## Status May 18, 2026 ## In Control ## File Type ## City Council ## Workshop Item ## New Business - Daniel Schluender, Director of Engineering Agenda Item # 3.2 ## Speed Humps on Quincy Blvd (30 Minutes) ## Background At the project open house meeting held on December 16, 2025, staff received feedback from residents regarding traffic volume and speed concerns on Quincy Boulevard between Territorial Road and 109th Avenue. Residents requested speed humps be installed, as part of the upcoming reconstruction project, along this corridor to help reduce speeds. Staff informed the residents that they would need to petition for the installation of speed humps. Per the City of Blaine Neighborhood Traffic Management Program, any proposed traffic management strategy will not be considered for implementation without the support of 65% of the project neighborhood and 50% of any affected neighborhood. Staff worked with residents to prepare a petition for speed humps which included proposed locations for the speed humps along Quincy Boulevard and a map of affected properties that would be considered as eligible to sign the petition. A petition was received with signatures from residents fronting Quincy Boulevard from Territorial Road to 109th Avenue and 105th Lane from Quincy Boulevard to east cul-de-sac. Petition signatures were provided from 76% of the project neighborhood homes fronting Quincy Boulevard (46 out of 60) and 69% of the affected neighborhood homes fronting 105th Lane (9 out of 13), meeting the requirements set forth in the City of Blaine Neighborhood Traffic Management Program. Staff has reviewed the petition and will adjust the exact locations of the speed humps as necessary to fit within the constraints present on the roadway such as storm sewer catch basins, sewer manholes and driveways. Per the City of Blaine Neighborhood Traffic Management Program, the cost for the installation of speed humps would be split between the project neighborhood (75% of the cost) and the City of Blaine (25% of the cost). A total of six speed humps are proposed along Quincy Boulevard between Territorial Road and 109th Avenue. Staff estimates a construction cost of $5,000 per speed hump, which would be assessed to residents Page 2 of 112 fronting Quincy Boulevard as part of the 2026 Quincy Area Street Reconstruction project per the City of Blaine Neighborhood Traffic Management Program. Costs will be based on actual bid costs and may be higher than estimated. Staff is recommending construction costs associated with the installation of the speed humps be assessed to the benefiting properties on Quincy Boulevard over a period of one year following the completion of the project. A public hearing for the petition was held at the regular meeting on May 4, 2026. The council heard testimony from residents and elected to move this item to a workshop for further discussion. Since the May 4 meeting, the Blaine Police Department has been collecting data on vehicle speeds and will present this information at the workshop. The council will discuss information at the workshop with anticipated action on the petition at the June 1, 2026, regular meeting. ## Staff Recommendation ## Questions for Council ## Attachment List ## 1. 26-04 Speed Hump Petition - Signed ## 2. 26-04 Speed Hump Assessed Parcels Map ## 3. 26-04 Speed Hump Map ## 4. Neighborhood Traffic Management Program Page 3 of 112 Page 4 of 112 Page 5 of 112 Page 6 of 112 Page 7 of 112 Page 8 of 112 Page 9 of 112 Page 10 of 112 Page 11 of 112 Page 12 of 112 Page 13 of 112 ## CITY OF BLAINE ## 2026 QUINCY AREA STREET RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT Page 14 of 112 ## CITY OF BLAINE ## 2026 QUINCY AREA STREET RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT Page 15 of 112 ## Neighborhood Traffic ## Management Program ## City of Blaine, Minnesota September 22, 2014 Prepared by: Page 16 of 112 ## T:\ENGINEERING\LIBRARY\BLAINE NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ## Table of Contents 1 .0 Introduction................................................................................ 2 2.0 Policies..................................................................................... 2 3.0 Traffic Management Background.................................................... 3 4.0 Procedure Summary.................................................................... 3 5.0 Procedural Details....................................................................... 6 6.0 Toolbox of Neighborhood Traffic Management Strategies.................... 13 ## Tables Table 1 – Ranking of Traffic Management Requests .............................. 6 Table 2 – Effectiveness of Management Strategies................................. 8 ## Table 3 – Typical Implementation Costs............................................... 9 Table 4 – Comparison of Annual Costs................................................ 10 ## Toolbox Vehicle Restriction .......................................................................... 13 Turn Restrictions............................................................................. 14 ## One-Way Streets............................................................................. 15 ## Watch Children Signs....................................................................... 16 Stop Sign Implementation.................................................................. 17 All-Way Stop.................................................................................. 18 ## Parking Restrictions......................................................................... 19 Speed Limits.................................................................................. 20 ## Painted Crosswalks......................................................................... 21 ## Increased Enforcement / Speed Watches............................................. 22 ## Variable Speed Display Board............................................................ 23 ## Narrowing Lanes............................................................................. 24 Chokers........................................................................................ 25 ## Mid-Block Narrowing........................................................................ 26 Chicane........................................................................................ 27 Sidewalks...................................................................................... 28 ## Speed Bumps/Humps/Table.............................................................. 29 ## Raised Crosswalk........................................................................... 30 Median Barrier................................................................................ 31 Traffic Circle................................................................................... 32 Street Closure................................................................................. 33 Full Diverter.................................................................................... 34 Partial Diverter................................................................................ 35 Page 17 of 112 Revised 09/22/14 ## O ## RIGINAL PUBLICATION JUNE 2005 ## Blaine Neighborhood Traffic Management Program 1 .0 Introduction Increasing traffic volumes and higher speeds have become important issues throughout the metro area and are having an increasing impact on residential streets in the City of Blaine. The City of Blaine is continually striving to strengthen and protect its neighborhoods by improving the quality of life in residential areas. A goal of the Blaine Transportation Plan is for the transportation system to address community issues and concerns while maintaining and enhancing neighborhoods, providing connectivity, and the sense of community cohesion. Discussion with traffic engineers in cities with established traffic management programs provided insight into the need for a formal process. An established traffic management process: • Allows the city to better respond to residents, • Provides the opportunity for better understanding of the issues, and • Allows consistent application across the community. Therefore, for residents to obtain consideration for any given traffic control measures on either street or larger neighborhood area they are required to follow a process. The process will ensure that neighborhoods with demonstrated traffic issues and community support for traffic management have equal access to the neighborhood traffic process. The Neighborhood Traffic Management Program depends upon citizen involvement and may vary from year to year based upon citizen participation and available funding. 1.1 Purpose This document was developed to guide city staff and inform residents about the processes and p rocedures for implementing traffic management strategies on local residential streets to address traffic concerns such as excessive volumes and vehicle speeds, high volumes of non-local through traffic, and vehicle crashes in neighborhoods. The document includes a summary of the City of Blaine’s Policies for the Traffic Management Program, background on the history of traffic management, the City of Blaine’s process for implementing strategies, and a toolbox of common traffic management measures. 2.0 Policies The following policies are established as part of the Neighborhood Traffic Management ## P rogram for neighborhood streets: - Compatibility with transportation goals in City of Blaine Transportation Plan. - Implementation limited to local streets (no arterials or collectors) as identified in the Blaine Transportation Plan. - Implementation of strategies will be funded by a combination of city funds and neighborhood participation. - Trucks are allowed on all City streets unless otherwise posted (by State law trucks must be allowed on all State-Aided roadways.) - The program intends to take a system-wide approach when addressing a neighborhood traffic problem. For each project, city staff will determine a logical project boundary that will Page 18 of 112 ## CITY OF BLAINE NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISED 09/22/14 ## ORIGINAL PUBLICATION JUNE 2005 2 be necessary for the approval process and will help address the issue of d isplacement/diversion to other local streets. - Implementation strategies will be limited to those local streets where the 85% speed exceeds 5 mph above the posted/statutory speed limit. - Implementation of traffic management strategies will be in accordance with the procedures set forth in this document, and in keeping with sound engineering practices, as well as be within the city's available financial and staff resources. - Implementation of any devices will be consistent with the guidelines in the Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. The basic premise of the MMUTCD is that traffic control devices are solutions to problems. If operational or safety problems do not in fact exist, the installation of sign and/or markings will not solve perceived problems, but they will unnecessarily increase the City’s maintenance costs. - Initial deployments are considered experimental and subject to an interim review by City staff prior to permanent installation. 3.0 Tr ## affic Management Background The United States has used street closures and traffic diverters dating back to the late 1940s and ea rly 1950s, but it was not until the 1970s that Seattle, Washington completed area-wide demonstrations of traffic management strategies. Since then, traffic management has been continually studied and implemented throughout the United States. Strategies include street closures, traffic diverters, speed humps/bumps, signing, increased enforcement and many others, but they all are implemented to accomplish one of the following: − Modify driver behavior (reduce speed) − Modify traffic characteristics (reduce volume) − Improve safety (pedestrian and bicyclists) Traffic management can be simplified as a two step process: (1) identify the nature and extent of traffic-related problems on a given street or area and (2) select and implement the proper strategy for reducing the identified problem. The traffic management strategies discussed in this document are solutions to a narrowly defined set of problems and are not universally applicable or effective at solving all problems. The wrong traffic management strategy used in the wrong application will not improve conditions – it will only increase City costs and may even make conditions worse. Since not all strategies are appropriate for every problem the City has developed a process to identify the appropriate solutions. The process includes identifying the problem, evaluating potential strategies, and implementing appropriate measures while including public participation and governmental approval. This process is summarized in Section 4. The process and strategies included in this document are intended to be used on streets classified as local residential streets to reduce speeds and volumes. (Streets within the City of Blaine are classified based on definitions from the Metropolitan Council defined in Appendix C of the Blaine Transportation Plan. The current Road Classification Map, Figure 4.10 from the Blaine Transportation Plan, identifies street classifications within the City of Blaine – see Appendix D.) By definition arterials and collector roadways are intended to have higher speeds and accommodate higher volumes; therefore it would be against the function of arterials or collectors to implement traffic management strategies. These roadways are intended to operate efficiently with high volumes and speed. When arterials and collectors are operating efficiently they provide the necessary mobility for the traveling public and prevent the need to divert to the residential street network. Page 19 of 112 ## CITY OF BLAINE NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISED 09/22/14 ## ORIGINAL PUBLICATION JUNE 2005 3 ## 4.0 Procedure Summary A flow chart, E xhibit 1, provides a summary of the procedures for implementing a traffic management strategy on a residential street. The process includes the following steps: ## Step 1 - Identify Candidate Streets/Neighborhoods First residents must identify candidate streets for traffic improvement and submit a written request to the City Engineering Department. Any requests for project proposals require a written application with 25% of project neighborhood signing the application. Appendix A provides a sample request form. ## Step 2 - Preliminary Screening and Evaluation The City Engineering Department will review requests and determine whether they can be handled as part of the normal traffic engineering process or police enforcement function of the City or if they qualify for consideration under the Neighborhood Traffic Management Program. ## Step 3 – Data Collection and Traffic Study If it is determined that the request falls under the Neighborhood Traffic Management Program the City will undertake an engineering study of the street(s) or neighborhood including gathering relevant data of the proposed street. ## Step 4 – Develop/Evaluate Traffic Management Strategies Based on the traffic study and input from other departments, the City Engineering Department will make a preliminary determination of the need for traffic management measures and make recommendations as to which measures would be appropriate. ## Step 5 – Conduct Neighborhood Meeting and Petition A neighborhood meeting will be held, or a summary letter will be sent, to present the conclusions of the traffic study and discuss appropriate next steps in the process. At this time a petition will be sent out to determine neighborhood support for the recommended traffic management strategy and to receive input from affected residents. ## Step 6 – Traffic Management Strategy Approval The recommended strategy will not be implemented without the support of 65% of the project neighborhood and 50% of any affected neighborhood. In addition to neighborhood approval, the City Council must also approve the implementation of the traffic management strategy. ## Step 7 - Implement Temporary Measures and Monitor If measures are approved it may be possible to implement first a temporary measure. If a temporary measure is used, it will be monitored for 3 months to determine its effectiveness. ## Step 8 – Approve Permanent Measures Results from the monitoring of the temporary measure will determine if the strategy will be made permanent by approval from the City Council. If the temporary measure is not effective the Engineering Department will revisit the analysis and development of strategies (Steps 3 and 4) or choose to not continue the process. Step 9 – Monitoring Once a traffic management strategy has been implemented the City will continue to conduct periodic monitoring of the site to collect data for future implementation of strategies and to document the effectiveness of existing measures. This program and the associated Toolbox may be amended at any time by the City Council. Appeals – Decisions of staff can be appealed to the City Council. The appeals process will follow established City procedures. Removal – Existing traffic management measures and/or measures installed under the Program m ay be requested to be removed. The request for removal of a project will be processed generally using the same procedures as outline in this program requiring written request and appropriate neighborhood approval. Page 20 of 112 ## CITY OF BLAINE NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISED 09/22/14 ## ORIGINAL PUBLICATION JUNE 2005 5 ## 5.0 Procedural Details ## Step 1 - Identify Candidate Streets/Neighborhoods Residents may identify candidate streets or areas for traffic improvements. Some request may b e handled by phone or verbally from residents to City Staff, which could result in increased police enforcement or placement of the City’s speed display trailer. Any requests for permanent traffic management strategies require a written application with 25% of the project neighborhood signing the application. Appendix A provides a sample petition and request letter. It should be noted that it is the policy of the City that only residential streets are to be considered for implementation of traffic management strategies set forth in this document. Application of these strategies on collector or arterial streets is excluded and not included in this process. Step 2 –Preliminary Screening and Evaluation The City Traffic Engineer will review requests to determine whether or not they should be h andled as part of normal traffic engineering procedures or police enforcement of the City, or if they qualify for consideration under the Neighborhood Traffic Management Program. Some requests may be able to be handled within the current traffic engineering procedures such as planned infrastructure improvements or reconstructions. In addition, common requests for increased traffic enforcement, participation in a neighborhood speed watch program, and placement of the variable speed display trailer are commonly handled by the Police Department and will be forwarded to the appropriate staff. Review of requests will consist of comparing the identified street characteristics with the following initial criteria: • The street in question must be classified as a Local (residential) street in the City of Blaine Transportation Plan (see Figure 4.10 from Blaine Transportation Plan in Appendix D). • The requests must be related to speeding, excessive traffic volumes, crashes, cut-through traffic, truck traffic or other related impacts on a residential street. If it is determined that the request falls under the function of this plan, then Step 3 will be initiated. If not, the request shall be followed up as appropriate by the City Traffic Engineer as part of the Departments normal function, including coordination with Police, Fire, and Public Works Departments as needed. ## Step 3 – Data Collection and Traffic Study If it is determined that the request falls under the guidelines of the management program, the ## C ity Traffic Engineer will conduct an engineering study of the street(s) or neighborhood. The study will include the following actions: ## Define Project Area / Impacted Area The definition of the project area and impacted areas sets up the project boundaries and will be u sed to determine neighborhood support during the petition process and for the assessment process if a strategy is implemented. Page 21 of 112 ## CITY OF BLAINE NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISED 09/22/14 ## ORIGINAL PUBLICATION JUNE 2005 6 ## Data Collection Traffic data collection will include (as appropriate based on identified problem) one or more of t he following: - Traffic volume counts (24 hour counts in 15 minute increments, truck volume counts) - Pedestrian counts - Radar or machine-based speed surveys (85 th percentile, median, average, 10 mile per hour p ace) - Cut-through traffic estimates (based on license plate surveys, or other video techniques) - Crash information (three years recommended) - Roadway Geometry (sight distance, lane configuration, etc.) - Land Use Mix (density of residential and presence of sidewalks, pedestrian generators such as schools, parks, bus routes, unique features) ## E valuation of Traffic Data From the data collected the traffic problems associated with the neighborhood street can be documented. The documentation will be valuable in the development of possible traffic management strategies. From the data collected the City will also be able to rank the potential projects for further study. Table 1 provides the ranking criteria. This ranking will be beneficial if the number of request submitted is beyond the fiscal and staffing ability of the city. By ranking requests based on the criteria set forth in Table 1, the city can prioritize the projects to focus funding accordingly. ## TABLE 1 ## Ranking of Traffic Management Requests 85 th Percentile speeds 5 mph over posted speed limit Yes – continue No – no traffic management strategy implemented Public school yard, playlot, playground development adjacent to benefited area (0 to 200 points) None +0 All of 1 side +100 All of 2 sides +200 Residential development adjacent to benefited area (0 to 100 points) None +0 All of 1 side +50 All of 2 sides +100 Number of reported correctable crashes based on last 5 years of available data (0 to 200 points) 20 per crash; maximum of 200 points Sidewalk adjacent to project area (0 to 100 points) None +100 All of 1 side +50 All of 2 sides +0 Percent of potential assessment properties supporting project by petition (180 to 300 points) 3 points per percent; maximum 300 points Average residential density adjacent to project area (0 to 50 points) 0 dwelling units per 100 lin. ft. = 0 points 5+ dwellings units per adjacent 100 lin. ft. = 50 points ## Step 4 - Develop/Evaluate Traffic Management Strategies Using the data collected during the development of the traffic study and applying recognized t raffic engineering standards, the City Engineering Department will recommend the use of one or more neighborhood traffic management strategies. A “toolbox” of strategies is included in Section 6.0 of this plan. While it is not inclusive of all strategies, it provides a summary of the most applied and successful measures as documented in the research summarized in Appendix Page 22 of 112 ## CITY OF BLAINE NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISED 09/22/14 ## ORIGINAL PUBLICATION JUNE 2005 7 B. T he toolbox includes a brief description of the strategy, its effects on volume, speed, noise, and safety, a discussion of its advantages and disadvantages and design considerations. The following strategies are included in the toolbox: ## Traffic Control Devices R oadway Adjustments ## - Vehicle Restrictions - Narrowing Lanes ## - Turn Restrictions - Chokers ## - One-Way Streets - Mid-Block Narrowing ## - Watch Children Signs - Chicane ## - Stop Sign Implementation ## Vertical Elements ## - All-Way Stop Sign Implementation - Speed Humps/Bumps/Tables ## - Parking Restrictions - Raised Crosswalk ## - Pavement Markings - Median Barrier ## - Speed Limits - Traffic Circle ## Enforcement ## - Street Closure ## - Increased Enforcement - Full / Diagonal Diverter ## - Variable Speed Display Board - Partial Diverter ## Effectiveness of Strategies As stated earlier, traffic management strategies are not universally applicable or effective at s olving all problems. The Institute of Transportation Engineers has collected data on the effectiveness of traffic management strategies implemented throughout the United States. Table 2 provides a summary of this data and can be useful in the selection of appropriate traffic management strategy to implement. Along with the information provided in Table 2 on effectiveness, the following are some other effectiveness considerations: − Traffic control devices, by themselves, are almost never effective at reducing traffic volumes or vehicle speeds. − Enforcement can be effective if applied regularly and over an extended period of time. − In most cases, enforcement will result in local residents being ticketed. − Roadway adjustments (narrowing) have proven to be moderately effective but at high implementation costs. − Vertical elements (primarily speed humps/bumps) have proven to be moderately effective but neighborhood acceptance has been mixed. − The combination of enforcement plus other strategies has proven to be the most effective approach. Page 23 of 112 ## CITY OF BLAINE NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISED 09/22/14 ## ORIGINAL PUBLICATION JUNE 2005 8 ## TABLE 2 ## Effectiveness of Management Strategies Volume Reductions Speed Reduction Safety Improvement Increase in Air/Noise Pollution Emergency Access Issues Access Restriction Increased Maintenance Efforts Cost ## Traffic Control Devices ## Vehicle Restriction Poss Poss Poss No Poss Yes No Low ## Turn Restrictions Yes Poss Poss No No Yes No Low ## One-Way Streets Poss No Poss No Poss No Poss Low Watch Children Signs No No No No No No No Low Stop Sign Implementation No No No Yes Yes No No Low ## All-Way Stop No No Poss Yes No No No Low ## Parking Restrictions No No Poss No No No No Low ## Speed Limits No No No No No No No Low ## Painted Crosswalks No No No No No No No Low ## Enforcement Increased Enforcement / Speed Watches No Yes Poss No No No No Mid Variable Speed Display Board No Yes Poss No No No No Low ## Roadway Adjustments ## Narrowing Lanes No Poss Poss No No No No Mid ## Chokers No Poss Yes No Poss No No High ## Mid-Block Narrowing No Poss Poss No No No No Mid ## Chicane Poss Poss No No No No Yes High ## Sidewalks No No Poss No No No Poss Mid ## Vertical Elements ## Speed Bumps/Humps/Table Poss Yes Poss Poss Poss No Poss Mid ## Raised Crosswalk ## Poss Yes Poss Poss Poss No Poss Mid ## Median Barrier ## Yes Poss Poss ## No ## Yes Yes Poss High ## Traffic Circle ## No Poss Poss No Poss No Yes High ## Street Closure ## Yes Poss Poss No Yes Yes Poss High ## Full Diverter ## Poss Poss Poss No Yes Yes Poss High ## Partial Diverter ## Poss Poss Poss No No Yes Poss High Page 24 of 112 ## CITY OF BLAINE NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISED 09/22/14 ## ORIGINAL PUBLICATION JUNE 2005 9 ## Cost Estimate and Funding For the purpose of discussions with affected residents, a cost estimate will be developed for the r ecommended strategy. It is the policy of the City of Blaine that the following cost sharing will occur with an approved traffic management strategy: • City of Blaine will pay the cost of administrative work, traffic study and data collection • City of Blaine pays 25% of the construction and installation costs of major strategies while the neighborhood affected will pay 75% of the cost (minor items such as installation of a limited number of signs or painting of crosswalks and other pavement markings would be assumed completely by the City) • For those local streets that carry in excess of 2,000 vehicles per day, the City of Blaine will pay 75% of the construction and installation costs of major strategies while the neighborhood affected will pay 25% of the cost. Costs associated with implementing traffic management strategies vary significantly from just over $250 for installing a speed limit sign to $10,000 or more for a landscaped median construction. Table 3 provides a summary of typical implementation costs for traffic management strategies. ## TABLE 3 ## Typical Implementation Costs ## Type of Implementation U ## nit Unit Cost ## Warning Signs Per sign $250 ## Pavement Markings ## - Roadway Striping ## - Crosswalk Striping Per linear foot Per crosswalk $1.00 $150 ## Textured Pavement Per crosswalk $1,500 ## Street Lighting Per fixture $7,500 ## Raised Crosswalk Per crosswalk $4,000 ## Speed Humps Per hump $5,000 ## Mid-Block Choker Per choker $5,000 ## Intersection Choker Per approach $5,000 ## Mid-Bock Speed Table Per table $7,500 ## Intersection Speed Table Per intersection $25,000 ## Traffic Circle Per intersection $15,000 ## Center Island Per approach $15,000 Half Closures Per intersection $40k to $60k ## Full Closures Per intersection $120,000 Source: City of Minneapolis & ITE, Traffic Calming – State of the Practice Page 25 of 112 ## CITY OF BLAINE NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISED 09/22/14 ## ORIGINAL PUBLICATION JUNE 2005 10 While the city will cost share only the implementation costs, the consideration of future maintenance costs are also a factor for determining the most appropriate strategy. While the implementation of a traffic sign may appear to be the least expensive option at only $250, the additional $100 per year of annual maintenance needs to be considered. A comparison of the annual costs for the most common strategies for speed reduction, increased enforcement and speed humps, is included in Table 4. ## TABLE 4 ## Comparison of Annual Costs ## Measure I ## nitial Cost Annual Cost Annual Revenues Photo-radar (ownership option) $85,000 $145,000 $40,000 Photo-radar (lease option) $214,000 $40,000 Targeted Police Enforcement $70,000 $194,000 $40,000 Speed Humps $300,000 $30,000 $0 ## Source: ITE, Traffic Calming – State of Practice ## Step 5 – Conduct Neighborhood Meeting and Petition After the completion of the traffic study and the development and evaluation of potential strategies, the city will wither hold a Neighborhood Meeting or distribute a letter to inform the community on the process and results of the traffic study and provide information on the recommended strategies. Based on the engineering study and input from residents, the city will make a preliminary determination and recommendation for the need of traffic management strategies. ## Step 6 – Traffic Management Strategy Approval Once the traffic study results, management strategies, and cost estimates have been provided to a ffected neighborhood residents, a survey/petition will be circulated to ascertain whether or not the neighborhood approves of the recommended strategy and are willing to cover the potential costs of implementation. The recommended strategy will not be implemented without the support of 65% of the project neighborhood and 50% of any affected neighborhood. Once approval is obtained from the neighborhood the strategy will be presented to the City Council for approval. ## Step 7 - Implement Temporary Strategy and Monitor In most cases, the strategy will be implemented with temporary materials and remain in place f or approximately three to six months depending on the type of improvement. The strategy will be evaluated to determine if it addresses the identified problems and is consistent with the Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan goals. During the test period residents may provide comments to the City Engineering Department regarding the improvement. At any time during this test phase appeals of the decision for installing the strategy can be submitted and forwarded to appropriate staff. Page 26 of 112 ## CITY OF BLAINE NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISED 09/22/14 ## ORIGINAL PUBLICATION JUNE 2005 11 ## Step 8 – Approve Permanent Strategy If it is determined that the temporary strategy does not achieve the intended goals of reducing speeds, cut through traffic or other identified problems, the City Engineering Department will review other potential measures and recommend the elimination of all strategies or test the installation of a different strategy. Effective temporary strategies will be brought to the council for approval for the installation of a permanent form of the approved traffic management strategy. ## Step 9 – Monitoring and Future Actions The City will conduct periodic monitoring of the fully installed traffic management strategy to d etermine if the project continues to provide effective improvement to the neighborhood. The monitoring will be conducted at the discretion of the City based on available funding, staffing levels, and resident comments. If monitoring shows that the implemented strategy fails to achieve the intended goals it may be removed. ## Legal Considerations From the local government perspective, the legal issues surrounding traffic management s trategies fall into three categories: statutory authority, constitutionality, and tort liability. First, the local government must have legal authority to implement traffic management strategies on a given roadway (statutory authority). Second, the local government must respect the constitutional rights of affected landowners and travelers on the roadways (constitutionality). And finally, the local government must take steps to minimize the risk to travelers from the installation of traffic management strategies (tort liability). Through documentation of the entire process, including the collection and evaluation of traffic data, the decision process, and interaction with the public, the Blaine Traffic Management Program can minimize potential legal difficulties. Page 27 of 112 ## CITY OF BLAINE NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISED 09/22/14 ## ORIGINAL PUBLICATION JUNE 2005 12 ## 6.0 Toolbox of Neighborhood Traffic Management Strategies The following Toolbox provides information on a variety of traffic management strategies. Each strategy includes information on its purpose, its effectiveness for solving different types of traffic problems, and a summary of advantages and disadvantages for implementation. To make the toolbox understandable and usable it has been organized into types of strategy as follows: Traffic Control Devices – the use of common traffic control devices, such as signing and p avement markings, to solve neighborhood traffic problems. Included in this category are: − Vehicle restrictions − Turn restrictions − One-Way streets ## − Watch for Children Signs ## − Stop Sign Implementation ## − All-Way Stop Sign Implementation ## − Parking Restrictions ## − Pavement Markings ## − Speed Limits Enforcement – there are two options for using enforcement as a traffic management strategy: i ncrease police enforcement, the use of Variable Speed Display Boards Roadway Adjustments – there are multiple strategies for traffic management that change the a ppearance of the roadway including: − Narrowing of lanes − Chokers ## − Mid-Block Narrowing − Chicane Vertical Elements – introducing vertical elements to the roadway, either as obstacles for vehicles t o drive over or around, are common traffic management strategies. These include: ## − Speed Humps/Bumps/Tables ## − Raised Crosswalks ## − Median Barrier ## − Traffic Circles ## − Street Closer ## − Full / Diagonal Diverter ## − Partial Diverter Page 28 of 112 ## Traffic Control DevicesVehicle Restriction ## Purpose Truck route ordinances, or weight restrictions a re place on streets and roadways for various reasons. Some of these reasons include noise, excessive traffic volumes, speeds, and safety concerns. (Does not refer to normal use of spring time load restriction for pavement preservation purposes.) ## Source: FHWA Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices • Cut-through traffic • High volumes • High collision rates ## Problem Target • Traffic usually is shifted to a different street •Businesses that generate the heavier traffic can complain of hardships and inconveniences • Other heavy vehicles that serve the neighborhood may be restricted (school buses, garbage trucks, delivery vehicles, etc.) ## Disadvantages • Legality of the truck route – can not be used on state aided county and city r oadways. ## Design • Possible reduction in noise and volumes • Restrictions viewed in a positive manner by the neighborhoods • Preservation of structural integrity and life of a street ## Advantages Little or no effect ## Traffic Safety Noise may be reduced ## Traffic Noise No effect ## Speed Heavy vehicle volumes may be reduced ## Volumes ## Effects ## JUNE 2005 13 Page 29 of 112 ## Purpose Can be used in neighborhoods where “cut t hrough” traffic has been documented to be unusually high. Traffic control technique involving the use of regulatory signing which prohibits certain traffic movements generally where an arterial and local street meet. Involve the use of standard “No Right Turn” or “No Left Turn” sign with or without rush hours limitations. • Cut through traffic ## Problems Targeted • If turn prohibition sign is installed without a reasonable alternative violations are l ikely. • Complaints may rise on diversion routes. • Turn prohibition signs have a very low level of effectiveness unless coordinated levels of enforcement are high. ## Disadvantages • Turn restriction signs should be used on the periphery of neighborhoods rather than within them. • Most effective when used during rush hour when “cut through” traffic is a problem • Consideration should be given to install physical barriers to aid in the enforcement of turn restriction signs ## Design • Low installation cost •Possible reduction in crashes ## Advantages May improve on the restricted volume street if compliance is high, but effects on a lternative routes need to be evaluated. ## Traffic Safety Noise may be reduced, but transferred to other streets ## Traffic Noise and Air To the extent that traffic cutting through is diverted, speeds on the local residential street may be reduced. ## Speed Where turning movements onto local residential streets are reduced, volumes on those streets are lessened. ## Volumes ## E ffects ## Source: FHWA Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices ## Traffic Control DevicesTurn Restrictions 14 ## J ## UNE 2005 Page 30 of 112 ## Purpose Conversion of two-way streets to one-way o peration for purposes of residential street traffic control take three forms: CASE #1 - Divergent and convergent one-way residential streets to reduce direct through routes impacting the neighborhood. CASE #2 - Alternating one-way streets throughout a portion of a grid system to gain safety advantages of one-way operations. CASE #3 - Creating a one-way couplet by paring a residential street with a nearby thru street to create a corridor for thru traffic • High traffic volumes • High crashes due to conflicting movements ## Problems Targeted • May be considered inconvenient for residents • Possible increase in speeds • May increase volumes on other streets ## Disadvantages • One way streets can be used in combinations that force turns every few blocks to minimize speeding or cut-through problems ## Design • Possible increased parking • Inexpensive to implement • May reduce traffic volumes • May increase roadway capacity ## Advantages One-way streets result in fewer potential conflicting movements, improving s afety. ## Traffic Safety Minimal effect except in Case #1 which creates longer, circuitous routes for local tr affic. ## Traffic Noise and Air May increase speeds due to improved motorist comfort levels. ## Speed Case #1 – reduces traffic volumes where thru traffic is a problem ## C ase #2 – no significant effect on traffic volumes Case #3 – increases volumes on one street and reduces volumes on adjacent streets ## Volumes ## Effects ## Source: FHWA Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices ## Traffic Control DevicesOne-Way Streets 15 ## J ## UNE 2005 Page 31 of 112 ## Purpose A variety of signs exist to try and warn of t he presence of children, “Watch for ## Children,” “Slow, Children at Play,” etc. The request for these signs generally stems from parents’ concern for their children’s safety in the streets near their home. Unfortunately, the request for this type of signage is based on a widespread but false belief that traffic signs provide protection. • Not effective for any of the common traffic issues ## Problems Targeted • Signs of this type might indicate that the street is an acceptable place to play ## Disadvantages • The Watch for Children warning signs are not standard signs included in the ## M innesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices because of their lack of effectiveness in slowing traffic or increasing safety of neighborhood streets. ## Design • Low initial cost for one installation. Installation plus an annual maintenance cost may become significant if installed at a large number of locations. ## Advantages ## No Effect ## Traffic Safety ## No Effect ## Traffic Noise and Air ## No Effect ## Speed ## No Effect ## Volumes ## E ffects ## Traffic Control DevicesWatch for Children Signing 16 ## J ## UNE 2005 Page 32 of 112 ## Purpose Regulatory sign that is used to assign right-of w ay at an intersection. Only recommended for installation if specific guidelines are met in accordance with the Minnesota Manual on ## Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MnMUTCD). Stop signs should not be used for speed control or volume reduction and should not be installed on the major street unless justified by an engineering report. • At intersections where right-of-way is confusing ## Problems Targeted • Can cause negative traffic safety impacts if sign is not warranted • May result in mid-block speeding • Increasing levels of intersection control are associated with increased frequency of crashes. • Difficult to enforce full stop control compliance • Could result in increase in speeds between the signs as drivers try to make up for lost time ## Disadvantages • Guidelines need to be met as established in the Minnesota Manual on Uniform ## T ## raffic Control Devices • In most cases the street carrying the lowest volumes should be stopped to minimize the number of vehicles stopping ## Design • Inexpensive installation costs (do require continual maintenance costs) •Defines driver’s right-of-way • Increase opportunity for pedestrians to cross the roadway • May discourage cut-through traffic ## Advantages Possible increase in crashes, possibly due to the stop signs being unexpected or d eemed unnecessary, therefore encouraging rolling stops or by instilling a false sense of security in crossing motorists and pedestrians. ## Traffic Safety Noise is increased near the intersection due to the increase activity of acceleration. Air quality worsens due to deceleration, idling and acceleration ## Traffic Noise and Air Little or no reduction in speed, speed possibly increases due to drivers speeding u p to make up for time lost at the stop sign ## Speed Little or no effect ## Volumes ## E ffects ## Source: FHWA Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices ## Traffic Control DevicesStop Sign Implementation 17 ## J ## UNE 2005 Page 33 of 112 ## Purpose • Unusual conditions at intersection including crash frequency, turning patterns, d elay and pedestrian conflicts. ## Problems Targeted • Can cause negative traffic safety impacts if sign is not warranted •May result in mid-block speeding • Increasing levels of intersection control are associated with increased frequency of crashes. • Difficult to enforce full stop control compliance • Could result in increase in speeds between the signs as drivers try to make up for lost time ## Disadvantages • Traffic volumes and crash frequency thresholds need to be met as established i n the Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. •The most effective deployment of the All-Way STOP condition is at intersections where the volume of traffic on the major and minor roads is approximately equa. ## Design • Inexpensive installation costs (do require continual maintenance costs) • Defines driver’s right-of-way • Increase opportunity for pedestrians to cross the roadway • May discourage cut-through traffic ## Advantages In most cases, the installation of an All-Way STOP will increase the frequency of c rashes. Only in those rare cases where the number of crashes with the Thru/STOP control is unusually high, is the forecast of safety improvement probable. ## Traffic Safety Little or no effect. ## Traffic Noise and Air Little or no reduction in speed, mid-block speed possibly increase ## Speed Little or no effect. ## Volumes ## E ffects ## Source: FHWA Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices ## Traffic Control DevicesAll-Way Stop Sign Implementation ## Purpose The All-Way STOP condition is primarily intended to address e ither a higher than expected intersection crash frequency or to be an interim measure at locations that have demonstrated a need for a traffic signal installation, but where the signal cannot be installed in a reasonable period of time. It is a common belief that installing STOP signs on all approaches of an intersection will result in fewer crashes. Research indicates that average crash frequency at All-Way STOP controlled intersection is 50% higher than thru/STOP intersections. Also, there is no evident to suggest that STOP signs decrease travel speeds. 18 ## J ## UNE 2005 Page 34 of 112 • In area where on-street parking is at capacity and there is no alternative off- street parking additional restriction to parking can be controversial to residents • ## Disadvantages • Non-Residential parking intrusion ## Problems Targeted • Should review the impacts of parking on surrounding streets ## Design • Can reduce some types of accidents (late evening hit and run parked vehicle accidents and crashes related to parking maneuvers) • ## Advantages Increasing sight line distances reduce right angle conflict between vehicles at i ntersections, alleys and driveways ## Traffic Safety Little or no effect ## Traffic Noise and Air Minimal changes unless there are extended No Parking Zones that can create th e potential for increased speeds ## Speed Little or no effect ## Volumes ## E ffects ## Purpose Parking restrictions can assist in improving r esidential street safety in two ways: 1) Clearance No Parking Zones to improve sight lines at intersections and crosswalks ## 2) Extended No Parking Zones to improve visibility of and for pedestrians along the length of the block. ## Source: FHWA Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices ## Traffic Control DevicesParking Restrictions 19 ## J ## UNE 2005 Page 35 of 112 ## Purpose Speed limits are determined by the Minnesota ## D epartment of Transportation (consistent with State Statutes) based on an analysis of the actual speed profile of the road. The basic premise of Minnesota’s law is that the majority of motorists will pick a safe and reasonable speed given the horizontal and vertical design of the street, locations of driveways, sidewalks, obstructions, and the use of the street by pedestrians. Lowering the speed limit to address speeding in a neighborhood has never proven to be even moderately effective without also including very high levels of enforcement. • High speeds through residential neighborhood ## Problems Targeted • Speed limits on urban roadways are either set by Statute or by MnDOT. • Research suggests that crash frequencies on urban roadways are unrelated to vehicle speeds. ## Disadvantages • ## Design • Research indicates that when speed limits are set at or near the 85 th percentile speed, roadway crash frequencies are at a minimum. ## Advantages Effects of speed limit changes on traffic safety on local residential streets have n ot been reported. Research suggests that crash frequencies on urban roadways are unrelated to vehicle speeds. ## Traffic Safety Little or no effect. ## Traffic Noise and Air Drivers generally ignore posted speed limits and travel at speeds which the d rivers consider reasonable ## Speed Little or no effect ## Volumes ## E ffects ## Traffic Control DevicesSpeed Limits 30 25 20 ## J ## UNE 2005 Page 36 of 112 ## Purpose Provide a designated, marked location f or pedestrians to cross residential street and make drivers more aware of potential pedestrian conflicts. • Concentrating pedestrian crossing activities, particularly when combined with o ther strategies such as advanced warning signs, systems of sidewalks, enforcement, etc. ## Problems Targeted • At uncontrolled intersections, appears to create a false sense of security in pedestrians – the 8” white line with stop the oncoming 4,000 pound vehicle. • Costly to maintain • Not required to establish legal cross-walk locations. ## Disadvantages • Marking cross walks is not necessary to establish legal crossing locations and is unrelated to pedestrian safety. •Marked crosswalks may be part of a program to designate walking routes and concentrate pedestrian crossings when combined with other strategies. ## Design • Reasonably effective at identifying locations with potential pedestrian conflicts. •Helps to concentrate pedestrian activities at specific intersection and on specific legs of intersections. ## Advantages Research has shown that marked crosswalks at uncontrolled intersection are u nrelated to pedestrian safety. ## Traffic Safety No effect ## Traffic Noise and Air No effect ## Speed No effect ## Volumes ## E ffects ## Traffic Control DevicesPainted Crosswalks 21 ## JUNE 2005 Page 37 of 112 ## Purpose The effective use of public safety/police p ersonnel to encourage reduced speeds in residential areas. Enforcement usually involves the use of radar to identify speeders and ticket violators. Speed Watches rely on neighborhood participation to create awareness and, in turn, help control speeds in neighborhoods. • Speeding • Moving vehicle violations • Running stop signs ## Problems Targeted • Not self-enforcing; temporary measure, dependent on resources ## •E xpensive and not always desirable to use police for traffic enforcement due to budget and manpower constraints ## Disadvantages • The locations of implementation should be clearly identified to minimize the ti me spent enforcing and maximize the resultant speed reduction. • Actual speed surveys should be used to narrow problem to specific time (day of the week, time of day) and location. ## Design • Easy to implement • Effective with repetitive enforcement on a non-routine basis. • Speed Watch programs have been perceived positively by neighborhood, even in areas where significant speed reductions were not measured. These types of programs may make neighborhoods find that they do not actually have a speeding problem. ## Advantages May reduce overall crashes if speeds are actually reduced. ## Traffic Safety Little or no effect. ## Traffic Noise and Air Speed reduction as long as enforcement is maintained (the “halo” effect of i nfrequent enforcement is as little as 1 mile or 4 hours). ## Speed Little or no effect ## Volumes ## E ffects ## EnforcementIncreased Enforcement / Speed Watches 22 ## J ## UNE 2005 Page 38 of 112 ## Purpose A portable speed display board wired to a r adar provides passing motorists their travel speed along with the speed limit. The display can help raise driver awareness, encourage compliance, and direct driver’s attention to the posted speed limit. The purpose is to remind drivers that they are speeding to help encourage compliance. • Any location where speeding is a problem or where drivers need to be educated a bout traffic issues in the area. ## Problem Targeted • Possible concerns with causing conflict between citizens involved (vigilantism) •May only provide short term effectiveness • Possible vandalism or could encourage aggressive drivers to see how fast they can go • Needs power to function • Requires personnel to move and place unit ## Disadvantages • Variety of types of variable speed display boards available – some include tr affic county abilities. ## Design • Portable Display board can be used in various locations enabling residents to b orrow and place on their street • Low cost ($2,000 to $11,500 per unit) • Can be used to target timing and location of police enforcement (if data shows excessive speeds at a certain time) ## Advantages There is the potential for sudden braking by some motorists ## Traffic Safety Little or no effect ## Traffic Noise and Air Lower observed speeds when device is present ## Speed Little or no effect ## Volumes ## E ffects ## EnforcementVariable Speed Display Board 23 ## JUNE 2005 Page 39 of 112 ## Purpose The reduction of the typical pavement width along a roadway. The narrowing can be achieved physically by removing part of the pavement surface or by simply using pavement markings to indicate narrow travel lanes. • Wide residential streets where speed reduction is desired • Excess street volume on multilane streets ## Problems Targeted • May require the prohibition of on-street parking causing hardship or i nconvenience for residents • May result in shifting volumes to adjacent streets if number of lanes is reduced ## Disadvantages • Must not create significant impact due to loss of parking ## Design • Use of pavement markings to narrow street is relatively inexpensive ($0.20 per lineal foot). • Narrowing of street may provide opportunity for street beautification programs ## Advantages Potential for improved pedestrian safety due to shorter street crossing times, but a t the same time bicycle safety may be compromised by physically removing part of the pavement surface. ## Traffic Safety Little or no effect ## Traffic Noise and Air Possible reduction in speed ## Speed Little or no effect ## Volumes ## E ffects ## Roadway AdjustmentsNarrowing Lanes 24 ## J ## UNE 2005 Page 40 of 112 • May require the prohibition of on-street parking causing hardship or inconvenience for residents • May cause bicyclists to travel in same traffic lane as vehicles • May require redesign of drainage system ## Disadvantages • Mid-block locations with speeding and/or cut-through traffic ## Problems Targeted • There must be adequate turning radius for emergency vehicle access e specially on narrow streets ## Design • Good for pedestrians due to shorter crossing distance •Provides space for landscaping and neighborhood “gateway” • Should not affect emergency response time • Minimal inconvenience to drivers ## Advantages Potential for improved pedestrian safety due to shorter street crossing times, but a t the same time bicycle safety may be compromised by physically removing part of the pavement surface. ## Traffic Safety Little or no effect. ## Traffic Noise and Air Minimal changes ## Speed Little or no effect ## Volumes ## E ffects ## Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers ## Traffic Calming: State of Practice ## Purpose Narrowing of the street at an intersection t o constrain the width of the traveled way. They provide shorter pedestrian crossing distances and provide protection to the beginning of a parking lane. The driver also senses the roadway narrowing when approaching one of these measures, which can result in speed reduction and a reminder that the driver is entering a residential area. ## Roadway AdjustmentsChokers at Intersections 25 ## J ## UNE 2005 Page 41 of 112 • Mid-block locations with speeding and/or cut-through traffic ## Problems Targeted • May require the prohibition of on-street parking causing hardship or inconvenience for residents • May create drainage issues where curb and gutter exist • May create diversion for bicyclists ## Disadvantages • Must not significantly impede emergency vehicle access ## Design • Good for pedestrians due to shorter crossing distance •Provides space for landscaping • Does not affect emergency response time • Minimal inconvenience to drivers ## Advantages Potential for improved pedestrian safety due to shorter street crossing times, but a t the same time bicycle safety may be compromised by physically removing part of the pavement surface. ## Traffic Safety Little or no effect. ## Traffic Noise and Air Minimal changes ## Speed Little or no effect ## Volumes ## E ffects ## Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers ## Traffic Calming: State of Practice ## Purpose Segment(s) of roadway narrowing where curbs a re extended toward the center of the roadway on one or both sides of the street to constrain the width of the traveled way. They provide shorter pedestrian crossing distances and provide protection to the beginning of a parking lane. The driver also senses the roadway narrowing when approaching one of these measures, which can result in speed reduction. ## Roadway AdjustmentsMid-Block Narrowing 26 ## J ## UNE 2005 Page 42 of 112 • Curbside parking must be prohibited in some locations • Winter maintenance problems • Possible impacts to drainage • High cost of reconstruction ## Disadvantages • Excessive speeds ## Problems Targeted • Not appropriate for narrow streets (22 feet is appropriate width) ## Design • Possible reduction in volumes and speed •No restriction in access to residents • Can be landscaped enhanced • Less disruptive for emergency vehicles than speed humps ## Advantages Little or no effect ## Traffic Safety Little to no effect ## Traffic Noise and Air Possible reduction in speeds ## Speed Possible reduction in volumes ## Volumes ## E ffects ## Purpose Curvilinear reconstruction involving the i ntroduction of curvatures on previously straight alignment. Curvilinear reconstruction can be accomplished in two different ways: 1.Reconstruct the street with a curved centerline alignment and a uniform roadway width 2.Introduce chokers or other types of barriers on alternate sides of the street to create a serpentine travel path. ## Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers Tr ## affic Calming: State of Practice ## Roadway AdjustmentsChicane 27 ## J ## UNE 2005 Page 43 of 112 • Moderately costly to implement. • Requires systematic deployment to achieve high levels of effectiveness. •Increased maintenance efforts. • Mixed neighborhood acceptance. ## Disadvantages • High levels of pedestrian activity, especially at/near pedestrian generators ( schools, parks, retail areas, etc) ## Problems Targeted • Should be installed along all arterials and collectors (because of the traffic volumes and speed) and along residential streets based on providing connections to areas with high levels of pedestrian activity. ## Design • Positively separates pedestrians and vehicles. •Very effective at reducing pedestrian/vehicle conflicts. • ## Advantages Possible decrease in pedestrian crashes. ## Traffic Safety No Effect. ## Traffic Noise and Air No Effect. ## Speed No Effect. ## Volumes ## Effects ## Purpose Sidewalks are intended to provide p edestrians with a safe walking location when traffic volumes or vehicle speeds make walking on the street potentially dangerous. ## Roadway AdjustmentsSidewalks 28 ## JUNE 2005 Page 44 of 112 • Can potentially increase noise • Can cause traffic to shift to parallel residential or collector streets • May decrease emergency vehicles response times ## Disadvantages • Excessive speed •High volumes ## Problems Targeted • Reduces speeds •Usually reduces traffic volumes • Does not require parking removal or interfere with bicycle/pedestrian traffic ## Advantages • Speed humps are only effective for 250 feet on either side of the hump. Thus, a n eighborhood considering speed hump installation would require two to three installations. ## Design Traffic safety has not been found to be compromised with these devices. Traffic safety benefits can be gained if speeding is involved. ## Traffic Safety May have an increase of noise at the bumps/humps ## Traffic Noise and Air Effective in slowing vehicles traveling at typical residential speeds to a pproximately 5 to 15 mph depending on type installed at the device – may reduce overall speeds by 5 to 7 mph. ## Speed May reduce traffic volumes ## Volumes ## E ffects ## Purpose A physical feature (usually made of a sphalt or rubber mounds) that are designed to rise above the roadway surface and extend across the roadway perpendicular to the traffic flow. Typically used to reduce vehicle speeds. ## Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers Tr ## affic Calming: State of Practice ## Speed Table ## Speed Bump ## Vertical ElementsSpeed Bumps/Humps/Tables 29 ## J ## UNE 2005 Page 45 of 112 • Possible increase in noise • Possible diversion of traffic to other streets • May impact drainage ## Disadvantages • High mid-block pedestrian crossing and excessive vehicle speeds ## Problems Targeted • Should be placed in mid-block • Not appropriate for grades greater than 5 percent • Most common height is between 3 and 4 inches and typically have ramps 6 feet long ## Design • Speed control at pedestrian crossing •Increases pedestrian visibility and awareness to driver • May reduce traffic volumes ## Advantages May increase awareness of pedestrians ## Traffic Safety Possible increase in traffic noise ## Traffic Noise and Air Decrease in speed at crosswalk ## Speed Possible reduction in traffic volumes ## Volumes ## Effects ## Purpose A raised crosswalk is a speed table d esigned as a pedestrian crossing, usually at mid-block to provide additional warning of a pedestrian crossing ## Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers Tr ## affic Calming: State of Practice ## Vertical ElementsRaised Crosswalk 30 ## J ## UNE 2005 Page 46 of 112 • Diversion of traffic to other locations possible • Disrupts continuity of local street system • Maintenance of island required • Reduction in access for residents ## Disadvantages • Cut through traffic •Vehicle conflicts ## Problems Targeted • Must meet drainage requirements •Must not significantly impede emergency vehicle access ## Design • Assists in pedestrian crossing •Prevents vehicles from passing vehicles that are turning right • May improve safety through access limitations • Visually enhances the street ## Advantages May provide some safety benefits for pedestrians as a safety island for crossing th e major street ## Traffic Safety Little or no effect ## Traffic Noise and Air Small reduction possible ## Speed Vary depending on proportion of traffic that is prohibited by the median barrier ## Volumes ## E ffects ## Purpose A physical means for preventing left turning traffic on a major street from accessing a local street and through traffic from continuing on that local street. Alternate routes fro diverted traffic should be analyzed with regard to traffic carrying capacity and desirability. ## Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers ## Traffic Calming: State of Practice ## Vertical ElementsMedian Barrier 31 ## J ## UNE 2005 Page 47 of 112 • Some parking restrictions required • Local experience has found these devices to be ineffective • Can restrict access for trucks, buses and may increase emergency vehicle response time ## • Winter Maintenance ## Disadvantages • Excessive speeds • Crash history at intersection ## Problems Targeted • A minimum of 30 feet of curbside parking must be prohibited at each corner of the intersection ## Design • Reduces speed at intersection approach •Reduces vehicle conflicts at intersection • Provides equal access to intersection for all drivers • Does not restrict access to residents • Can be landscaped ## Advantages May decreases vehicle conflicts at intersection ## Traffic Safety Little or no effect ## Traffic Noise and Air May reduce speed at intersection ## Speed Little or no effect ## Volumes ## Effects ## Purpose A traffic circle is a raised geometric control i sland, frequently circular, in the center of an intersection of local streets. Typically, traffic circles would be about 20 feet in diameter. Traffic traveling through the intersection must avoid the island affecting the path and speed of the traffic. ## Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers Tr ## affic Calming: State of Practice ## Vertical ElementsTraffic Circle 32 ## J ## UNE 2005 Page 48 of 112 • Increases emergency vehicle response times • May cause inconvenience for some residents • May divert traffic to other streets • May require additional right-of-way acquisition • Winter maintenance ## Disadvantages • Cut through traffic volumes ## Problems Targeted • There needs to be a minimum of 120 foot right-of-way to accommodate the m inimum turning radius of 40 feet. ## Design • Eliminates through traffic •Possibly reduces speed of remaining vehicles • Can maintain pedestrian and bike access ## Advantages May improve safety of street ## Traffic Safety Little to no effect ## Traffic Noise and Air May reduce speed ## Speed Reduces through traffic volumes ## Volumes ## Effects ## Purpose A street closure, for the purpose of this t ool box, is defined as closing a street either at one end or the other, or at a mid block location to eliminate unwanted through traffic. ## Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers Tr ## affic Calming: State of Practice ## Vertical ElementsStreet Closure 33 ## J ## UNE 2005 Page 49 of 112 • Prohibits or limits access and movement • Restricts access for emergency vehicles • May impact drainage • May impact parking ## Disadvantages • Cut through traffic • Speed – forces driver to slow to make the turn ## Problems Targeted • The curvature of the diverter is dependent on the intersection roadway widths. • Special care needs to be taken with drainage design. • The intent is to divert traffic to arterial and collector streets. • Needs to be good visibility approaching the diverter for drivers to react and navigate the turn safely ## Design • Reduces traffic volumes •Restricts vehicle access while maintaining bicycle and pedestrian access ## Advantages Possible improvement ## Traffic Safety Little or no effect ## Traffic Noise and Air May reduce speed ## Speed May decrease traffic volumes ## Volumes ## E ffects ## Purpose A full diverter, sometimes called a d iagonal diverter, is a raised barrier place diagonally across an intersection that physically divides the intersection and forces al traffic to make a sharp turn. ## Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers Tr ## affic Calming: State of Practice ## Vertical ElementsFull / Diagonal Diverter 34 ## J ## UNE 2005 Page 50 of 112 • Parking may be impacted and reduced • Interrupts street network connectivity • Emergency vehicles do have to drive around partial closure with care ## Disadvantages • Excessive volumes on residential street ## Problems Targeted • Care has to be given in the design to not hinder unnecessarily emergency v ehicles due to poor design ## Design • Allows for movement of emergency vehicles •Reduces traffic volumes • Allows two-way traffic on the remainder of the street • Shorter pedestrian crossing at intersection ## Advantages Improved pedestrian crossing ## Traffic Safety Little or no effect ## Traffic Noise and Air Possible speed reduction ## Speed Reduces traffic volumes in the eliminated direction ## Volumes ## Effects ## Purpose A partial-diverter is the narrowing of a two w ay street in order to eliminate one direction of travel. The concept can only be used at an intersection and attempts to reroute traffic attempting to use the protected street onto other roadways. ## Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers Tr ## affic Calming: State of Practice ## Vertical ElementsPartial Diverter 35 ## J ## UNE 2005 Page 51 of 112 ## Appendix A ## Petition Page 52 of 112 ## Appendix B ## Resources on Traffic Calming ## Traffic Calming State of the Practice, Institute of Transportation Engineers Investigating the Effectiveness of Traffic Calming Strategies on Driver Behavior, Traffic Flow and Speed, ## Report 2002-02, Minnesota Local Road Research Board Effective Traffic Calming Applications and Implementation, Report 1999-01, Minnesota Local Road ## Research Board Neighborhood Traffic Control, North Central Section Institute of Transportation Engineers, December 1994 ## Minnesota Traffic Calming, MnDOT Local Road Research Board: www.mn-traffic-calming.org ## Minnesota Department of Transportation/Speed Limits: www.dot.state.mn.us/speed/index.html Page 53 of 112 ## Appendix C ## Glossary of Key Terms 85 th ## Percentile The speed at or below which 85 percent of vehicles surveyed travel. The measurement is one criteria used to set the speed limit on roadways. 10 mile per hour pace Speed range representing the speeds of the largest percentage of vehicles in a speed survey. ## Access The ability to enter and/or exit a property, street or neighborhood. ## Affected Neighborhood Properties expected to receive the majority of the impacts from an implemented traffic management strategy. ## Arterial Roadway with emphasis on mobility over land access and connects cities with adjacent communities and the metropolitan highway system. ## Capacity The maximum number of vehicles that can use a given section of roadway during a given period of time. ## Collector Street A roadway that connects neighborhoods. Collector streets are shown on the current Road Classification map (Figure 4.10 Appendix D) in the Blaine Transportation Plan. ## Correctable Crashes Types of crashes which engineers are able to reduce through signal improvements, intersection geometry changes, traffic control devices, and access management techniques. ## Cut-Through Traffic Traffic using local streets to travel between neighborhoods instead of collector street. ## Diversion Traffic volumes that are moved from one street to another. ## Impacted Area Area that will receive the majority of the impacts from an implemented traffic management strategy including diversion of traffic volumes. ## Local Street A roadway that connects blocks within neighborhoods. ## Transportation Plan Plan adopted by the City of Blaine and used for planning of transportation infrastructure. www.ci.blaine.mn.us/_InsideCityHall/_PublicServices/_ ## Engineering/_BlaineTransportationPlan/ _BlaineTransportationPlan_Home.htm ## Speed Survey A survey of vehicles performed with radar to determine the speed at which they are traveling. The 85 th percentile is determined by a speed survey. ## State Aid Road A designated roadway (City or County) which receives state funds for maintenance and construction. Additional rules and standard apply to these roadways. Page 54 of 112 ## Appendix D ## Figure 4.10 - Recommended Roadway System ## City of Blaine Transportation Plan Page 55 of 112 ## P ## AGE A1 OF A1 ## Petition for Traffic Management Strategy Implementation The undersigned resident of properties bordering on: Between the intersections of: and ## Brief Description of Traffic Related Problem: Hereby request assistance with traffic related problems. Signatories should understand that the City of Blaine has determined that affected residents shall bear 75% of the cost of installing traffic management strategies. ## NAME (Signature) A ddress (Include Apartment #) Comments Petition submitted by: Name_______ ______________Address___________________________Phone_________________ Page 56 of 112 Page 57 of 112 ## City of Blaine ## Staff Report ## File Number: 2026-257 ## Agenda Date ## Status May 18, 2026 ## In Control ## File Type ## City Council ## Workshop Item ## New Business - Sheila Sellman, Community Development Director Agenda Item # 3.3 ## Pedestrian Bridge for 105th Redevelopment Project (25 Minutes) ## Background As part of the 105th Redevelopment a pedestrian bridge is proposed over the new roundabout. Attached is a rendering of the proposed bridge. As proposed, the bridge would be a weathered steel bridge, which could be painted, but the weathered steel fits in with the design aspects of the district. The bridge will meet ADA requirements and will be permitted through MnDOT. Attached are renderings of the bridge as proposed and a reference guide for other pedestrian bridge styles. ## Staff Recommendation Provide feedback on the proposed pedestrian bridge. ## Questions for Council 1. Does council like the bridge design? 2. Does council want specific signage on the bridge? 3. Does council want the option to have changeable signage on the bridge? 4. Does council want lighting on the bridge? 5. Are there any other design features council would like on the bridge? ## Attachment List 1. Bridge Rendering 1 - Photo ## 2. Bridge Rendering_2 - Photo ## 3. Ped Bridge Styles Page 58 of 112 Page 59 of 112 Page 60 of 112 Page 61 of 112 ## ENGINEERED SOLUTIONS ## PEDESTRIAN ## TRUSS & ROLLED GIRDER ## REFERENCE GUIDE Page 62 of 112 ## 2 | WWW.CONTECHES.COM/BRIDGES 05015 010 0250300200 ## CLEAR SPAN (FT) 10-300 ft ## Continental EXPRESS ® (40-180 ft) 40-180 ft 10-120 ft ## Continental ® (10-300 ft) * Spans 250 - 300 ft may require tied arch design ## Pedestrian Big R Rolled Girder (10-120 ft) ## PEDESTRIAN TRUSS & ROLLED GIRDERS ## Clear Span Bridges ## PEDESTRIAN TRUSS & ROLLED GIRDERS ## Continental EXPRESS Pedestrian Truss BridgeBig R Pedestrian Rolled Girder Bridge ## Continental Pedestrian Truss BridgeContinental Custom Pedestrian Truss Bridge Page 63 of 112 ## WWW.CONTECHES.COM/BRIDGES | 3 ## CONCEPT/DESIGN ## FABRICATION ## FOUNDATIONS ## TRANSPORTATION/ ## ERECTION ## COMPLETION ## PROCESS | CONCEPT. DESIGN SUPPORT. FABRICATION. INSTALL. ## • Preliminary Concept Drawings ## (DYOB) ## • Reactions, Specifications, Bid ## Drawings and Details ## • Stamped Bridge Submittal Package ## • Stamped Abutment Design ## Abutment Types: • Deep Foundations (pile, caisson, helical pier, etc) ## • Spread Footings - CIP Design ## • Spread Footing Prefabricated System ## (Precast Concrete, Steel EXPRESS) Page 64 of 112 ## 4 | WWW.CONTECHES.COM/BRIDGES ## CUSTOM SIGNATURE DESIGNS ## From Concept to Reality Contech truss bridges can be designed to specifically fit your client's project needs. Our bridges have been successfully designed to replicate a particular bridge style or create a brand new signature look, including: • Cable-stayed bridges and skywalks • Thrust arch, support towers and decorative towers • Bridges enclosed with stone, stucco, wood or glazing • Multi-color paint systems and decorative lighting • ADA accessible ramps with landing • Specialized railing, decking and finish options Page 65 of 112 ## WWW.CONTECHES.COM/BRIDGES | 5 ## CUSTOM PEDESTRIAN TRUSS BRIDGES ## Tied-Arch ## Cable Stayed ## Decorative Arch with Towers ## Skywalk ## Keystone Custom ## Custom Geometry ## Custom Canopy ## Horizontally Curved StructuresFlight 93 Memorial - Shanksville, PA Page 66 of 112 ## 6 | WWW.CONTECHES.COM/BRIDGES ## BIG R BRIDGES ® ## ROLLED GIRDERS | PEDESTRIAN ## Low Profile ## Remote Trail ## Ski Bridge ## CustomFaux Truss ## Overlook ## Unique Architectural Features ## Benefits of Rolled Girder Pedestrian Bridges • Load carrying members under deck • Ability to carry custom loads with specific aesthetics to meet site requirements • Economical solution • Modular system for Accelerated Bridge ## Construction Page 67 of 112 ## WWW.CONTECHES.COM/BRIDGES | 7 ## DECK ## WoodConcreteSteel GrateFiber Reinforced Plastic (FRP) ## FINISH ## Weathering SteelPainted SteelGalvanized SteelGalvanized Steel/Painted ## RAIL ## Safety Rail/Wood Rub RailVertical Picket/Pipe HandrailCableMesh Panels ## Deck, Finish & Rail Options ## Pedestrian Truss Styles* ## Connector ® ## Capstone ® ## Gateway ® (Thru Truss) ## Keystone ® ## Cable StayedTied Arch ® *Custom styling is available to make your project a reality (e.g. skywalks, cable-stayed bridges). ## CONTINENTAL BRIDGE ® ## STYLES AND OPTIONS Page 68 of 112 ## 8 | WWW.CONTECHES.COM/BRIDGES ## Continental Gateway ® ## Laurel, MT ## Continental Capstone ® ## Conveyor Phoenix, AZ ## Continental Connector ® ## Morris, IL ## Continental Connector ® ## Stephens Point, WI Continental steel truss structures have been utilized in the energy, mining and industrial markets for elevated crossings to handle heavy mining equipment, pipe supports and conveyor systems. The strength, durability and versatility of these bridge systems allow for a wide range of unique solutions in these markets. ## HELPING TO KEEP AMERICA WORKING ## Energy, Mining & Industrial ## Big R Rolled Girder Ft. Collins, COContinental Gateway ® ## Moline, ILContinental Custom Gateway ® ## Warren, OH ## Continental Custom Gateway ® ## Ft. Collins, CO Continental pedestrian truss structures have been selected by developers throughout the U.S. to provide practical, yet aesthetic structures in residential developments, hospitals, schools and communities. These structures are available in an array of style and finish options to provide a signature look as well as guarantee safe, reliable bridges for every day use. Developers look to Continental pedestrian truss solutions for busy commercial sites. Often times, these bridges are centerpieces for business parks, shopping centers and local communities. ## PROVIDING COMMUNITY SOLUTIONS ## Commercial & Residential Page 69 of 112 ## WWW.CONTECHES.COM/BRIDGES | 9 ## Continental Capstone ® ## Beavercreek, OHContinental Keystone ® ## Raleigh, NC ## Continental Gateway ® ## Apopka, FL ## Continental Capstone ® ## Eagle, CO ## REBUILDING OUR INFRASTRUCTURE ## Highway Overpass Bridges Generating safe crossings for the public over highway systems all across the country is becoming an ever increasing need. Contech has worked on hundreds of highway overpass crossings that involve collaboration between DOTs, municipalities and recreational groups. These projects have improved public safety by building these crossings over highways and interstates across the USA. Utilizing Contech's turnkey design/supply support on these projects can allow for substantial cost savings for your overall project. ## Continental Capstone ® ## Westbrook, ME ## Continental Custom Natchez, MS ## Continental Connector ® ## Big Sky, MT ## Continental Capstone ® ## Moab, UT Resorts, tourist attractions and signature golf courses all over the country have turned to Contech pedestrian truss structures with a wide variety of styles, rail, deck and finishing options available. Contech as a design partner for your project can help achieve the necessary aesthetics to meet your site specific requirements and project budget. ## ENJOYING LIFE & LEISURE ## Parks, Resorts, Trails, Golf Courses & MORE Page 70 of 112 ## 10 | WWW.CONTECHES.COM/BRIDGES ## CONTECH CAPABILITIES ## Pre-Engineered AASHTO Pedestrian Bridges ## The EXPRESS ® Truss bridge is a pre-engineered pedestrian steel truss bridge designed for owners, engineers and contractors who know “time is money.” This standardized truss system provides stamped drawings within one week after receipt of order and a bridge ready for shipment in less than eight weeks, significantly reducing construction time. Do you have a trail project with a bridge crossing? By utilizing a ## Continental EXPRESS ® Truss, the trail system can open sooner to the public. ## EXPRESS ® ## Truss Bridges Offer: • Stamped drawings within 1 week after receipt of order • Bridge spans from 40' -180' (10' increments) and widths 6'-14' (2' increments) • Bridge ready for shipment within 6-8 weeks of approved drawings • Designed in accordance with AASHTO • IBC design is also available ## EXPRESS Connector ® ## Albuquerque, NM ## Contech Pedestrian Truss & Rolled ## Girder Bridge Manufacturing Contech has four manufacturing locations to support projects across the continental United States and beyond. These manufacturing facilities are certified to AISC Advanced Major ## Bridge Quality Standards. All manufacturing locations have design engineers licensed in all 50 states located at the facilities to ensure that the bridges will be fabricated to exceed all industry requirements and our engineering standards. Contech has Bridge Consultants located across the United States for local support on any of your projects. ## DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS:FABRICATION SPECIFICATIONS: • AASHTO LRFD Guide Specifications for the Design of Pedestrian Bridges ## • AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications ## • International Building Code (IBC) ## • AISC Steel Construction Manual • Staff Registered Professional Engineers in all 50 states ## • AISC CERTIFIED FABRICATOR • Certified Bridge Fabricator – Advanced (Major) at all four plant locations ## • Fracture Critical Endorsement ## • Sophisticated Paint Endorsement ## • AWS Certified Welders ## • AWS Certified Welding Fabricator ## Patented Internal Splice ## Capture Plate ## Manufacturing Locations Page 71 of 112 ## WWW.CONTECHES.COM/BRIDGES | 11 ## Options & Support Specific to Your Project Needs ## PROJECT PARTNER. CONTECH. ## DRAWINGS & TECHNICAL SUPPORT 3/15/2021 ## DATE: ## APPROVED: ## DDB ## CHECKED: ## SHEET: ## C:\USERS\SAMUEL.LANGSTON\ONEDRIVE - THE QUIKRETE COMPANIES\DESKTOP\666994-10.DWG ## 4/28/2021 10:25 AM ## OF ## SLL ## DRAWN:DESIGNED: ## DDB 666994 ## DGR 6 ## SEQUENCE No.: 10 ## PROJECT No.: 4 ## CONTRACT ## CONTECH ## DRAWING ## REVISION DESCRIPTION ## DATE ## MARK ## BY - 4/28/2021 ## INITIAL SUBMITTAL ## SLL The design and information shown on this drawing is provided as a service to the project owner, engineer ## and contractor by Contech Engineered Solutions LLC ("Contech"). Neither this drawing, nor any part thereof, may be used, reproduced or modified in any manner without the prior written consent of Contech. Fa ilure to comply is done at the user's own risk and Contech expressly discl aims any liability or responsibility for such use. If discrepancies between the supplied inf ormation upon which the drawing is based and actual f ield conditions are encountered as site work progresses, these discrepancies must be reported to Contech immediately for re-evaluation of the design. Contech accepts no liability f or designs based on missing, incomplete or inaccurate inf ormation supplied by others. www.ContechES.com ## R ## CONTINENTAL ## BRIDGE ## F ## O ## U ## N ## D ## E ## D 1 9 2 1 ## A ## M ## E ## R ## I ## C ## A ## N ## I ## N ## S ## T ## I ## T ## U ## T ## E ## O ## F ## S ## T ## E ## E ## L ## C ## O ## N ## S ## T ## R ## U ## C ## T ## I ## O ## N ## AVONDALE, AZ ## 41'-0" X 8'-0" ## AVONDALE BOULEVARD ## PEDESTRIAN TRUSS- CONNECTOR ## 800-328-2047 320-345-9126 320-566-3148 FAX ## 8301 State Highway 29 North, Alexandria, MN 56308 ## ATTACH ## CONNECTOR ## PLAQUE ## W/ 8,000 LB ## VEHICLE LOAD ## LIMIT AND SERIAL ## NO. "666994-10", (1) ## PLAQUE EACH END ## OF BRIDGE. 3 6 ## CONCRETE ## ABUTMENT ## (BY OTHERS) ## SAFETY SYSTEM NOT SHOWN IN ELEVATION ## FOR CLARITY. SEE BRIDGE SECTION FOR ## CORRECT NUMBER & LOCATION. 4 6 ## TOP CHORD ## BOTTOM CHORD ## FLOOR BEAM ## VERTICAL ## END VERTICAL ## DIAGONAL ## BRIDGE ELEVATION 5 1 2 ## " CAMBER ## (SEE DETAIL) ## SCHEDULE OF MEMBERS ## TOP CHORD HSS 4 x 4 x 3/16 ## BOTTOM CHORD HSS 4 x 4 x 3/16 VERTICALHSS 4 x 4 x 3/16 ## END VERTICAL HSS 4 x 4 x 3/16 ## DIAGONAL HSS 3 x 2 x 3/16 ## BRACE DIAGONAL HSS 3 x 3 x 3/16 ## FLOOR BEAM HSS 4 x 4 x 1/4 END FLOOR BEAMHSS 4 x 4 x 1/4 ## SIDE DAM ∠ 5 x 3 x 1/4 ## SAFETY RAIL HSS 1 x 1 x 1/8 ## END DAM 1 4 ## " PLT ## TOE RAIL HSS 4 x 2 x 3/16 ## DOUBLE MITER ALL DIAGONALS. ## NOTE: ALL CONCRETE & REBAR BY OTHERS ## REBAR SCHEDULE ## MARK ## TYPE ## QUANTITY ## LENGTHREMARKS ## 4D1STRAIGHT 70 7'-4" ## 5D2 ## STRAIGHT 1540'-8" ## DIGIT PRECEDING LETTER DENOTES SIZE OF REBAR ## SEE CONCRETE NOTE 7 & 8 ON SHEET 2 FOR SPLICING & HOOK LENGTHS * * 1 7 8 " 2" 5" 1 1 2 " 6" 6" ## 5D2 REBAR @ 6" ## O.C. (CENTERED ## OVER FLUTES) ## 5" CONCRETE DECK ## (BY OTHERS) ## FORM DECK ## 4D1 REBAR ## @ 7" O.C. ## BRIDGE LENGTH = 41'-0" 6'-10" ## 2 BAYS AT 6'-10" = 13'-8"2 BAYS AT 6'-10" = 13'-8" 6'-10" ## SYMMETRICAL ABOUT ## OF BRIDGE 3" 10 1 2 " 1'-3" 1'-7 1 2 " 2'-0" 2'-4 1 2 " 2'-9" 2" 6" 3'-6" 4'-0" 6" 4'-1" 2" 4'-9" 8 6 1 2 " ## 5" CONCRETE DECK ## SIDE DAM ## VERTICAL ## DIAGONAL ## RUB RAIL ## (SEE DETAIL) 14 6 ## SAFETY RAILS- CAP ## ENDS ## TOE RAIL 8'-0" 7 6 ## TOP CHORD 7 6 3 8 ## " STIFFENER ## PLATE. TYP EACH ## END OF EVERY ## FLOOR BEAM ## BOTTOM CHORD 1/4 ## TYP ## FLOOR BEAM ## BRACE DIAGONAL 1 4 ## BRIDGE SECTION ## SPACING OF SAFETY ## RAILS PRODUCES ## OPENINGS OF LESS ## THAN 4" ## 4" MAX GAP ## 2OO12 ## DAVID G. ## ROGERS 3/15/2021 ## DATE: ## APPROVED: ## DDB ## CHECKED: ## SHEET: ## C:\USERS\SAMUEL.LANGSTON\ONEDRIVE - THE QUIKRETE COMPANIES\DESKTOP\666994-10.DWG ## 4/28/2021 10:26 AM ## OF ## SLL ## DRAWN:DESIGNED: ## DDB 666994 ## DGR 6 ## SEQUENCE No.: 10 ## PROJECT No.: 6 ## CONTRACT ## CONTECH ## DRAWING ## REVISION DESCRIPTION ## DATE ## MARK ## BY - 4/28/2021 ## INITIAL SUBMITTAL ## SLL The design and information shown on this drawing is provided as a service to the project owner, engineer ## and contractor by Contech Engineered Solutions LLC ("Contech"). Neither this drawing, nor any part thereof, may be used, reproduced or modified in any manner without the prior written consent of Contech. Fa ilure to comply is done at the user's own risk and Contech expressly discl aims any liability or responsibility for such use. If discrepancies between the supplied inf ormation upon which the drawing is based and actual f ield conditions are encountered as site work progresses, these discrepancies must be reported to Contech immediately for re-evaluation of the design. Contech accepts no liability f or designs based on missing, incomplete or inaccurate inf ormation supplied by others. www.ContechES.com ## R ## CONTINENTAL ## BRIDGE ## F ## O ## U ## N ## D ## E ## D 1 9 2 1 ## A ## M ## E ## R ## I ## C ## A ## N ## I ## N ## S ## T ## I ## T ## U ## T ## E ## O ## F ## S ## T ## E ## E ## L ## C ## O ## N ## S ## T ## R ## U ## C ## T ## I ## O ## N ## AVONDALE, AZ ## 41'-0" X 8'-0" ## AVONDALE BOULEVARD ## PEDESTRIAN TRUSS- CONNECTOR ## 800-328-2047 320-345-9126 320-566-3148 FAX ## 8301 State Highway 29 North, Alexandria, MN 56308 ## B-U2a-GF ## TOP OR ## BOTTOM ## CHORD ## CHORD SHOP SPLICE ## TYPICAL 3 4 ## WELD DETAIL 3/16 (3/16) ## TYP ## R = 0 α = 45° ## TYP ## TYP ## END ## VERTICAL ## TOP CHORD ## DIAGONAL 3/16 3 8 ## " CAP 1/8 (1/8) 7 6 ## R = 0 α = 45° 3/16 3/16 ## TYP SEE DETAIL 6 6 ## TYP SEE DETAIL 5 6 tw=3/16 tw=3/16 3/16 ## TYP WELD REQUIRED ## UNDER END TWO BAY ## DIAGONALS ONLY 3/16 4 4 ## WELD DETAIL ## TOP/ BOTTOM CHORD ## DIAGONAL ## VERTICAL ## "Z" LOSS DIMENSION TO BE DETERMINED IN ## ACCORDANCE WITH AWS D1.1 - TABLE 2.9 ## Z tw t ## W.P. 5 6 ## WELD DETAIL 7 4,5,6 ## WELD DETAIL ## MATCHED EDGES OF: ## 1.VERTICALS TO BOTH CHORDS ## 2.CHORDS TO END VERTICALS ## 3. END FLOOR BEAM TO END ## VERTICALS ## 4. DIAGONALS TO CHORDS & ## VERTICALS ## TO BE PARTIAL PENETRATION WELDS. 3/16" ≥3/16" ## OR 3/8" 1/4" ## 9/32" MIN OR AS REQ'D ## TO FLUSH OUT ## (WHICHEVER IS LESS) 3/16 3/16 ## TYP BC TO EV 3/16 ## TYP 3 SIDES 11 5 ## WELD DETAIL ## BRACE DIAGONAL ## BOTTOM CHORD ## END FLOOR BEAM ## END VERTICAL 1" 7 6 7 6 3/16 ## TYP 3 SIDES 12 5 ## WELD DETAIL ## BRACE DIAGONAL ## BOTTOM CHORD ## FLOOR BEAM ## VERTICAL 14 4 ## RUB RAIL DETAIL tw 3 16 " ( 1 8 ) 1 8 ## 3/16" WALL THICKNESS * 3 8 ## " MINIMUM OR AS REQUIRED TO ## FLUSH OUT RADIUS, WHICHEVER ## IS GREATER tw=3/16 (1/8 x 3/8) (1/8) * 8 4 ## NOTE: IF THE OUTSIDE RADIUS OF THE ## TUBE IS LESS THAN 1.5 TIMES THE WALL ## THICKNESS, CONTACT THE ENGINEER FOR ## APPROPRIATE WELD MODIFICATIONS. ## WELD DETAIL ## CAMBER DIAGRAM ## OF CHORD 5'-0' ## TYP. 9 5 ## COVER PLATE DETAIL ## FLOOR BEAM ## END DAM PLT 6 x 1/4 3 4 ## " (NOM) EMSEAL ## BEJS-PEDESTRIAN ## EXPANSION JOINT SYSTEM ## SEAL AND EPOXY PROVIDED ## BY CONTECH - INSTALLED ## BY OTHERS. ## TYP SEAL 1" 3 4 " 1 2 " ## RADIUS OF TUBE TO ## BE BUILT UP IN ORDER ## TO OBTAIN FULL WELD ## THROAT THICKNESS 3/16 6 6 ## WELD DETAIL 1 2 " 3'-6 1 2 ## " TO TOP ## OF BOTTOM CHORD ## CONT 5 4 " x 6" NOM ## COMPOSITE DECK ## MATERIAL 1/8 1/8 ## TYP 1/8 (1/8) ## TYP (2) Ø 1 4 ## " X 1 3 4 ## " LG STAINLESS ## STEEL CARRIAGE BOLTS W/ ## NUT & (4) 1 4 ## " DIA NYLON ## WASHER AT EACH VERTICAL ## (2) NYLON WASHERS ## (2) NYLON WASHERS ∠ 3 x 2 x 3 16 " x 4 1 2 ## " LG ## W/ (2) 7 16 " x 1" SLOTTED HOLES, 5 1 2 " 5 3 16 " 4 1 8 " 2 7 16 " 1 16 " 2" ## TYP SEAL ## TYP SEAL ## 2OO12 ## DAVID G. ## ROGERS ## SOLUTION DEVELOPMENT ## & DESIGN SUPPORT ## Structure Selection  ## Structure Siting and ## Layout  ## Engineer's Estimate ## Photo Simulation  ## DYOB Concept  ## Proposal Drawings  ## Contract Drawings  ## Specifications  ## Foundation ## Reactions ## Foundation Design  ## Approval Assistance  ## Fabrication ## Drawings ## DYOB ® ## (DESIGN YOUR OWN BRIDGE) www.ContechES.com/dyob ## INSTALLATION SUPPORT ## Preconstruction Meeting ## Logistics Coordination ## Structure Onsite ## Installation Assistance ## Contech Support Available  ## Engineer of Record May ## Provide ## CONSIDERATIONS FOR ## ENGINEER OF RECORD ## Site Design ## Soil Borings ## Soil Bearing Recommendations ## Hydraulic Analysis ## Scour Analysis ## Scour Countermeasures ## Permitting ## Inspections ## PHOTO SIMULATION ## BEFORE ## AFTER Page 72 of 112 steel www.ContechES.com 800-338-1122 For more information, call one of Contech’s Regional Offices located in the following cities: Corporate Office - Ohio (Cincinnati) 513-645-7000 California (Roseville) 800-548-4667 Colorado (Denver) 720-587-2700 Florida (Orlando) 321-348-3520 Maine (Scarborough) 207-885-9830 Maryland (Baltimore) 410-740-8490 Oregon (Portland) 503-258-3180 Texas (Dallas) 972-590-2000 ## STORMWATER ## SOLUTIONS ## PIPE ## SOLUTIONS ## STRUCTURE ## SOLUTIONS ## Contech ® Engineered Solutions provides innovative, cost-effective site solutions to engineers, contractors and developers on projects across North America. Our portfolio includes bridges, drainage, erosion control, retaining wall, sanitary sewer and stormwater management products. ## NOTHING IN THIS CATALOG SHOULD BE CONSTRUED AS A WARRANTY. APPLICATIONS SUGGESTED HEREIN ## ARE DESCRIBED ONLY TO HELP READERS MAKE THEIR OWN EVALUATIONS AND DECISIONS, AND ARE ## NEITHER GUARANTEES NOR WARRANTIES OF SUITABILITY FOR ANY APPLICATION. CONTECH MAKES NO ## WARRANTY WHATSOEVER, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, RELATED TO THE APPLICATIONS, MATERIALS, COATINGS, ## OR PRODUCTS DISCUSSED HEREIN. ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND ALL IMPLIED ## WARRANTIES OF FITNESS FOR ANY PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED BY CONTECH. SEE CONTECH’S ## CONDITIONS OF SALE (AVAILABLE AT WWW.CONTECHES.COM/COS) FOR MORE INFORMATION. ## © 2022 Contech Engineered Solutions LLC , a QUIKRETE Company All rights reserved. Printed in USA. ## Pedestrian Truss Bro 3/22 MC ## DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS:FABRICATION SPECIFICATIONS:SUPPORT: ## • AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications ## • International Building Code (IBC) ## • AISC Steel Construction Manual • Staff Registered Professional Engineers in all 50 states ## • AISC CERTIFIED FABRICATOR ## • Certified Bridge Fabricator – Advanced (Major) ## • Fracture Critical Endorsement ## • Sophisticated Paint Endorsement ## • AWS Certified Welders ## • AWS Certified Welding Fabricator ## • Project Management ## • Site Supervision ## • Foundation Design ## • Installation Guidance Page 73 of 112 ## City of Blaine ## Staff Report ## File Number: 2026-274 ## Agenda Date ## Status May 18, 2026 ## In Control ## File Type ## City Council ## Workshop Item ## New Business - Jason Zimmerman, Finance Director Agenda Item # 3.4 ## Utility Franchise Fee Funding Utilization & Communication Outline (25 Minutes) ## Background Since January 2025, five workshops have been held to explore diversifying revenue streams beyond property taxes, with a primary focus on implementing gas and electric utility franchise fees. These sessions examined the viability of these fees as a strategic alternative to tax increases, utilizing data modeling and revenue projections to evaluate their potential impact. The discussions also covered the status of existing franchise agreements and the proposed schedule for implementation and collection. ## Structure of Utility Franchise Fees Service providers establish distinct customer classifications to differentiate pricing across residential, commercial, and industrial sectors. While a uniform fixed charge could theoretically be applied to every user regardless of their category, most municipalities elect a tiered structure. This preference stems from the fact that consumption levels vary drastically between a single household and a massive industrial plant; consequently, a flat fee would fail to result in an equitable impact. By utilizing these tiered classifications, cities can more accurately align franchise fees with the specific infrastructure demands and usage volumes associated with each customer group. Conversations and modeling of these fees at prior workshops have also been careful to not disproportionately impact property owners compared to the alternative of incorporating such costs into a property tax levy. When revenue is generated through property taxes, the burden is tied strictly to assessed property value, which may not correlate with actual utility usage or the strain placed on public rights-of-way. By utilizing a franchise fee instead, the cost is shifted toward the actual users of the system, including tax-exempt entities and renters who utilize the infrastructure but might not contribute to a property tax fund. To maintain equity, the tiered franchise fee structure is designed so that the total financial obligation for property owners remains comparable to what they would have paid under a traditional levy, preventing a scenario where homeowners subsidize the high-intensity infrastructure needs of large-scale industrial or commercial entities. Page 74 of 112 ## Electric Franchise Fee Classifications Gas Franchise Fee Classifications ## Residential Residential ## Small Commercial/ Industrial – Non Demand ## Franchise Fee ## Commercial/ Industrial, Small Volume A Franchise ## Fee ## Small Commercial/ Industrial - Demand Franchise ## Fee ## Commercial/ Industrial, Small Volume B Franchise ## Fee ## Large Commercial Electric Franchise Fee Commercial/Industrial, Small Volume C Franchise ## Fee ## Commercial/Industrial, Small Volume Duel Fuel A ## & B ## Commercial/Industrial, Large Volume Duel Fuel A ## & B What Other Cities Collect Utility Franchise Fees? Under Minnesota Statute 216B.36, the City maintains broad authority to negotiate these franchise ordinances for the use of public rights-of-way. The following chart outlines Blaine’s comparable market cities alongside their respective franchise fee rate structures. Most cities utilize these dedicated funds to support critical infrastructure and community services that are directly related to the use of public rights-of-way. A primary use is pavement management, where revenue covers neighborhood street maintenance, mill and overlay projects, and full roadway reconstruction activities. Additionally, cities will occasionally allocate these fees to the operation and modernization of street lighting, the maintenance of parks and trail systems, and suitability or climate action initiatives. By diversifying revenue in this way, municipalities can maintain a proactive infrastructure schedule and fund essential community assets through a reliable, usage-based mechanism rather than relying solely on the general property tax levy. ## Gas Franchise Fees ## City Residential Com-A Less than 1,500 therms/ yr ## Com/Ind B 1,500 > or < 5,000 therms/yr ## Com/Ind C > 5,000 therms/yr ## Small ## Volume ## Dual Fuel ## A < 120,000 therms/yr ## SVDF B > 120,000 therms/yr ## Large ## Volume Firm & ## Dual Fuel >1,999 therms ## Peak Day ## Effective ## Date Apple Valley 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 03/2025 Bloomington $5.95 $11.90 $11.90 $63.00 $63.00 $63.00 $182.00 01/2024 Brooklyn Park $7.00 $6.50 $20.00 $70.00 $160.00 $160.00 $160.00 03/2016 Burnsville $8.00 $28.80 $80.00 $468.00 $468.00 $468.00 $468.00 07/2025 Coon Rapids 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 04/2018 Page 75 of 112 Eagan $1.85 $10.00 $10.00 $10.00 $10.00 $10.00 $20.00 06/2023 Eden Prairie $6.50 $8.50 $20.50 $89.50 $89.50 $89.50 $89.50 05/2023 Edina 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 01/2025 Lakeville $6.00 $35.00 $35.00 $120.00 $120.00 $120.00 $120.00 04/2025 Maple Grove — — — — — — — N/A Minnetonka $4.50 $4.50 $13.50 $45.00 $45.00 $45.00 $45.00 01/2019 Plymouth $3.53 $5.31 $17.71 $70.85 $70.85 $70.85 $70.85 04/2024 St. Louis Park $6.75 $6.75 $12.00 $48.50 $48.50 $48.50 $148.50 06/2021 Woodbury $1.75 $10.00 $10.00 $100.00 $90.00 $90.00 $55.00 01/2022 ## Electric Franchise Fees ## City Residential Small C&I Non- ## Demand ## Small C&I ## Demand ## Large C&I Effective Date Apple Valley 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 03/2025 Bloomington $5.95 $11.90 $63.00 $182.00 01/2024 Brooklyn Park $7.00 $7.50 $45.00 $160.00 03/2016 Burnsville $8.00 $28.80 $80.00 $468.00 07/2025 Coon Rapids 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 04/2018 Eagan $1.85 $10.00 $10.00 $20.00 06/2023 Eden Prairie $6.50 $8.50 $20.50 $89.50 05/2023 Edina 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 01/2025 Lakeville $6.00 $16.00 $35.00 $120.00 04/2025 Maple Grove — — — — N/A Minnetonka $4.50 $4.50 $13.50 $45.00 01/2019 Plymouth $3.53 $5.31 $17.71 $70.85 04/2024 St. Louis Park $6.75 $12.00 $48.50 $148.50 06/2021 Woodbury $3.25 $3.50 $23.00 $90.00 01/2022 ## Intent of Blaine Franchise Fees While staff analyzed and presented revenue estimates at varying franchise fee models, Council has Page 76 of 112 indicated a desire to move forward with a flat-fee model based on the City of Lakeville’s structure, which is estimated to generate approximately $5.9 million in annual revenue. This benchmark was selected because it reflects current market conditions in a comparable community and aligns closely with the debt and levy portions of Blaine's 2026-2030 Capital Improvement Plan. Unlike property taxes, which rely on fluctuating valuations, a flat-rate franchise fee provides a stable, predictable revenue stream that includes contributions from tax-exempt properties such as educational institutions and public property. Financial modeling indicates that this approach is equitable for most residents and businesses; for example, the median residential property would see a net benefit of approximately $17.61 annually when comparing the franchise fee to the property tax increase that would otherwise be required to fund these capital needs based on 2025 taxes. While implementing franchise fees requires significant administrative coordination and active negotiation with utilities, the long-term fiscal benefits include immediate revenue from new construction and a diversified funding base that reduces the overall debt burden. If fees are implemented in 2026, the first significant impact on the annual debt levy would likely occur by 2029. This would allow for a full year of revenue collection to validate budget projections and ensure a prudent transition toward cash-funding essential infrastructure. ## Franchise Fee Implementation Process and Proposed Timeline On April 13, the City Council met to review the procedural framework and necessary timelines for establishing new franchise and fee ordinances, with the presentation being provided by Jacob Saufley, an attorney with Eckberg Lammers. Because the Council reached a consensus to move forward with the process as drafted, a mandatory 60-day notice period for utilities was scheduled to begin on April 15, 2026. This consensus initiated a staggered legislative path where the franchise ordinances, which are the legal agreements themselves, are now tentatively slated for a first reading on May 17 and adoption on June 1. Following that stage, the fee ordinances, which define the specific rates and classes, are expected to move toward for a public hearing and first reading on June 14, with a targeted adoption date of July 6. As this was based on a preliminary planning document, the dates were used to illustrate the significant lead times required by statutory and contractual obligations. For instance, it was noted that once an ordinance was adopted, a 90-day notification and publication period had to occur before any fees became active; under that conceptual model, the effective date was projected to be October 5, 2026, or sometime shortly thereafter. ## Franchise Fee Communication The city will evaluate the use of multiple communication channels, anchored by the development of a comprehensive online FAQ. This resource would serve as a definitive reference, providing the public with clear explanations regarding the necessity of the fee, the specific projects it would fund, and the impact on utility statements. By evaluating the use of detailed financial comparisons and project timelines in one accessible location, the city can determine the most effective way to address common concerns and ensure that the rationale for shifting toward a "pay-as-you-go" capital model is transparent and well-documented. Additionally, city staff will consider utilizing supplemental resources, including social media and the city’s newsletter, to disseminate this information to a broader cross-section of residents. A more Page 77 of 112 detailed, integrated communication plan will be established as the effective dates for the franchise fees are finalized. ## Staff Recommendation ## Questions for Council Does Council desire to move forward with the intent to allocate franchise fees for pavement management projects and begin the development of a communication plan? ## Attachment List ## 1. Xcel Franchise Rider - Electric ## 2. Connexus Rider - Electric ## 3. Centerpoint Rider - Gas ## 4. Xcel Franchise Rider - Gas ## 5. Lakeville Ord. 1094 Franchise Fees Xcel Energy ## 6. Lakeville Ord. 1096 Franchise Fees Centerpoint Energy Page 78 of 112 ## Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation ## Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 ## MINNESOTA ELECTRIC RATE BOOK – MPUC NO. 2 FRANCHISE AND OTHER CITY FEES Section No. 38th Revised Sheet No. 5 93.1 (Continued on Sheet No. 5-93.1a) Date Filed: 11-25-25 By: Bria E. Shea Effective Date: 02-01-26 ## President, Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation ## Docket No. E,G999/CI-09-970 Order Date: 03-23-11 Franchise and other city fees, as designated below will be included in the customers’ monthly bills computed under the indicated rate classes and effective in the following Minnesota communities: The Company remits 100% of these fees collected from ratepayers to the local government unit. — Indicates fee is not applied ## Franchise Fees ## City ## Residential ## Small C&I ## Non -demand ## Small C&I ## Demand ## Large C&I ## Public Street Lighting ## Municipal Pumping ## Non -demand ## Municipal Pumping ## Demand ## Effective Date ## Expiration Date Afton $3.00 $7.50 $7.50 $7.50 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 10/2024 06/17/2044 Albertville $2.50 $5.00 $10.00 $50.00 $2.00 — — 03/2011 09/07/2029 Arden Hills $3.00 $4.00 $22.00 $329.00 — — — 02/2025 10/27/2044 Bayport $1.50 $3.00 $25.00 $50.00 $3.00 $3.00 $25.00 01/2014 05/04/2028 Big Lake $4.00 $8.00 $8.00 $8.00 — — — 10/2014 07/04/2034 Bloomington $5.95 $11.90 $63.00 $182.00 — — — 01/2024 12/20/2035 ## Brooklyn ## Center $1.65 $4.25 $22.75 $103.00 $13.50 $13.50 $13.50 12/2023 10/08/2043 Brooklyn Park $7.00 $7.50 $45.00 $160.00 — — — 03/2016 12/31/2028 Burnsville $8.00 $28.80 $80.00 $468.00 — — — 07/2025 02/15/2036 Centerville $4.00 $8.00 $8.00 $8.00 — — — 05/2016 01/26/2036 Champlin $3.62 $9.80 $41.21 $144.24 $17.51 $17.51 $17.51 01/2020 11/23/2028 Chanhassen $5.00 $14.00 $40.00 $290.00 — — — 02/2020 10/27/2039 Chaska 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 10/2025 06/15/2045 Chisago City $1.30 $5.00 $15.00 $55.00 $5.00 $5.00 $15.00 06/2009 02/28/2029 Circle Pines $2.75 $3.00 $35.00 — $3.00 — — 10/2009 08/24/2029 Clara City $2.00 $2.00 $15.00 $68.00 $2.00 $2.00 $15.00 01/2014 10/07/2033 Clements $5.00 $7.00 $7.00 $10.00 — — — 06/2024 03/10/2044 ## Columbia ## Heights $4.00 $6.00 $28.00 $112.00 — — — 02/2026 01/27/2028 ## Coon Rapids 1 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% — — — 04/2018 01/13/2032 1 Coon Rapids: The franchise fee excludes rate schedules for highway lighting, municipal street lighting, municipal water pumping, municipal fire sirens, and municipal sewage disposal service. For all consumers, the four percent franchise fee is applicable to the first $950,000 of calendar year gross operating revenues. The franchise fee is reduced to one half percent (0.5%) for the remaining amount of annual gross operating revenues exceeding $950,000. ## N ## L ## L Page 79 of 112 ## Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation ## Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 ## MINNESOTA ELECTRIC RATE BOOK – MPUC NO. 2 FRANCHISE AND OTHER CITY FEES Section No. 20th Revised Sheet No. 5 93.1a (Continued on Sheet No. 5-93.2) Date Filed: 12-30-25 By: Bria E. Shea Effective Date: 03-01-26 ## President, Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation ## Docket No. E,G999/CI-09-970 Order Date: 03-23-11 Franchise and other city fees, as designated below will be included in the customers’ monthly bills computed under the indicated rate classes and effective in the following Minnesota communities: The Company remits 100% of these fees collected from ratepayers to the local government unit. — Indicates fee is not applied ## Franchise Fees ## City ## Residential ## Small C&I ## Non -demand ## Small C&I ## Demand ## Large C&I ## Public Street Lighting ## Municipal Pumping ## Non -demand ## Municipal Pumping ## Demand ## Effective Date ## Expiration Date ## Cottage ## Grove 1 3.75% 3.75% 3.75% 3.75% --- --- --- 11/2023 10/31/2043 Dayton $4.00 $12.00 $45.00 $200.00 $16.00 $16.00 $16.00 01/2020 09/09/2039 Deephaven $5.00 $5.00 $5.00 $5.00 — — — 01/2024 11/02/2030 Dilworth $2.60 $6.00 $21.00 $136.50 — $6.00 $21.00 05/2018 02/25/2038 Dundas $2.25 $3.25 $25.00 $740.00 — — — 01/2024 08/25/2033 Eagan $1.85 $10.00 $10.00 $20.00 — — — 06/2023 11/16/2042 Eagle Lake $0.50 $0.50 $0.50 $0.50 — — — 10/2012 05/06/2032 Eden Prairie $6.50 $8.50 $20.50 $89.50 — — — 05/2023 06/18/2032 ## Edina 2 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% — — — 01/2026 11/03/2035 Excelsior $2.50 $2.50 $2.50 $2.50 $2.50 $2.50 $2.50 11/2012 08/02/2032 ## Falcon ## Heights $2.25 $3.50 $22.00 $200.00 $2.00 — — 10/2018 06/12/2038 Faribault $6.63 $21.94 $58.72 $438.80 — — — 11/2025 09/22/2045 Foley $3.00 $4.00 $20.00 $100.00 — — — 01/2025 08/05/2044 Forest Lake $5.50 $3.50 $25.75 $104.25 — — — 03/2026 01/27/2033 Glyndon $1.25 $1.00 $8.00 $35.00 $5.00 $0.50 $1.75 05/2020 01/21/2040 Golden Valley $6.00 $6.00 $30.00 $258.00 — — — 04/2018 12/17/2027 1 Cottage Grove: The franchise fee excludes rate schedules for highway lighting, municipal street lighting, municipal water pumping, municipal fire sirens, municipal traffic signals, and municipal sewage disposal service. For all consumers, the 3.75% franchise fee is applicable to the first $950,000 of calendar year gross operating revenues. The franchise fee is reduced to one half percent (0.5%) for the remaining amount of annual gross operating revenues exceeding $950,000. 2 Edina: For Large C&I customers, the four percent (4.0%) franchise fee is applicable to the first $200,000 of calendar year gross operating revenues. The franchise fee is reduced to three tenths of one percent (.3%) for the remaining amount of annual gross operating revenues exceeding $200,000. ## RC Page 80 of 112 ## Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation ## Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 ## MINNESOTA ELECTRIC RATE BOOK – MPUC NO. 2 FRANCHISE AND OTHER CITY FEES (Continued) Section No. 33rd Revised Sheet No. 5 93.2 (Continued on Sheet No. 5-93.3) Date Filed: 03-31-25 By: Ryan J. Long Effective Date: 06-01-25 ## President, Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation ## Docket No. E,G999/CI-09-970 Order Date: 03-23-11 Franchise and other city fees, as designated below will be included in the customers’ monthly bills computed under the indicated rate classes and effective in the following Minnesota communities: The Company remits 100% of these fees collected from ratepayers to the local government unit. — Indicates fee is not applied ## City ## Residential ## Small C&I ## Non -demand ## Small C&I ## Demand ## Large C&I ## Public Street Lighting ## Municipal Pumping ## Non -demand ## Municipal Pumping ## Demand ## Effective Date ## Expiration Date Goodview $2.75 $3.00 $25.00 $110.00 $25.00 $2.50 $10.00 07/2006 04/30/2026 Grant $2.35 $2.00 $14.00 $75.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 01/2024 09/04/2043 Hayfield $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 01/2015 04/17/2031 Henderson $3.00 $3.00 $3.00 $3.00 — — — 04/2012 08/16/2031 Hopkins 5.00% 4.25% 4.25% 4.25% — — — 01/2024 12/31/2026 ## Inver Grove ## Heights $2.75 $3.00 $25.00 $95.00 — — — 01/2018 06/30/2029 Lake Elmo $3.75 $2.50 $23.00 $175.00 — — — 06/2025 03/03/2045 Lakeville $6.00 $16.00 $35.00 $120.00 — — — 04/2025 12/06/2035 Landfall Village $2.25 $4.75 $14.00 $65.00 $15.50 — — 04/2014 12/10/2033 Lexington $4.00 $6.50 $40.00 $170.00 — — — 03/2017 10/05/2031 Lindstrom $2.50 $5.00 $24.00 $70.00 $7.00 $7.00 $7.00 04/2016 12/17/2028 Little Canada $3.75 $6.75 $40.00 $525.00 $3.75 $3.75 $3.75 04/2024 11/28/2043 Long Lake $4.00 $6.00 $40.00 $160.00 $4.00 $4.00 $4.00 01/2021 07/01/2038 Madison Lake $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 05/2013 02/03/2033 Mahtomedi 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 05/2025 02/03/2045 Mankato $1.00 $1.55 $16.50 $223.00 $1.00 $0.25 $1.00 02/2015 09/21/2034 Mantorville $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 11/2012 08/12/2032 Maplewood $4.25 $5.50 $30.00 $180.00 $9.75 $8.25 $10.75 10/2024 05/27/2044 Mendota Heights $2.00 $20.00 $20.00 $50.00 $15.00 $2.00 $2.00 04/2024 11/17/2034 ## Franchise Fees ## N Page 81 of 112 ## Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation ## Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 ## MINNESOTA ELECTRIC RATE BOOK – MPUC NO. 2 FRANCHISE AND OTHER CITY FEES (Continued) Section No. 34th Revised Sheet No. 5 93.3 (Continued on Sheet No. 5-93.4) Date Filed: 01-29-26 By: Bria E. Shea Effective Date: 04-01-26 ## President, Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation ## Docket No. E,G999/CI-09-970 Order Date: 03-23-11 Franchise and other city fees, as designated below will be included in the customers’ monthly bills computed under the indicated rate classes and effective in the following Minnesota communities: The Company remits 100% of these fees collected from ratepayers to the local government unit. — Indicates fee is not applied ## City ## Residential ## Small C&I ## Non -demand ## Small C&I ## Demand ## Large C&I ## Public Street Lighting ## Municipal Pumping ## Non -demand ## Municipal Pumping ## Demand ## Effective Date ## Expiration Date Minneapolis 5.50% 7.25% 7.26% 7.75% 1 7.76% 2 6.75% 6.75% 6.75% 04/2026 12/31/2034 Minnetonka $4.50 $4.50 $13.50 $45.00 — $4.50 $4.50 01/2019 05/14/2038 Monticello $1.95 $5.50 $31.00 $190.00 $12.00 $12.00 $31.00 06/2007 05/31/2027 Montrose $4.00 $8.00 $8.00 $8.00 — — — 01/2020 09/09/2032 Mound $4.00 $12.00 $30.00 $145.00 $4.00 $4.00 $4.00 12/2025 12/31/2045 Mounds View 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 01/2022 12/31/2026 New Brighton $3.00 $4.50 $28.00 $185.00 — — — 01/2024 08/21/2043 New Hope $4.00 $7.00 $31.00 $135.00 — — — 03/2023 06/26/2031 New Richland $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 — — — 07/2024 03/24/2044 Newport $1.00 $1.50 $14.00 $70.00 $5.00 $1.00 $10.00 01/2011 10/18/2026 North Branch $5.25 $7.00 $17.50 $35.00 — — — 03/2026 04/09/2038 1 Minneapolis: For customers in the Large C&I class served at primary or higher voltages, the franchise fee is 7.75% of the Company’s gross revenues from its operations within the City. 2 Minneapolis: For customers in the Large C&I class served at secondary voltage, the franchise fee is 7.76% of the Company’s gross revenues from its operations within the City. ## Franchise Fees ## RC Page 82 of 112 ## Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation ## Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 ## MINNESOTA ELECTRIC RATE BOOK – MPUC NO. 2 FRANCHISE AND OTHER CITY FEES (Continued) Section No. 43rd Revised Sheet No. 5 93.4 (Continued on Sheet No. 5-93.5) ## Date Filed: 01-29-26 By: Bria E. Shea Effective Date: 03-19-26 ## President, Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation ## Docket No. E,G999/CI-09-970 Order Date: 03-23-11 Franchise and other city fees, as designated below will be included in the customers’ monthly bills computed under the indicated rate classes and effective in the following Minnesota communities: The Company remits 100% of these fees collected from ratepayers to the local government unit. — Indicates fee is not applied ## City ## Residential ## Small C&I ## Non -demand ## Small C&I ## Demand ## Large C&I ## Public Street Lighting ## Municipal Pumping ## Non -demand ## Municipal Pumping ## Demand ## Effective Date ## Expiration Date North Mankato $1.00 $1.55 $16.50 $223.00 $17.62 $1.46 $12.30 04/2015 10/05/2034 Northfield $4.75 $6.00 $45.00 $1,390.00 — — — 01/2026 12/03/2032 Oakdale 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 04/2024 12/11/2043 Osseo $1.28 $2.07 $17.57 $102.65 $6.20 $0.45 $2.55 10/2023 08/27/2043 Otsego $4.00 $5.00 $40.00 $95.00 — — — 10/2022 10/24/2041 Owatonna 3.5% 3.5% 3.5% 3.5% 3.5% 3.5% 3.5% 05/2023 01/16/2043 Plymouth $3.53 $5.31 $17.71 $70.85 — — — 04/2024 07/09/2027 Prior Lake $5.60 $16.75 $33.50 $168.00 — — — 01/2025 03/19/2027 Richmond $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 — — — 05/2013 05/03/2031 Richfield $5.10 $17.00 $41.25 $263.00 — — — 01/2024 03/12/2027 Robbinsdale 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 07/2023 04/02/2027 Rogers $5.00 $7.00 $45.00 $210.00 $17.00 $12.00 $65.00 02/2025 11/25/2044 Roseville $3.00 $13.00 $25.00 $329.00 — — — 03/2026 11/23/2045 Sartell $4.00 $6.75 $15.00 $109.00 — — — 01/2017 09/11/2036 ## Sauk Rapids 2 4.5% Customers who purchase $75,000 or less in calendar year 1.5% That part which exceeds $75,000 in calendar year 01/2024 09/24/2043 ## Shakopee 1 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% — — — 01/2022 08/03/2041 Shoreview $3.75 $5.00 $36.00 $340.00 — — — 01/2021 07/17/2031 1 Shakopee: The fee collected shall total three percent (3%) of the Company's gross revenues from its operations within the City collected from each customer of each class. For customers in the Large C&I class, the three percent franchise fee is applicable to the first $950,000 of calendar year gross revenues. The franchise fee is reduced to one-half percent (0.5%) for the remaining amount of annual gross revenues exceeding $950,000. 2 Sauk Rapids: Franchise Fee does not apply to Public Street Lighting ## Franchise Fees ## C Page 83 of 112 ## Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation ## Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 ## MINNESOTA ELECTRIC RATE BOOK – MPUC NO. 2 FRANCHISE AND OTHER CITY FEES (Continued) Section No. 25th Revised Sheet No. 5 93.5 (Continued on Sheet No. 5-93.6) Date Filed: 08-29-25 By: Ryan J. Long Effective Date: 11-01-25 EVP, Chief Legal & Compliance Officer and President, Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation ## Docket No. E,G999/CI-09-970 Order Date: 03-23-11 Franchise and other city fees, as designated below will be included in the customers’ monthly bills computed under the indicated rate classes and effective in the following Minnesota communities: The Company remits 100% of these fees collected from ratepayers to the local government unit. — Indicates fee is not applied ## City ## Residential ## Small C&I ## Non -demand ## Small C&I ## Demand ## Large C&I ## Public Street Lighting ## Municipal Pumping ## Non - demand ## Municipal Pumping ## Demand ## Effective Date ## Expiration Date 1 South St. Paul: The franchise fee excludes rate schedules for highway lighting, municipal street lighting, municipal water pumping, municipal traffic signals, municipal fire sirens, and municipal sewage disposal service. 2 St. Cloud: The franchise fee for residential heating customers will be 1.5% during the months of November – April. 3 St. Paul: The monthly franchise fee will be as stated on the following sheets. The residential service franchise fee will be as stated except during the months of November - April when there will be no fee. The fee shall not exceed $620,000 during any calendar year from any large commercial and industrial customer qualifying for service on the Competitive Market Rider. The schedule on the following sheets show the meter, energy, and demand factor for each year of the St. Paul franchise and for each of the customer classifications. ## Franchise Fees Shorewood $4.00 $8.00 $10.00 $25.00 — — — 10/2018 06/24/2038 ## South St. Paul 1 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% — — — 04/2018 04/05/2030 Spicer $1.00 $1.00 $8.00 $8.00 — — — 02/2013 10/01/2032 ## Spring Lake ## Park $0.80 $1.20 $8.50 $50.00 — — — 04/2015 01/04/2035 ## St. Cloud 2 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% — — — 12/2017 07/29/2027 St. Joseph $2.00 $6.75 $20.00 $109.00 — — — 02/2024 10/01/2043 St. Louis Park $6.75 $12.00 $48.50 $148.50 — $12.00 $48.50 06/2021 09/18/2036 St. Michael $3.50 $2.50 $2.50 $10.00 $10.00 $2.50 $10.00 04/2021 10/08/2040 ## St. Paul 3 See fee schedule in the Notes section on the following sheets. 11/2006 08/31/2026 St. Paul Park $3.25 $2.75 $28.00 $533.00 — — — 11/2025 07/20/2045 Stillwater $2.00 $2.50 $18.00 $125.00 $4.00 $2.00 $18.00 06/2015 02/16/2035 ## RC Page 84 of 112 ## Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation ## Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 ## MINNESOTA ELECTRIC RATE BOOK – MPUC NO. 2 FRANCHISE AND OTHER CITY FEES (Continued) Section No. 4th Revised Sheet No. 5 93.6 (Continued on Sheet No. 5-93.7) Date Filed: 11-02-15 By: Christopher B. Clark Effective Date: 10-01-17 ## President, Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation ## Docket No. E002/GR-15-826 Order Date: 06-12-17 ## Notes: 3 ## St. Paul (continued) ## Customer Class Meter Factor - Monthly Charge per Account Start Date 1-Nov-2006 1-Nov-2008 1-Nov-2010 1-Nov-2012 1-Nov-2014 End Date 31-Oct-2008 31-Oct-2010 31-Oct-2012 31-Oct-2014 31-Oct-2016 Residential (May - October) $2.63 $2.70 $2.77 $2.84 $2.91 ## Small Commercial & Industrial Non-Demand $2.96 $3.09 $3.22 $3.35 $3.48 Firm Secondary $2.96 $3.09 $3.22 $3.35 $3.48 Firm Primary $2.96 $3.09 $3.22 $3.35 $3.48 Interruptible Secondary $2.96 $3.09 $3.22 $3.35 $3.48 Interruptible Primary $2.96 $3.09 $3.22 $3.35 $3.48 ## Large Commercial & Industrial Special $5.04 $5.11 $5.18 $5.25 $5.32 Firm Secondary $5.04 $5.11 $5.18 $5.25 $5.32 Firm Primary $5.04 $5.11 $5.18 $5.25 $5.32 Firm Trans. Transf. $5.04 $5.11 $5.18 $5.25 $5.32 Interruptible Secondary $5.04 $5.11 $5.18 $5.25 $5.32 Interruptible Primary $5.04 $5.11 $5.18 $5.25 $5.32 Interruptible TT $5.04 $5.11 $5.18 $5.25 $5.32 Standby Service None None None None None Public Street & Highway Lighting $6.74 $6.81 $6.88 $6.95 $7.02 ## Small Municipal Pumping Non-Demand $2.96 $3.09 $3.22 $3.35 $3.48 Demand Secondary $2.96 $3.09 $3.22 $3.35 $3.48 Demand Primary $2.96 $3.09 $3.22 $3.35 $3.48 ## Large Municipal Pumping Demand Primary (Sec cust) $2.96 $3.09 $3.22 $3.35 $3.48 Fire and Civil Defense Siren Service $2.96 $3.09 $3.22 $3.35 $3.48 Page 85 of 112 ## Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation ## Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 ## MINNESOTA ELECTRIC RATE BOOK – MPUC NO. 2 FRANCHISE AND OTHER CITY FEES (Continued) Section No. 5th Revised Sheet No. 5 93.7 (Continued on Sheet No. 5-93.8) Date Filed: 12-30-24 By: Ryan J. Long Effective Date: 04-01-25 ## President, Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation ## Docket No. E,G999/CI-09-970 Order Date: 03-23-11 ## Notes: 3 ## St. Paul (continued) ## Customer Class Meter Factor - Monthly Charge per Account Start Date 1-Nov-2016 1-Nov-2018 1-Nov-2020 1-Nov-2022 1-Nov-2024 End Date 31-Oct-2018 31-Oct-2020 31-Oct-2022 31-Oct-2024 31-Aug-2026 Residential (May - October) $3.03 $3.15 $3.27 $3.40 Residential (April - October) $3.54 ## Small Commercial & Industrial Non-Demand $3.62 $3.76 $3.91 $4.07 $4.23 Firm Secondary $3.62 $3.76 $3.91 $4.07 $4.23 Firm Primary $3.62 $3.76 $3.91 $4.07 $4.23 Interruptible Secondary $3.62 $3.76 $3.91 $4.07 $4.23 Interruptible Primary $3.62 $3.76 $3.91 $4.07 $4.23 ## Large Commercial & Industrial Special $5.53 $5.75 $5.98 $6.22 $6.47 Firm Secondary $5.53 $5.75 $5.98 $6.22 $6.47 Firm Primary $5.53 $5.75 $5.98 $6.22 $6.47 Firm Trans. Transf. $5.53 $5.75 $5.98 $6.22 $6.47 Interruptible Secondary $5.53 $5.75 $5.98 $6.22 $6.47 Interruptible Primary $5.53 $5.75 $5.98 $6.22 $6.47 Interruptible TT $5.53 $5.75 $5.98 $6.22 $6.47 ## Standby Service None None None None None Public Street & Highway Lighting $7.30 $7.59 $7.90 $8.21 $8.54 ## Small Municipal Pumping Non-Demand $3.62 $3.76 $3.91 $4.07 $4.23 Demand Secondary $3.62 $3.76 $3.91 $4.07 $4.23 Demand Primary $3.62 $3.76 $3.91 $4.07 $4.23 ## Large Municipal Pumping Demand Primary (Sec cust) $3.62 $3.76 $3.91 $4.07 $4.23 Fire and Civil Defense Siren Service $3.62 $3.76 $3.91 $4.07 $4.23 ## C ## C Page 86 of 112 ## Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation ## Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 ## MINNESOTA ELECTRIC RATE BOOK – MPUC NO. 2 FRANCHISE AND OTHER CITY FEES (Continued) Section No. 4th Revised Sheet No. 5 93.8 (Continued on Sheet No. 5-93.9) Date Filed: 11-02-15 By: Christopher B. Clark Effective Date: 10-01-17 ## President, Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation ## Docket No. E002/GR-15-826 Order Date: 06-12-17 ## Notes: 3 ## St. Paul (continued) ## Customer Class Energy Factor - Monthly Charge per kWh Start Date 1-Nov-2006 1-Nov-2008 1-Nov-2010 1-Nov-2012 1-Nov-2014 End Date 31-Oct-2008 31-Oct-2010 31-Oct-2012 31-Oct-2014 31-Oct-2016 Residential (May - October) $0.0094 $0.0095 $0.0096 $0.0097 $0.0098 ## Small Commercial & Industrial Non-Demand $0.0040 $0.0040 $0.0040 $0.0040 $0.0040 Firm Secondary $0.0018 $0.0018 $0.0018 $0.0018 $0.0018 Firm Primary $0.0018 $0.0018 $0.0018 $0.0018 $0.0018 Interruptible Secondary $0.0018 $0.0018 $0.0018 $0.0018 $0.0018 Interruptible Primary $0.0018 $0.0018 $0.0018 $0.0018 $0.0018 ## Large Commercial & Industrial Special $0.0028 $0.0028 $0.0028 $0.0028 $0.0028 Firm Secondary $0.0013 $0.0013 $0.0013 $0.0013 $0.0013 Firm Primary $0.0013 $0.0013 $0.0013 $0.0013 $0.0013 Firm Trans. Transf. $0.0013 $0.0013 $0.0013 $0.0013 $0.0013 Interruptible Secondary $0.0013 $0.0013 $0.0013 $0.0013 $0.0013 Interruptible Primary $0.0013 $0.0013 $0.0013 $0.0013 $0.0013 Interruptible TT $0.0013 $0.0013 $0.0013 $0.0013 $0.0013 Standby Service None None None None None Public Street & Highway Lighting $0.0040 $0.0040 $0.0040 $0.0040 $0.0040 ## Small Municipal Pumping Non-Demand $0.0040 $0.0040 $0.0040 $0.0040 $0.0040 Demand Secondary $0.0018 $0.0018 $0.0018 $0.0018 $0.0018 Demand Primary $0.0018 $0.0018 $0.0018 $0.0018 $0.0018 ## Large Municipal Pumping Demand Primary (Sec cust) $0.0018 $0.0018 $0.0018 $0.0018 $0.0018 Fire and Civil Defense Siren Service $0.0018 $0.0018 $0.0018 $0.0018 $0.0018 Page 87 of 112 ## Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation ## Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 ## MINNESOTA ELECTRIC RATE BOOK – MPUC NO. 2 FRANCHISE AND OTHER CITY FEES (Continued) Section No. 5th Revised Sheet No. 5 93.9 (Continued on Sheet No. 5-93.10) Date Filed: 12-30-24 By: Ryan J. Long Effective Date: 04-01-25 ## President, Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation ## Docket No. E,G999/CI-09-970 Order Date: 03-23-11 ## Notes: 3 ## St. Paul (continued) ## Customer Class Energy Factor - Monthly Charge per kWh Start Date 1-Nov-2016 1-Nov-2018 1-Nov-2020 1-Nov-2022 1-Nov-2024 End Date 31-Oct-2018 31-Oct-2020 31-Oct-2022 31-Oct-2024 31-Aug-2026 Residential (May - October) $0.0102 $0.0106 $0.0110 $0.0115 Residential (April - October) $0.0119 ## Small Commercial & Industrial Non-Demand $0.0042 $0.0043 $0.0045 $0.0047 $0.0049 Firm Secondary $0.0019 $0.0019 $0.0020 $0.0021 $0.0022 Firm Primary $0.0019 $0.0019 $0.0020 $0.0021 $0.0022 Interruptible Secondary $0.0019 $0.0019 $0.0020 $0.0021 $0.0022 Interruptible Primary $0.0019 $0.0019 $0.0020 $0.0021 $0.0022 ## Large Commercial & Industrial Special $0.0029 $0.0030 $0.0031 $0.0033 $0.0034 Firm Secondary $0.0014 $0.0014 $0.0015 $0.0015 $0.0016 Firm Primary $0.0014 $0.0014 $0.0015 $0.0015 $0.0016 Firm Trans. Transf. $0.0014 $0.0014 $0.0015 $0.0015 $0.0016 Interruptible Secondary $0.0014 $0.0014 $0.0015 $0.0015 $0.0016 Interruptible Primary $0.0014 $0.0014 $0.0015 $0.0015 $0.0016 Interruptible TT $0.0014 $0.0014 $0.0015 $0.0015 $0.0016 ## Standby Service None None None None None Public Street & Highway Lighting $0.0042 $0.0043 $0.0045 $0.0047 $0.0049 ## Small Municipal Pumping Non-Demand $0.0042 $0.0043 $0.0045 $0.0047 $0.0049 Demand Secondary $0.0019 $0.0019 $0.0020 $0.0021 $0.0022 Demand Primary $0.0019 $0.0019 $0.0020 $0.0021 $0.0022 ## Large Municipal Pumping Demand Primary (Sec cust) $0.0019 $0.0019 $0.0020 $0.0021 $0.0022 Fire and Civil Defense Siren Service $0.0019 $0.0019 $0.0020 $0.0021 $0.0022 ## C ## C Page 88 of 112 ## Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation ## Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 ## MINNESOTA ELECTRIC RATE BOOK – MPUC NO. 2 FRANCHISE AND OTHER CITY FEES (Continued) Section No. 4th Revised Sheet No. 5 93.10 (Continued on Sheet No. 5-93.11) Date Filed: 11-02-15 By: Christopher B. Clark Effective Date: 10-01-17 ## President, Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation ## Docket No. E002/GR-15-826 Order Date: 06-12-17 ## Notes: 3 ## St. Paul (continued) ## Customer Class Demand Factor - Monthly Charge per kW Start Date 1-Nov-2006 1-Nov-2008 1-Nov-2010 1-Nov-2012 1-Nov-2014 End Date 31-Oct-2008 31-Oct-2010 31-Oct-2012 31-Oct-2014 31-Oct-2016 Residential (May - October) None None None None None ## Small Commercial & Industrial Non-Demand None None None None None Firm Secondary $1.10 $1.10 $1.10 $1.10 $1.10 Firm Primary $1.06 $1.06 $1.06 $1.06 $1.06 Interruptible Secondary $1.10 $1.10 $1.10 $1.10 $1.10 Interruptible Primary $1.06 $1.06 $1.06 $1.06 $1.06 ## Large Commercial & Industrial Special None None None None None Firm Secondary $1.10 $1.10 $1.10 $1.10 $1.10 Firm Primary $1.06 $1.06 $1.06 $1.06 $1.06 Firm Trans. Transf. $1.06 $1.06 $1.06 $1.06 $1.06 Interruptible Secondary $0.81 $0.81 $0.81 $0.81 $0.81 Interruptible Primary $0.71 $0.71 $0.71 $0.71 $0.71 Interruptible TT $0.51 $0.54 $0.57 $0.60 $0.63 Standby Service $0.30 $0.33 $0.36 $0.39 $0.42 Public Street & Highway Lighting None None None None None ## Small Municipal Pumping Non-Demand None None None None None Demand Secondary $1.10 $1.10 $1.10 $1.10 $1.10 Demand Primary $1.06 $1.06 $1.06 $1.06 $1.06 ## Large Municipal Pumping Demand Primary (Sec cust) $1.06 $1.06 $1.06 $1.06 $1.06 Fire and Civil Defense Siren Service $1.06 $1.06 $1.06 $1.06 $1.06 Page 89 of 112 ## Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation ## Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 ## MINNESOTA ELECTRIC RATE BOOK – MPUC NO. 2 FRANCHISE AND OTHER CITY FEES (Continued) Section No. 5th Revised Sheet No. 5 93.11 (Continued on Sheet No. 5-93.12) Date Filed: 12-30-24 By: Ryan J. Long Effective Date: 04-01-25 ## President, Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation ## Docket No. E,G999/CI-09-970 Order Date: 03-23-11 ## Notes: 3 ## St. Paul (continued) ## Customer Class Demand Factor - Monthly Charge per kW Start Date 1-Nov-2016 1-Nov-2018 1-Nov-2020 1-Nov-2022 1-Nov-2024 End Date 31-Oct-2018 31-Oct-2020 31-Oct-2022 31-Oct-2024 31-Aug-2026 ## Residential (May - October) None None None None ## Residential (April - October) None ## Small Commercial & Industrial ## Non-Demand None None None None None Firm Secondary $1.14 $1.19 $1.24 $1.29 $1.34 Firm Primary $1.10 $1.15 $1.19 $1.24 $1.29 Interruptible Secondary $1.14 $1.19 $1.24 $1.29 $1.34 Interruptible Primary $1.10 $1.15 $1.19 $1.24 $1.29 ## Large Commercial & Industrial ## Special None None None None None Firm Secondary $1.14 $1.19 $1.24 $1.29 $1.34 Firm Primary $1.10 $1.15 $1.19 $1.24 $1.29 Firm Trans. Transf. $1.10 $1.15 $1.19 $1.24 $1.29 Interruptible Secondary $0.84 $0.88 $0.91 $0.95 $0.99 Interruptible Primary $0.74 $0.77 $0.80 $0.83 $0.86 Interruptible TT $0.66 $0.68 $0.71 $0.74 $0.77 Standby Service $0.44 $0.45 $0.47 $0.49 $0.51 ## Public Street & Highway Lighting None None None None None ## Small Municipal Pumping ## Non-Demand None None None None None Demand Secondary $1.14 $1.19 $1.24 $1.29 $1.34 Demand Primary $1.10 $1.15 $1.19 $1.24 $1.29 ## Large Municipal Pumping Demand Primary (Sec cust) $1.10 $1.15 $1.19 $1.24 $1.29 Fire and Civil Defense Siren Service $1.10 $1.15 $1.19 $1.24 $1.29 ## C ## C Page 90 of 112 ## Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation ## Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 ## MINNESOTA ELECTRIC RATE BOOK – MPUC NO. 2 FRANCHISE AND OTHER CITY FEES (Continued) Section No. 18th Revised Sheet No. 5 93.12 Franchise and other city fees, as designated below will be included in the customers’ monthly bills computed under the indicated rate classes and effective in the following Minnesota communities: The Company remits 100% of these fees collected from ratepayers to the local governmental unit. — Indicates fee is not applied (Continued on Sheet No. 5-93.13) Date Filed: 11-25-25 By: Bria E. Shea Effective Date: 02-01-26 ## President, Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation ## Docket No. E,G999/CI-09-970 Order Date: 03-23-11 ## Franchise Fees ## City ## Residential ## Small C&I Non -demand ## Small C&I Demand ## Large C&I ## Public Street Lighting ## Municipal Pumping Non - demand ## Municipal ## Pumping ## Demand ## Effective Date ## Expiration Date Tracy $2.64 $2.64 $5.28 $5.28 — — — 01/2023 09/25/2042 Vadnais Heights $4.75 $6.00 $50.00 $300.00 — — — 02/2025 01/01/2038 Victoria $3.00 $10.00 $10.00 $10.00 — — — 02/2017 10/09/2036 Wabasha $2.65 $5.25 $12.25 $15.00 — — — 02/2026 01/03/2042 Waite Park $4.00 $6.75 $15.00 $109.00 — — — 01/2019 06/10/2032 Watertown $3.00 $4.50 $16.00 $51.00 — $13.50 $21.00 04/2010 04/10/2027 ## Wayzata $2.06 $4.64 $4.64 $15.45 $1.03 $1.03 $1.03 03/2011 11/30/2026 White Bear Lake 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 05/2018 01/08/2038 ## Winona 4.0% 1.5% Customers who purchase $100,000 or less in calendar year That part which exceeds $100,000 in calendar year 07/2023 04/02/2043 Winsted $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 — — — 05/2012 12/19/2031 Woodbury $3.25 $3.50 $23.00 $90.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 01/2022 08/10/2041 Wyoming $3.75 $3.75 $25.00 $150.00 — — — 05/2022 02/01/2042 ## RC Page 91 of 112 ## Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation ## Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 ## MINNESOTA ELECTRIC RATE BOOK – MPUC NO. 2 FRANCHISE AND OTHER CITY FEES Section No. 6th Revised Sheet No. 5 93.13 Date Filed: 07-01-24 By: Ryan J. Long Effective Date: 08-01-24 ## President, Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation ## Docket No. E,G999/CI-09-970 Order Date: 03-23-11 Franchise and other city fees, as designated below will be included in the customers’ monthly bills computed under the indicated rate classes and effective in the following Minnesota communities: The Company remits 100% of these fees collected from ratepayers to the local government unit.* (U) Indicates unincorporated community ## Other City Fees ## City ## Description ## Effective Date ## Expiration Date ## West St. Paul Pursuant to city code, the Company collects a 6.0% gross revenue tax derived from the sale of electricity within the City of West St. Paul. The amount collected is remitted to the City of West St. Paul. 08/2024 05/12/2044 ## FEES NOT REMITTED DIRECTLY TO CITY Baker (U) The Company collects a fee of $3.25 per residential and small commercial and industrial customer in the community of Baker for energy usage and maintenance on community street lighting. The amount collected is applied to Baker’s street lighting bill. 03/1994 -- *Except Baker. See above. ## C Page 92 of 112 ## Connexus ® ## Energy Section III - Rider ## Electric Rate Book Revision: 7 (12-11-2025) Page 2 Effective date: 1-1-2026 ## COMMUNITY SURCHARGE RIDER In certain communities, bills are subject to a monthly surcharge. The surcharge is imposed upon the Company by a community and applied to the electric bill before any other taxes or surcharges The Company remits 100% of the surcharge collected from the members to the local unit of government. Communities and their respective surcharges are: CityResidentialSmall C&I Non-DemandSmall C&I DemandLarge C&I Public Street LightingMunicipal Pumping Non-DemandMunicipal Pumping Demand ## Anoka.004/kwh.004/kwh.004/kwh .004/kwh.004/kwh.004/kwh.004/kwh ## Big Lake $4.00$8.00$8.00$8.00-- - ## Centerville$4.00$8.00$8.00$8.00--- ## Champlin$3.98$10.78$45.33$158.66$19.26$19.26$19.26 ## Circle Pines3.00%3.00%3.00%3.00%3.00%3.00%3.00% ## Coon Rapids4.00%4.00%4.00%4.00%4.00%4.00%4.00% ## Dayton$4.00$12.00$45.00$200.00$16.00$16.00$16.00 ## Elk River$5.00$25.00$70.00$100.00 --- ## Forest Lake$4.00$2.50$2.50$75.00$7.50$2.50$2.50 ## Isanti$5.00$5.00$5.00$5.00$5.00$5.00$5.00 ## Lexington$4.00$6.50$40.00---- ## Princeton$1.50$2.50$2.50$55.00--- ## Spring Lake Park$0.80$1.20$8.50$50.00--- ## St. Cloud4.00%4.00%4.00%4.00%4.00%4.00%4.00% ## Vadnais Heights$4.75$6.00$50.00$300.00--- ## Wyoming$3.75$3.75$25.00$150.00--- Page 93 of 112 ## Section V ## Fifty-Fourth Revised Page 24 ## Replaces Fifty-Third Revised Page 24 Date Filed: November 7, 2025 Effective Date: November 7, 2025 ## Docket No: E,G999/PR-25-7 ## Issued by: Emily Suppes, Director, Regulatory Affairs ## FRANCHISE FEE RIDER Billing of Franchise, Gross Earnings, Receipts or Revenue Tax, Excise Tax or Other Charges or ## Taxes: There shall be added to the customer's bill, an amount equal to any franchise gross earnings, excise or other charges or taxes now or hereafter imposed upon CenterPoint Energy, whether imposed by ordinance, franchise or otherwise applicable to gas service supplied by CenterPoint Energy to its customers. The Company remits one hundred percent (100%) of these fees collected from ratepayers to the local governmental unit. The Company will notify the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (PUC) of any new, renewed, expired, or changed Franchise Fee, authorized by Minn. Stat. § 216B.36 to raise revenue, at least 30 days prior to its implementation. If the Company receives less than 30 days’ notice of a repealed or reduced fee from a city, the Company will notify the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission within 10 business days of receiving notice. Notification to the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission will include a copy of the relevant franchise ordinance, or other operative document authorizing imposition, or change in the fee. The Company will include the following language on the first bill of a customer on which a new or modified fee is listed: The MUNICIPALITY granted CenterPoint Energy a franchise to operate within the city Limits. A Gas franchise fee of x.x% of Gross Revenues/$x.xx per Meter/$x.xx per Therm will be collected from customers effective MM/DD/YYYY. The line item appears on your bill as “City Franchise Fee.” CenterPoint Energy remits 100% of this fee to the MUNICIPALITY. ## City Residential ## Com-A ## Less than 1,500 therms /yr ## Com/Ind ## B 1,500 > or < 5,000 therms/yr ## Com/Ind C > 5,000 therms/yr ## Small ## Volume Dual ## Fuel A < 120,000 therms/yr ## SVDF B > 120,000 therms/yr ## Large ## Volume Firm ## & Dual Fuel >1,999 therms Peak ## Day ## Effective ## Date Afton $3.00 $6.00 $6.00 $6.00 $7.50 $7.50 $7.50 01/01/2025 Albertville 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 11/01/2022 Alexandria 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 05/10/2014 Anoka $4.00 $4.00 $11.20 $46.60 $96.30 $357.40 $1,011.50 01/01/2026 Apple Valley 3% 3% 3% $35.00 $35.00 $35.00 $35.00 10/01/2025 Baxter $2.00 $7.00 $22.00 $22.00 $65.00 $65.00 $65.00 09/01/2016 Benson $3.00 $4.00 $5.00 $12.00 $14.00 $24.00 $55.00 03/01/2015 Big Lake 4.00 4.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 10/01/2014 Bloomington $5.95 $11.90 $11.90 $63.00 $63.00 $63.00 $182.00 01/01/2024 Blue Earth $2.00 $3.00 $3.00 $3.00 $3.00 $3.00 $3.00 12/01/2003 Brooklyn Center $1.66 $1.74 $5.63 $22.50 $56.23 $107.96 $107.96 01/01/2020 Brooklyn Park $7.00 $6.50 $20.00 $70.00 $160.00 $160.00 $160.00 03/01/2016 Burnsville $8.00 $28.80 $80.00 $468.00 $468.00 $468.00 $468.00 07/01/2025 Centerville $4.00 $8.00 $8.00 $8.00 $8.00 $8.00 $8.00 05/01/2016 Champlin $3.98 $3.98 $10.78 $45.33 $90.67 $158.66 $158.66 04/01/2021 Chanhassen $5.00 $5.00 $9.00 $20.00 $90.00 $90.00 $90.00 02/01/2020 Chaska 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 01/01/2026 Columbia Heights $4.00 $6.00 $28.00 $112.00 $56.00 $66.50 $95.00 02/01/2026 Coon Rapids 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 01/01/1992 Cottage Grove 3.75% 3.75% 3.75% 3.75% 3.75% 3.75% 3.75% 10/31/2023 Dayton $4.00 $7.00 $20.00 $65.00 $152.00 $155.00 $200.00 01/01/2026 Deephaven $5.00 $5.00 $5.00 $5.00 $5.00 $5.00 $5.00 01/01/2024 Eagan $1.85 $10.00 $10.00 $10.00 $10.00 $10.00 $20.00 06/01/2023 Eagle Lake $0.50 $0.50 $0.50 $0.50 $0.50 $0.50 $0.50 10/01/2012 Eden Prairie $6.50 $8.50 $20.50 $89.50 $89.50 $89.50 $89.50 05/01/2023 Edina 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 01/01/2026 Elk River $4.00 $4.00 $16.00 $50.00 $70.00 $70.00 $70.00 07/01/2013 Excelsior $2.50 $2.50 $2.50 $2.50 $2.50 $2.50 $2.50 07/13/2013 Note: Percents are calculated on percent of revenue Page 94 of 112 ## Section V ## Sixty-First Revised Page 24.a ## Replaces Sixtieth Revised Page 24.a Date Filed: January 9, 2026 Effective Date: January 9, 2026 ## Docket No: E,G999/PR-26-7 ## Issued by: Emily Suppes, Director, Regulatory Affairs ## FRANCHISE FEE RIDER (CONTINUED) ## City ## Residential ## Com-A Less than 1,500 therms/yr ## Com/Ind B 1,500 > or < 5,000 therms/yr ## Com/Ind C > 5,000 therms/yr ## Small ## Volume ## Dual Fuel ## A < 120,000 therms/yr ## SVDF B > 120,000 therms/yr ## Large ## Volume Firm ## & Dual Fuel >1,999 therms Peak ## Day ## Effective ## Date Golden Valley $6.00 $7.50 $30.00 $30.00 $258.00 $258.00 $258.00 04/01/2018 ## Granite Falls 5%/$1,500 maximum 5%/$1,500 maximum 5%/$1,500 maximum 5%/$1,500 maximum 5%/$1,500 maximum 5%/$1,500 maximum 5%/$1,500 maximum 07/21/2025 Hopkins 5% 4.25% 4.25% 4.25% 4.25% 4.25% 4.25% 03/01/2024 Isanti $5.00 $5.00 $5.00 $5.00 $5.00 $5.00 $5.00 01/01/2016 Janesville $2.70 $2.70 $6.75 $17.50 $77.00 $77.00 $77.00 09/01/2025 Lake Crystal 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 08/01/2003 Lake Elmo $2.00 $2.00 $18.00 $18.00 $80.00 $175.00 $175.00 06/01/2025 Lakeville $6.00 $35.00 $120.00 $120.00 $120.00 $120.00 $120.00 04/01/2025 Le Center $3.00 $6.00 $9.00 $15.00 $15.00 $15.00 $15.00 03/01/2026 Lexington $4.00 $6.50 $40.00 $170.00 $0 $0 $0 03/01/2017 Little Falls $1.00 $5.00 $5.00 $5.00 $5.00 $5.00 $5.00 01/01/2004 Long Lake $4.00 $4.00 $25.00 $60.00 $60.00 $60.00 $60.00 01/01/2021 Long Prairie $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 01/01/2007 Luverne $3.50 $3.50 $16.00 $35.00 $50.00 $50.00 $50.00 01/01/2019 Madelia $4.00 $4.00 $10.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 04/01/2021 Mankato $1.00 $2.75 $6.50 $15.00 $20.00 $25.00 $30.00 02/01/2015 Medford 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 05/01/2020 Melrose 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 01/01/2015 Minneapolis 7% 8.25% 8.25% 8.75% 8.75% 8.75% 9.5% 04/01/2026 Minnetonka $4.50 $4.50 $13.50 $45.00 $45.00 $45.00 $45.00 01/01/2019 Montgomery 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 02/01/2026 Monticello $7.00 $7.00 $24.00 $83.00 $83.00 $175.00 $292.00 02/01/2026 Morris $2.00 $5.00 $9.00 $27.00 $35.00 $35.00 $750.00 07/01/2004 Mound $4.00 $12.00 $30.00 $145.00 $4.00 $4.00 $4.00 07/01/2024 ## Mounds View 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 01/01/2019 New Hope $3.00 $4.00 $11.00 $38.00 $74.00 $83.00 $164.00 01/01/2017 ## North Mankato $1.00 $5.00 $10.00 $15.00 $20.00 $30.00 $75.00 06/01/2008 Oakdale 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 02/05/2024 Osseo 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 03/01/2012 Otsego $4.00 $5.00 $20.00 $60.00 $80.00 $80.00 $100.00 10/01/2022 Owatonna 1.75% 1.75% 1.75% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 01/01/2003 Plymouth $3.53 $5.31 $17.71 $70.85 $70.85 $70.85 $70.85 03/11/2024 Princeton $1.50 $2.50 $2.50 $55.00 $55.00 $55.00 $55.00 02/15/2019 Prior Lake $5.60 $5.60 $11.20 $16.75 $33.50 $33.50 $168.00 01/01/2025 Richfield $5.10 $5.10 $16.50 $41.15 $41.15 $41.15 $259.00 01/01/2024 Richmond $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 05/01/2013 Robbinsdale 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 06/01/2019 Rogers $4.00 $7.00 $20.00 $70.00 $148.00 $148.00 $800.00 01/01/2016 Note: Percents are calculated on percent of revenue Page 95 of 112 ## Section V ## Twelfth Revised Page 24.b ## Replaces Eleventh Revised Page 24.b Date Filed: November 27, 2024 Effective Date: November 27, 2024 ## Docket No: E,G999/PR-24-7 ## Issued by: Emily Suppes, Director, Regulatory Affairs ## FRANCHISE FEE RIDER (CONTINUED) ## City ## Residential ## Com-A Less than 1,500 therms/yr ## Com/Ind ## B 1,500 > or < 5,000 therms/yr ## Com/Ind ## C > 5,000 therms/yr ## Small ## Volume ## Dual Fuel ## A < 120,000 therms/yr ## SVDF B > 120,000 therms/yr ## Large ## Volume Firm & ## Dual Fuel >1,999 therms ## Peak Day ## Effective ## Date Sauk Centre 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 07/01/2012 Shakopee 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 01/01/2017 Shorewood $4.00 $4.00 $10.00 $25.00 $25.00 $25.00 $25.00 03/01/2018 Sleepy Eye 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 01/01/1998 Springfield 5.5% 5.5% 5.5% 5.5% 5.5% 5.5% 5.5% 01/01/2025 ## Spring Lake ## Park $0.58 $0.61 $1.66 $8.05 $37.00 $50.00 $50.00 04/01/2015 St. Augusta $3.00 $5.00 $5.00 $5.00 $3.00 $3.00 $5.00 01/03/2010 St. Joseph $1.00 $1.75 $10.00 $10.00 $10.00 $10.00 $10.00 06/01/2021 St. Louis Park $6.75 $6.75 $12.00 $48.50 $48.50 $48.50 $148.50 06/01/2021 Victoria $3.00 $10.00 $10.00 $10.00 $10.00 $10.00 $10.00 02/01/2017 Waseca $1.40 $1.80 $5.00 $16.00 $100.00 $150.00 $300.00 09/01/2010 Willmar $5.00 $10.00 $17.00 $45.00 $50.00 $60.00 $90.00 01/01/2025 Winnebago $1.50 $1.50 $4.25 $10.50 $11.00 $50.00 $75.00 12/01/2011 Winsted $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 04/01/2012 Woodbury $1.75 $10.00 $10.00 $100.00 $90.00 $90.00 $55.00 01/01/2022 Zimmerman $3.00 $5.00 $10.00 $10.00 $10.00 $10.00 $10.00 09/01/2020 Note: Percents are calculated on percent of revenue Page 96 of 112 ## Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation ## Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 ## MINNESOTA GAS RATE BOOK - MPUC NO. 2 FRANCHISE AND OTHER CITY FEES Section No. 33rd Revised Sheet No. 5 44.1 (Continued on Sheet No. 5-44.2) Date Filed: 12-30-25 By: Bria E. Shea Effective Date: 03-01-26 ## President, Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation ## Docket No. E,G999/CI-09-970 Order Date: 03-23-11 Franchise and other city fees, as designated below will be included in the customers’ monthly bills computed under the indicated rate classes and effective in the following Minnesota communities: The Company remits 100% of these fees collected from ratepayers to the local government unit. — Indicates fee is not applied * May include Negotiated Transportation Service. Any future NTS customer in a franchise city without a specific NTS franchise rate will be billed the Firm Transportation franchise fee. ## City ## Residential ## Commercial Firm – ## Non -demand ## Commercial Firm – ## Demand ## Small Interruptible Medium & ## Large Interruptible ## Firm Transportation * ## Interruptible Transportation ## Effective Date ## Expiration Date Afton $3.00 $6.00 $7.50 $7.50 $7.50 $7.50 $7.50 10/2024 06/17/2044 Barnesville 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 02/2015 10/13/2034 Baxter $2.00 $7.00 $65.00 $65.00 $65.00 $65.00 $65.00 06/2019 03/18/2039 Bayport $1.25 $10.00 $25.00 $10.00 $50.00 $10.00 $10.00 01/2014 05/04/2028 Big Lake $4.00 $8.00 $8.00 $8.00 $8.00 $8.00 $8.00 07/2020 04/07/2040 Centerville $4.00 $8.00 $8.00 $8.00 $8.00 $8.00 $8.00 05/2016 01/26/2036 Chisago City $1.00 $3.00 $35.00 $30.00 $30.00 $30.00 $30.00 06/2009 12/31/2029 Cottage Grove 3.75% 3.75% 3.75% 3.75% 3.75% 3.75% 3.75% 11/2023 10/31/2043 ## Delano $0.0391 per therm $0.0391 per therm $0.0391 per therm $0.0391 per therm $0.0391 per therm $0.0391 per therm $0.0391 per therm 01/2003 -- Dundas $3.25 $18.00 — — — — — 01/2024 08/25/2033 Eagan $1.85 $10.00 $10.00 $10.00 — — — 06/2023 08/03/2037 East Grand Forks $2.75 $13.00 $200.00 $75.00 — — — 12/2025 08/18/2045 Falcon Heights $1.75 $8.50 $75.00 $50.00 $100.00 $15.00 $15.00 10/2018 06/12/2038 Faribault $6.96 $24.57 $59.20 $131.08 $426.70 — — 11/2025 09/22/2045 Foley $2.00 $13.00 $13.00 $13.00 $13.00 $13.00 $13.00 01/2025 08/05/2044 Forest Lake $4.00 $10.50 $21.00 $104.25 $21.00 $21.00 $21.00 03/2026 01/27/2033 Grant $2.00 $4.00 $80.00 $20.00 $50.00 — — 01/2024 09/04/2043 Goodview $2.35 $3.50 $55.00 $30.00 — — — 07/2006 04/30/2026 ## Inver Grove ## Heights $2.00 $10.50 $50.00 $90.00 $100.00 $15.00 $15.00 01/2018 06/30/2029 Kandiyohi $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 04/2014 12/01/2033 Lake City $1.25 $3.50 $10.00 $35.00 $43.00 $10.00 $8.00 05/2019 02/10/2039 ## Franchise Fees ## RC Page 97 of 112 ## Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation ## Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 ## MINNESOTA GAS RATE BOOK - MPUC NO. 2 FRANCHISE AND OTHER CITY FEES (Continued) Section No. 35th Revised Sheet No. 5 44.2 (Continued on Sheet No. 5-44.3) ## Date Filed: 12-30-25 By: Bria E. Shea Effective Date: 03-01-26 ## President, Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation ## Docket No. E,G999/CI-09-970 Order Date: 03-23-11 Franchise and other city fees, as designated below will be included in the customers’ monthly bills computed under the indicated rate classes and effective in the following Minnesota communities: The Company remits 100% of these fees collected from ratepayers to the local government unit. — Indicates fee is not applied * May include Negotiated Transportation Service. Any future NTS customer in a franchise city without a specific NTS franchise rate will be billed the Firm Transportation franchise fee. ## City ## Residential ## Commercial Firm – ## Non -demand ## Commercial Firm – ## Demand ## Small Interruptible Medium & ## Large Interruptible ## Firm Transportation * ## Interruptible Transportation ## Effective Date ## Expiration Date ## Franchise Fees Lake Elmo $2.00 $8.00 $18.00 $80.00 $175.00 $175.00 $175.00 06/2025 03/03/2045 Lindstrom $2.00 $8.00 — $65.00 — — — 04/2016 02/18/2029 Little Canada $1.75 $7.00 $11.00 $45.00 — — — 04/2024 11/28/2043 Mahtomedi 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 05/2025 02/03/2045 Maplewood $3.00 $12.00 $100.00 $75.00 $110.00 $2.50 $2.50 11/2018 06/07/2035 Mendota Heights $2.00 $20.00 $20.00 $20.00 $20.00 — — 04/2024 11/17/2034 Montrose $4.00 $8.00 $8.00 $8.00 $8.00 $8.00 $8.00 01/2020 09/08/2039 Moorhead 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 06/2015 02/08/2035 Mounds View 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 01/2022 12/31/2026 New Brighton $2.75 $15.25 $430.00 $125.00 $175.00 – – 01/2024 08/21/2043 Newport $1.00 $5.00 $10.00 $15.00 $15.00 $15.00 $15.00 01/2011 10/18/2026 North Branch $3.00 $6.00 $6.00 $10.00 $10.00 – – 03/2026 04/09/2038 ## North St. Paul 2.75% 2.75% $0.005 per therm $0.005 per therm $0.005 per therm $0.005 per therm $0.005 per therm 03/2019 11/19/2038 Northfield $3.30 $ 17.85 $ 685.00 $ 105.00 $ 2,245.00 – – 01/2026 12/03/2032 Oakdale 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 04/2024 12/11/2043 Pequot Lakes $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 02/2021 04/01/2039 Roseville $3.00 $13.00 $13.00 $25.00 $329.00 – – 03/2026 11/23/2045 Sauk Rapids $4.25 $20.00 $20.00 $20.00 $20.00 $20.00 $20.00 01/2024 09/24/2043 Shakopee 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% – – 02/2017 10/31/2036 Shoreview $2.25 $13.00 – $115.00 – – – 01/2021 07/17/2031 South St. Paul 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 04/2018 04/05/2030 ## RC ## N Page 98 of 112 ## Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation ## Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 ## MINNESOTA GAS RATE BOOK - MPUC NO. 2 FRANCHISE AND OTHER CITY FEES (Continued) Section No. 15th Revised Sheet No. 5 44.3 (Continued on Sheet No. 5-44.4) Date Filed: 11-25-25 By: Bria E. Shea Effective Date: 02-01-26 ## President, Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation ## Docket No. E,G999/CI-09-970 Order Date: 03-23-11 Franchise and other city fees, as designated below will be included in the customers’ monthly bills computed under the indicated rate classes and effective in the following Minnesota communities: The Company remits 100% of these fees collected from ratepayers to the local government unit. — Indicates fee is not applied * May include Negotiated Transportation Service. Any future NTS customer in a franchise city without a specific NTS franchise rate will be billed the Firm Transportation franchise fee. ## City ## Residential ## Commercial Firm – ## Non -demand ## Commercial Firm – ## Demand ## Small Interruptible Medium & ## Large Interruptible ## Firm Transportation * ## Interruptible Transportation ## Effective Date ## Expiration Date Spicer $0.50 $1.50 – – – – – 02/2013 10/01/2032 St. Augusta $3.00 $5.00 $5.00 $5.00 $5.00 $5.00 $5.00 06/2010 03/01/2030 ## St. Cloud 1 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% — 3.0% 3.0% small 09/2007 07/29/2027 St. Joseph $2.00 $10.00 $20.00 $109.00 $250.00 $250.00 $250.00 02/2024 10/01/2043 ## St. Paul 2 See fee schedule in the Notes section on the following sheets. 11/2007 08/31/2026 St. Paul Park $2.25 $8.00 $80.00 $50.00 $533.00 $200.00 $200.00 11/2025 07/20/2045 Stillwater $1.00 $5.00 $5.00 $5.00 $5.00 $5.00 $5.00 06/2015 02/16/2035 Vadnais Heights $2.50 $7.00 $60.00 — $120.00 — — 01/2021 01/01/2038 Wabasha $1.35 $5.25 $13.25 $13.25 $20.00 — — 02/2026 01/03/2042 West St. Paul 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 07/2019 04/07/2039 Woodbury $1.75 $10.00 $100.00 $90.00 $55.00 - - 01/2022 08/10/2041 Wyoming $1.50 $7.50 $13.00 $95.00 — — — 05/2022 02/01/2042 1 St. Cloud: The franchise fee for residential heating customers will be 1.5% during the months of November – April. 2 St. Paul: The monthly franchise fee will be as stated below. The residential service franchise fee will be as stated except during the winter months, November - April when there will be no fee. The fee shall not exceed $50,000 during any calendar year from any negotiated transportation service customer. The schedules below show the meter and demand factor for each year of the St. Paul franchise and for each of the customer classifications. ## Franchise Fees ## RC Page 99 of 112 ## Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation ## Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 ## MINNESOTA GAS RATE BOOK - MPUC NO. 2 FRANCHISE AND OTHER CITY FEES (Continued) Section No. 1st Revised Sheet No. 5 44.4 (Continued on Sheet No. 5-44.5) Date Filed: 12-30-24 By: Ryan J. Long Effective Date: 04-01-25 ## President, Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation ## Docket No. E,G999/CI-09-970 Order Date: 03-23-11 ## Notes: 2 ## St. Paul: ## Customer Class Meter Factor - Monthly Charge per Account ## Start Date 1-Nov-2006 1-Nov-2008 1-Nov-2010 1-Nov-2012 1-Nov-2014 End Date 31-Oct-2008 31-Oct-2010 31-Oct-2012 31-Oct-2014 31-Oct-2016 Residential (May - October) $3.70 $3.70 $3.70 $3.70 $3.70 Small Commercial Firm $3.72 $3.72 $3.72 $3.72 $3.72 Large Commercial Firm $3.72 $3.72 $3.72 $3.72 $3.72 Small Commercial Demand Billed $3.72 $3.72 $3.72 $3.72 $3.72 Large Commercial Demand Billed $11.17 $11.17 $11.17 $11.17 $11.17 Small Interruptible $8.17 $8.17 $8.17 $8.17 $8.17 Medium Interruptible $11.17 $11.17 $11.17 $11.17 $11.17 Large Interruptible $11.17 $11.17 $11.17 $11.17 $11.17 Large Firm Transportation $11.17 $11.17 $11.17 $11.17 $11.17 Interruptible Transportation - Small $8.17 $8.17 $8.17 $8.17 $8.17 Interruptible Transportation - Medium $11.17 $11.17 $11.17 $11.17 $11.17 Interruptible Transportation - Large $11.17 $11.17 $11.17 $11.17 $11.17 Negotiated Transportation * - - - - - ## Start Date 1-Nov-2016 1-Nov-2018 1-Nov-2020 1-Nov-2022 1-Nov-2024 End Date 31-Oct-2018 31-Oct-2020 31-Oct-2022 31-Oct-2024 31-Aug-2026 Residential (May - October) $3.85 $4.00 $4.16 $4.33 Residential (April - October) $4.50 Small Commercial Firm $3.87 $4.02 $4.18 $4.35 $4.53 Large Commercial Firm $3.87 $4.02 $4.18 $4.35 $4.53 Small Commercial Demand Billed $3.87 $4.02 $4.18 $4.35 $4.53 Large Commercial Demand Billed $11.62 $12.08 $12.56 $13.07 $13.59 Small Interruptible $8.50 $8.84 $9.19 $9.56 $9.94 Medium Interruptible $11.62 $12.08 $12.56 $13.07 $13.59 Large Interruptible $11.62 $12.08 $12.56 $13.07 $13.59 Large Firm Transportation $11.62 $12.08 $12.56 $13.07 $13.59 Interruptible Transportation - Small $8.50 $8.84 $9.19 $9.56 $9.94 Interruptible Transportation - Medium $11.62 $12.08 $12.56 $13.07 $13.59 Interruptible Transportation - Large $11.62 $12.08 $12.56 $13.07 $13.59 Negotiated Transportation * - - - - - *Franchise fee is based on customer’s prior rate schedule before transferring to this service. If none, the Large Interruptible Transportation Service fee applies. ## C ## C Page 100 of 112 ## Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation ## Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 ## MINNESOTA GAS RATE BOOK - MPUC NO. 2 FRANCHISE AND OTHER CITY FEES (Continued) Section No. 1st Revised Sheet No. 5 44.5 Date Filed: 12-30-24 By: Ryan J. Long Effective Date: 04-01-25 ## President, Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation ## Docket No. E,G999/CI-09-970 Order Date: 03-23-11 ## Notes: 2 ## St. Paul: (continued) ## Customer Class Volume Factor - Monthly Charge per Therm Start Date 1-Nov-2006 1-Nov-2008 1-Nov-2010 1-Nov-2012 1-Nov-2014 End Date 31-Oct-2008 31-Oct-2010 31-Oct-2012 31-Oct-2014 31-Oct-2016 Residential (May - October) $0.0467 $0.0635 $0.0806 $0.0977 $0.1148 Small Commercial Firm $0.0489 $0.0509 $0.0529 $0.0549 $0.0569 Large Commercial Firm $0.0489 $0.0509 $0.0529 $0.0549 $0.0569 Small Commercial Demand Billed $0.0489 $0.0509 $0.0529 $0.0549 $0.0569 Large Commercial Demand Billed $0.0254 $0.0274 $0.0294 $0.0314 $0.0334 Small Interruptible $0.0275 $0.0295 $0.0315 $0.0335 $0.0355 Medium Interruptible $0.0084 $0.0089 $0.0094 $0.0099 $0.0104 Large Interruptible $0.0084 $0.0089 $0.0094 $0.0099 $0.0104 Large Firm Transportation $0.0254 $0.0274 $0.0294 $0.0314 $0.0334 Interruptible Transportation - Small $0.0275 $0.0295 $0.0315 $0.0335 $0.0355 Interruptible Transportation - Medium $0.0084 $0.0089 $0.0094 $0.0099 $0.0104 Interruptible Transportation - Large $0.0084 $0.0089 $0.0094 $0.0099 $0.0104 Negotiated Transportation * - - - - - Start Date 1-Nov-2016 1-Nov-2018 1-Nov-2020 1-Nov-2022 1-Nov-2024 End Date 31-Oct-2018 31-Oct-2020 31-Oct-2022 31-Oct-2024 31-Aug-2026 Residential (May - October) $0.1194 $0.1242 $0.1291 $0.1343 Residential (April - October) $0.1397 Small Commercial Firm $0.0592 $0.0615 $0.0640 $0.0666 $0.0692 Large Commercial Firm $0.0592 $0.0615 $0.0640 $0.0666 $0.0692 Small Commercial Demand Billed $0.0592 $0.0615 $0.0640 $0.0666 $0.0692 Large Commercial Demand Billed $0.0347 $0.0361 $0.0376 $0.0391 $0.0406 Small Interruptible $0.0369 $0.0384 $0.0399 $0.0415 $0.0432 Medium Interruptible $0.0108 $0.0112 $0.0117 $0.0122 $0.0127 Large Interruptible $0.0108 $0.0112 $0.0117 $0.0122 $0.0127 Large Firm Transportation $0.0347 $0.0361 $0.0376 $0.0391 $0.0406 Interruptible Transportation - Small $0.0369 $0.0384 $0.0399 $0.0415 $0.0432 Interruptible Transportation - Medium $0.0108 $0.0112 $0.0117 $0.0122 $0.0127 Interruptible Transportation - Large $0.0108 $0.0112 $0.0117 $0.0122 $0.0127 Negotiated Transportation * - - - - - *Franchise fee is based on customer’s prior rate schedule before transferring to this service. If none, the Large Interruptible Transportation Service fee applies. ## C ## C Page 101 of 112 ## Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation ## Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 ## MINNESOTA GAS RATE BOOK - MPUC NO. 2 FRANCHISE AND OTHER CITY FEES (Continued) Section No. Original Sheet No. 5 44.6 Date Filed: 07-06-10 By: Judy M. Poferl Effective Date: 03-23-11 President and CEO of Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation ## Docket No. E,G999/CI-09-970 Order Date: 03-23-11 ## S:\General-Offices-GO-01\PSF\RA\Rates\Current\Mn_gas\Mg_5_44-06.doc Franchise and other city fees, as designated below will be included in the customers’ monthly bills computed under the indicated rate classes and effective in the following Minnesota communities: The Company remits 100% of these fees collected from ratepayers to the local government unit. ## City Description Effective Date Expiration Date No other city fees are currently in effect. ## Other City Fees ## N ## N Page 102 of 112 ## ORDINANCE ## NO. 1094 ## CITY OF LAKEVILLE ## COUNTY OF DAKOTA, MINNESOTA ## AN ORDINANCE IMPLEMENTING AN ELECTRIC SERVICE FRANCHISE FEE ON ## NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY, D/B/A XCEL ENERGY, ## A MINNESOTA ## CORPORATION, ## ITS SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS, FOR PROVIDING ELECTRIC ## SERVICE WITHIN THE CITY OF LAKEVILLE ## THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKEVILLE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Section 1. Purpose. The Lakeville City Council has determined that it is in the best interest of the City to impose a franchise fee on those public utility companies that provide electric services within the City of Lakeville. Pursuant to City Ordinance No. 949, a ## Franchise Agreement between ## the City of Lakeville and Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation, its successors and assigns, ("Company") the City has the right to impose a franchise fee on the Company. Section 2. Terms. ## A franchise fee is hereby imposed on the Company under its electric franchise in accordance with the amount and fee design set forth in the fee schedule attached as Exhibit ## A to this Ordinance commencing with the Company's April 2025 billing month. This fee is an account-based fee on each premise and not a meter-based fee. In the event that an entity covered by this ordinance has more than one meter at a single premise, but only one account, only one fee shall be assessed to that account. If a premise has two or more meters being billed at different rates, the Company may have an account for each rate classification, which will result in more than one franchise fee assessment for electric service to that premise. If the Company combines the rate classifications into a single account, the franchise fee assessed to the account will be the largest franchise fee applicable to a single rate classification for energy delivered to that premise. In the event any entities covered by this ordinance have more than one premise, each premise (address) shall be subject to the appropriate fee. In the event a question arises as to the proper fee amount for any premise, the Company's manner of billing for energy used at all similar premises in the City will control. ## Section 3. Payment and Fee Modification. The franchise fee shall be payable quarterly and shall be based on the amount collected by Company during complete billing months during the period for which payment is to be made. The payment shall be due the last business day of the month following the period for which the payment is made. Such fee shall not exceed any amount that the Company may legally charge to its customers prior to payment to the City by imposing a surcharge equivalent to such fee in its rates for electric service. The franchise fee may be increased or decreased by ordinance from time to time, however any such change may not occur more often than annually. No franchise fee shall be payable by Company if Company is unable to first collect an amount equal to the franchise fee from its customers in each applicable class of customers by imposing a surcharge in Company's applicable rates for electric service. Company may pay the City the fee based upon the surcharge billed subject to subsequent reductions to account for uncollectibles, refunds and correction of erroneous billings. Company agrees to make its records available for inspection by the City at 231188v3 Page 103 of 112 reasonable times provided that the City and its designated representative agree in writing not to disclose any information which would indicate the amount paid by any identifiable customer or customers or any other information regarding identified customers that is non-public by law. Section 4. Surcharge. The City recognizes that the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission may allow the Company to add a surcharge to customer rates of City residents to reimburse the Company for the cost of the fee. The Company agrees that it is prohibited from adding an administrative fee of any kind on to the franchise fee. Section 5. Enforcement. Any dispute, including enforcement of a default regarding this ordinance will be resolved in accordance with Section 2.5 of the Franchise Agreement. Section 6. Effective Date of Franchise Fee. The effective date of fee collection shall be April 1, 2025 or ninety (90) days after the City sends written notice enclosing a copy of this adopted Ordinance to the Company by certified mail, whichever date is later. Effective Date. This ordinance becomes effective from and after its passage and publication. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Lakeville, Minnesota this ?'tA--c!\ray of QeA , 2024. ## CITY OF LAKEVIL 12&-- ## • 21E ## ATTEST: �Clerk 231188v3 Page 104 of 112 ## EXHIBIT A ## XCEL ENERGY ELECTRIC FRANCHISE ## FEE SCHEDULE ## Monthly Fee per Customer* ## Residential ## Sm ## C & ## I-Non-Dem ## Sm ## C & ## I-Demand ## LargeC ## & I $6.00 $16.00 $35.00 $120.00 Franchise fees are to be collected monthly by the Company in the amounts set forth in the above schedule, and remitted to the city on a quarterly basis as follows: 23l188v3 ## January -March collections due by April 30. ## April - June collections due by July 31. ## July - September collections due by October 31. ## October - December collections due by January 31. Page 105 of 112 ## SUMMARY ORDINANCE NO. 1094 ## CITY OF LAKEVILLE ## COUNTY OF DAKOTA, MINNESOTA ## AN ORDINANCE IMPLEMENTING AN ELECTRIC SERVICE FRANCHISE ## FEE ON NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY, D/B/A XCEL ENERGY, ## A ## MINNESOTA CORPORATION, ITS SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS, FOR PROVIDING ## ELECTRIC SERVICE WITHIN THE CITY OF LAKEVILLE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on December 2, 2024, Ordinance No. 1094was adopted by the City Council of the City of Lakeville. NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that, because of the lengthy nature of Ordinance No. 1094, the following summary of the Ordinance has been prepared for publication: This Ordinance imposes an electric energy franchise fee on Xcel Energy for providing electric service within the City of Lakeville, Minnesota. The Ordinance provides for the imposition, monthly collection, quarterly payment and periodic auditing of a franchise fee at the following rates: ## Class ## Residential ## Sm ## C & ## I - ## Non-Dem ## Sm ## C & ## I - ## Demand ## Large ## C & ## I ## Monthly Fee per Customer $6.00 $16.00 $35.00 $120.00 A printed copy of the entire ordinance is available for inspection by any person during the City Clerk's regular office hours. Approved for publication by the City Council of the City of Lakeville, Minnesota this 2 � day of December, 2024. ## ATTEST: 4.08 ## Ann ONofsky, City Clerk 233777vl ## CITY OF LAKEVILLE //ff -2Me ## Luke M. Hellier, Mayor ..........._ Page 106 of 112 ## ORDINANCE NO. 1096 ## CITY OF LAKEVILLE ## COUNTY OF DAKOTA, MINNESOTA ## AN ORDINANCE IMPLEMENTING ## A ## GAS SERVICE FRANCHISE FEE ON ## CENTERPOINT ENERGY RESOURCES CORP. d/b/a CENTERPOINT ENERGY ## MINNESOTA GAS, ## A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ITS SUCCESSORS AND ## ASSIGNS, FOR PROVIDING GAS SERVICE WITHIN THE CITY OF LAKEVILLE ## THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKEVILLE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Section 1. Purpose. The Lakeville City Council has determined that it is in the best interest of the City to impose a franchise fee on those public utility companies that provide gas services within ## the City of Lakeville. Pursuant to City Ordinance No. 860, a Franchise Agreement between the City of Lakeville and CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp. d/b/a CenterPoint Energy Minnesota ## Gas, a Delaware corporation, its successors and assigns, ("Company") the City has the right to impose a franchise fee on the Company. Section 2. Terms. ## A franchise fee is hereby imposed on the Company under its gas franchise in accordance with the amount and fee design set forth in the fee schedule attached as Exhibit ## A to this Ordinance commencing with the Company's April 2025 billing month. This fee is an account-based fee on each premise and not a meter-based fee. In the event that an entity covered by this ordinance has more than one meter at a single premise, but only one account, only one fee shall be assessed to that account. If a premise has two or more meters being billed at different rates, the Company may have an account for each rate classification, which will result in more than one franchise fee assessment for gas service to that premise. If the Company combines the rate classifications into a single account, the franchise fee assessed to the account will be the largest franchise fee applicable to a single rate classification for energy delivered to that premise. In the event any entities covered by this ordinance have more than one premise, each premise (address) shall be subject to the appropriate fee. In the event a question arises as to the proper fee amount for any premise, the Company's manner of billing for energy used at all similar premises in the City will control. Section 3. Payment and Fee Modification. The franchise fee shall be payable quarterly and shall be based on the amount collected by Company during complete billing months during the period for which payment is to be made. The payment shall be due the last business day of the month following the period for which the payment is made. Such fee shall not exceed any amount that the Company may legally charge to its customers prior to payment to the City by imposing a surcharge equivalent to such fee in its rates for gas service. The franchise fee may be increased or decreased by ordinance from time to time, however any such change may not occur more often than annually. No franchise fee shall be payable by Company if Company is unable to first collect an amount equal to the franchise fee from its customers in each applicable class of customers by imposing a surcharge in Company's applicable rates for gas service. Company may pay the City the fee based upon the surcharge billed subject to subsequent reductions to account for uncollectibles, refunds and correction of erroneous 23119Iv3 Page 107 of 112 billings. Company agrees to make its records available for inspection by the City at reasonable times provided that the City and its designated representative agree in writing not to disclose any information which would indicate the amount paid by any identifiable customer or customers or any other information regarding identified customers that is non-public by law. Section 4. Surcharge. The City recognizes that the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission may allow the Company to add a surcharge to customer rates of City residents to reimburse the Company for the cost of the fee. The Company agrees that it is prohibited from adding an administrative fee of any kind on to the franchise fee. Section 5. Enforcement. Any dispute, including enforcement of a default regarding this ordinance will be resolved in accordance with Section 2.6 of the Franchise Agreement. Section 6. Effective Date of Franchise Fee. The effective date of fee collection shall be April 1, 2025 or ninety (90) days after the City sends written notice enclosing a copy of this adopted Ordinance to the Company by certified mail, whichever date is later. Effective Date. This ordinance becomes effective from and after its passage and publication. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Lakeville, Minnesota this 2nd day of December, 2024. ## CITY OF LAKEVILLE ## ATTEST: 0 ## AnnOdofsky,CityClerk 23119lv3 Page 108 of 112 -- -- -- - - - ------- ---- -- - ------- ------ - -- -- - � ## EXHIBIT ## A ## CENTERPOINT ## ENERGY ## GAS ## FRANCHISE ## FEE ## SCHEDULE ## Residential/Firm ## A ## FirmB ## FirmC ## Small ## Volume ## Dual ## Fuel ## A ## (SVDF ## A) ## Small ## Volume ## Dual ## Fuel ## B ## (SVDF ## B) ## Large ## Volume ## Dual ## Fuel ## (LVDF) ## Large ## Volume ## Firm ## (LGS/LVF) ## Monthly ## Fee per ## Customer $6.00 $35.00 $120.00 $120.00 $120.00 $120.00 $120.00 ## Franchise fees are to be collected monthly by the ## Company in the amounts set forth in the above schedule, and remitted to the city on a quarterly basis as follows: 23119lv3 ## January - ## March collections due by ## April 30. ## April - ## June collections due by ## July 31. ## July - ## September collections due by ## October 31. ## October - ## December collections due by ## January 31. Page 109 of 112 ## SUMMARY ## ORDINANCE NO. 1096 ## CITY OF LAKEVILLE ## COUNTY OF DAKOTA, MINNESOTA ## AN ORDINANCE IMPLEMENTING ## A GAS SERVICE FRANCHISE FEE ON ## CENTERPOINT ENERGY RESOURCES CORP. d/b/a CENTERPOINT ENERGY ## MINNESOTA GAS, ## A ## DELAWARE CORPORATION, ITS SUCCESSORS AND ## ASSIGNS, FOR PROVIDING GAS SERVICE WITHIN THE CITY OF LAKEVILLE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on December 2nd, 2024, Ordinance No. 1096 was adopted by the City Council of the City of Lakeville. NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that, because of the lengthy nature of Ordinance No. 1096, the following summary of the Ordinance has been prepared for publication: ## This Ordinance imposes a gas energy franchise fee on Centerpoint Energy Resources Corp. for providing gas energy service within the City of Lakeville, Minnesota. The Ordinance provides for the imposition, monthly collection, quarterly payment and periodic auditing of a franchise fee at the following rates: ## Class ## Residential/Firm ## A ## Firm ## B ## FirmC ## Small Volume Dual Fuel ## A (SVDF A) ## Small Volume Dual Fuel ## B ## (SVDF B) ## Large Volume Dual Fuel (LVDF) ## Large Volume Firm (LGS/LVF) ## Monthly Fee per Customer $6.00 $35.00 $120.00 $120.00 $120.00 $120.00 $120.00 A printed copy of the entire ordinance is available for inspection by any person during the City Clerk's regular office hours. Approved for publication by the City Council of the City of Lakeville, Minnesota this 2nd day of December, 2024. ## CITY OF LAKEVILLE ## BY: 2# ## Luke M. Hellier, Mayor .___ ������ 233776vl Page 110 of 112 ## Ann Orlofsky, City Clerk 233776vl Page 111 of 112 ## City of Blaine ## Staff Report ## File Number: 2026-252 ## Agenda Date ## Status May 18, 2026 ## In Control ## File Type ## City Council ## Workshop Item ## New Business - Scott Johnson, Director of Administrative Services Agenda Item # 3.5 Closed Session Pursuant to Minnesota Statute 13D.05, Subd. 3(a) City Manager 6-Month Check-In (Held after the Regular Meeting) ## Background Council will enter into closed session to conduct a six-month check-in for City Manager Thorvig. ## Staff Recommendation ## Questions for Council ## Attachment List ## None Page 112 of 112