Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Highway 25 Coalition Meeting Minutes 06-27-2019
HIGHWAY 25 CORRIDOR COALITION Meeting Minutes for June 27, 2019 7:30 AM North Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center Members Present City of Becker: Greg Pruszinske Becker Township: Brian Kolbinger City of Big Lake: None Big Lake Township: Bob Hofer, Larry Alforas City of Monticello: Matt Leonard, Jeff O'Neill, Brian Stumpf Sherburne County: Raeanne Danielowski, Tim Dolan, Mark Schneider, Dan Weber Wright County: Virgil Hawkins, Lee Kelly, Darek Vetsch Others Present Anne Carroll, Carroll, Franck & Associates Claudia Dumont, MnDOT District 3 Lynn Fleming, Monticello Township Resident 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 7:30 a.m. 2. Consideration of Adding Items to the Agenda No Agenda items were added. 3. Consideration of Approval of May 30,m, 2019 Meeting Minutes Dolan moved to approve the 5-30-19 meeting minutes, seconded by Danielowski, and the motion carried unanimously. 4. Treasurers Report No new information was distributed at this meeting. 5. Facilitator Submittal Review and Consideration of Approval of Contract with Selected Firm Leonard said staff posted a Request For Proposal on the website. One proposal was received from Anne Carroll of Carroll, Franck & Associates. Carroll reviewed the Facilitation Proposal and Land Use RFP Guidance presentation (see attached) and the facilitation and consulting support she would bring to the Highway 25 Coalition (Coalition). She cited relevant experience with the Trunk Highway 41 Tier 1 EIS, the Southwest Light Rail Transit EIS, and the Minnesota Departments of Education and Human Services. Carroll said a neutral facilitator can help the Coalition move forward. Carroll discussed three project phases: Phase 1: Kickoff and Coalition Planning (Start Aug. 2019) Phase 2: Regional Land Use Planning Scoping, Selection Process (Start Sept. 2019) Phase 3: Coalition Support and Capacity -building (Fall 2019 — ongoing) 6-27-19 Highway 25 Corridor Coalition Minutes Carroll said the billing structure is hourly. She referred to her proposal titled "Facilitation and Consulting Support for Highway 25 Regional Land Use Planning and Environmental Process," which provides cost estimates (see attached). The Coalition has complete control over her hours. Carroll asked that the Coalition designate a point of contact with whom she could direct communications to the Coalition. Carroll excused herself to allow Coalition members to discuss whether to retain her services. Stumpf asked whether Carroll will review the SRF traffic study prior to her acceptance. Leonard said Carroll will not do any formal recommendations or studies. Carroll would facilitate Coalition meetings, get issues out on the table, and coordinate the development of a land use plan. At that point, the SRF study would be reopened, and crossing locations evaluated. Stumpf asked whether the timing of the final acceptance of the SRF study is crucial to future phases. Vetsch said the facilitator will determine the timing. Leonard said it is his recollection that the Coalition agreed to stop the SRF study where it is currently. Dumont said the SRF study provides good background information but has no bearing on the facilitator. Leonard said the Coalition will need other supporting consultants down the road to accomplish stated goals. Vetsch said the size of the Coalition group requires a facilitator to coordinate matters. He asked whether there was consensus to contract with Carroll as facilitator. Danielowski moved to accept Anne Carroll of Carroll, Franck & Associates as facilitator for the Coalition Economic Impact Study. Stumpf seconded. Weber said he has received a verbal thumbs up for a $25,000 grant which will help pay for half the study. The motion carried unanimously. 6. Discussion on Joint Planning Effort Proposal Carroll said she will need guidance from the Coalition during this meeting to achieve a quick turnaround on the RFP. She created several exercises to gather the information. Carroll said the Coalition is the guiding force. She will collect their input on issues, perspectives, and directions. The exercises will frame the RFP and proposal evaluation criteria, the selection process, and how the Coalition will monitor consultants and present the value of the project to the public. The Coalition will receive emails from her in the next few weeks as question arise, or as she requires feedback. Her goal is to bring perspectives together in a coherent fashion, including long-term issues and outcomes. Carroll led the Coalition through three exercises, as detailed in the Facilitation Proposal. Danielowski said a number of Coalition members were not present at this meeting due to conferences. Carroll said they would be provided the results of Exercises 1 and 2 and given an opportunity to add their input if they wish. They may also generate their own ideas from Exercise 3. Carroll said a communications liaison should be determined soon. She asked the Coalition to please respond to her emails as quickly as possible to keep the process moving forward. She 6-27-19 Highway 25 Corridor Coalition Minutes will work with the liaison to set up a repository for Coalition internal draft documents. Staff will draw up the RFP. She invited Coalition members to give staff the names of any firms to add to the RFP distribution list. Carroll said there will be homework for the next meeting and asked the Coalition to prepare ahead of time. Danielowski nominated Schneider as Coalition liaison from Sherburne County. Vetsch nominated Hawkins for Wright County. Hawkins deferred designation of the Wright County Staff person to Kelly. O'Neill said historically all Coalition data has been maintained on the City of Monticello website and maintained by their staff. Danielowski suggested that the subcommittee work through these processes to be more efficient. Vetsch was concerned about a potential disconnect between staff and decisionmakers. He recommended formalizing members of the subcommittee. Carroll reiterated the need for one point of contact with whom she could communicate. O'Neill suggested that the staff group meet and come back to the Coalition with a proposed process. O'Neill said they could place a conference call to get Carroll the information in a few days. Leonard said anyone can submit data to update the website. Carroll recommended that only a few people be allowed access. She emphasized three things: 1) All Coalition entities should be represented in the staff group. 2) A single contact person/liaison and attendant responsibilities should be designated. 3) All this should occur within a few days from this meeting. Vetsch asked whether the name "Highway 25 Coalition" is effective from a branding perspective. This is a regional planning effort. The Coalition should discuss other collective goals and not focus too much on congestion on Highway 25. He said there are other goals besides a river crossing. Carroll recommended rebranding before issuing the RFP. The website will also have to be rebranded. Vetsch suggested that the Coalition meet twice a month for several months in order to work through all the necessary details. The Coalition agreed to add 7-18-19 and 8-08-19 meeting dates at the usual time and place, in addition to the regularly scheduled meeting on 8-29-19. Dolan moved to schedule Highway 25 Coalition meetings on 7-18-19, 8-08-19 and 8-29-19, seconded by Pruszinske. The motion carried unanimously. 7. Consideration of Approval of the 2020 Highway 25 Coalition Work Plan and Budget • Ongoing Joint Planning Effort • Identification and support for local initiatives to enhance traffic flow in corridor/region • Development of web site • Ongoing lobbying effort for transportation improvements state-wide 6-27-19 Highway 25 Corridor Coalition Minutes In the interest of time, Vetsch tabled this item until the 7-18-19 meeting. A discussion on branding will be added to the 7-18-19 Agenda. Carroll asked the Coalition to provide their branding ideas to her, and she will compile them prior to that meeting. The 8-08-19 meeting will discuss the RFP. 8. Staff and Member Updates There were no updates. 9. I94 Coalition Update There were no updates. 10. Other Updates There were no updates. The meeting adjourned at 9:22 A.M. Future Meeting Agenda Items: A. Development of a Financial Policy for Fund Balance B. Final Acceptance of the SRF Study C. Consideration of Authorizing Expenditure for Development of Highway 25 Coalition Website Discussion on the Ongoing Maintenance of Records and Posting of Coalition Business The next Highway 25 Coalition meeting is scheduled to be held on Thursday, July 18, 2019 at 7:30 a.m. in the North Mississippi Room at Monticello City Hall. r--.. C N Q m LA 0 CL 0 L 0 _ m V m LL c 0 0 u A u O L CL .0 m Li m LL ■ ib wJ c CL N J ,O O e V s L 4- i CL CLbAN O V ,O co U. [1 L � p f6 bA Q CL •E N 0 c O L O ,U � +j O � U •L O Q .O O � •I +d CL) Q Q c N •� a N U O to Vi N O CL p vi N p +•+ v U C •� p Q N d1 •L U O +j N '� to U Q N E p .� > c N > L N cn U 4 -JN cu_ O N •U QJ 4.1 N a--+ •p O o C � O O u W > 4- M Q. C v bD r M � O � � 0--o+= > O v p V +•+ c E cc c ca co :3C 44— o .- � 4-J O O Ln CC: -0 4-O 0 v .� O 4-J M U N U N x cu s o c >CL O = U U i.Ln N f W Ln O Qse. c6 t A N cn � L4-J tn � L Y L j U O > �+ }' L. `'— }' O +� cn E Ln i�Af ti/� .. E � O U SRA/ �n — -0 ° v oto .0 c o o °o v H Ln 4-J w s > — •� t Ln Q .� w� c m 3° .E w L +_+ O O O V ca v M 0 .to O W U '0 LL U > 0 4- W'i m -0 LnIT u Teel 0- Ort aJ O •*O, -.Ln 3 O Cie 4010 V �- s � V U= .a Q i N s co L c mQ M� wo CL to O O m u +� N X O -0 70 � � 3 a CL W O: d M W O cn C: O 4- � O ca �G N _ 4-j 4-1OLn :3 vi N U to U O 4D E O_ OU i c U Q Z -a ateJ .> �A' C W m C UO i1 G W V t G m in m=3 W P I. c bZ C � QJ QJ C O cu 4-J E 0 0 to a bo o }' to u ._ a, V to c +i M ,U c m C rU v M > i EV O N •Eb E cn ■ •� •Ln m +p-+ UGJ •N a i •= V N to L .wf13 • _ Q W Ln JO (tj ! m L L m 4-1 +G, •S w 4a :3o E V) Q' o V) t s` _ w 4-1o4-1 w M s m N� v C ca +� 4-0 toU Luca m LU UO W N c o .ro ._ V V U N� 4 V) m �m 0 zi V'f m m CL 01 O N Mo Q L m blo i .E i m a ,o — 0 V C m O v �C rl a� m IL P. M O N O. bJ L U 0 a c 0 ._ U 07 b�A CL 0 U (A bxo i c� a J Oro O OOG N a� ca a F - i -ft two two c 0 0 N c� bio O CL V .a L CL Q. N i 0 .— ca V M (1) IA �a a t f6 i N C N to C O Q � N O s �- N � � O CS O eO �Vf Cao C N N U N O.. O 4— E Cao N � 4°1-+ C o O 4- 0+ r� ' , U u E C E O E o L 0 U Q -0 O �C a-) N .O c� U .� . r N O �.+ 3 O U > N 3 U a .ai > - 2-7 iw oC O U N :3 2 CL a. � L O wiI • Q O � O 4-J Ln O d. O C: O LL4-JU co ■ toN S a_+ V • E 0 •c N E u _� o Q _0 O W _0 7 f6 CL m O O � •O •L O � J O v Q v O w 0 -0 4-J •lao O1 O a -J LL w O 4.1 dA c •Q r • N U O _ N N 4A fB p L (31 C 7Y L •Q s m LCL 2 unU tuD c • i V 1 � V) C L V U ° (L) o t� C- aA Q. � a=`A (� ca ca W 0 0 J O -0-P '� O U M }.� fu C •V a) ( N U_ •C L O _0 � - O C) ca L- CL N 0 In �- � � 0 CL C O O E OV •_ O amp +-+ C O U L 0 O O Ln .O .. O U N Q C U -se M W O N cn O C� "O i'~— O i� sO r4 0 -CL 'MCL N •u M a LL �. ■ E 0 V 0 to m L]. J 0 �i i.i m m 0 0 u r 01 V'f O rML LM CL ■ M' U t6 G � L 0 _O L N Q. U C M � L 4-0 O Q =3 O O U N cu •V �O C •O O O E i fQ 16 j j Ncu m N N O +-+ O O +' N OO O O w a a. U a- ID IA ) .E ■ co 0 L � 3 Cf W Aa W N a..r O N M -� O N m N •fC fa = N -a -C CL f0 C E C CU a..+ > O 4-0J O � E f� C N L o vi 4-1 0 O U qA O d•J � '� O f6 •3 Q � L L .3 4-1 O 0-4— c0 O L -E Q •� Q C a.. L L r •N > L Ln (Q cu > � .� i _A i O L to N 0 " i to N -0 O O — a••+ C6 Ln m y_ o O fB L N > a••+ N L o U E = O �, •t L E O EL O v O a) v cn � U O ate+ > 4-1 O O M Q. :3 W M >- a••+ C a..r M L N •fC NCL m E CL E 40 CU a..+ =3 Vf 4-0J O � E f� � m N N —_ o vi 4-1 O U qA O d•J � '� O 3 `� 4.d o •3 Q }' .3 4-1 O c0 O L L L r -0 M 0 C L> m L O N m 'T3 4•J U N Q E •— Qj ,N i .0 L Q �, i O cu . by 'E O O u N m Q1 -0 to CU c OI �O +- O O �, O Qj (u Cn O N E p 4-- O�L N -C S N 4-1 w a--+ • E O O QC O 4a f0 4a Q C > Ln 4-J N +•Jcu N ._ cn (n O 4- _ � •— Q) � •O Ln O fp O � Q Q� dJ L •� j U U O N 4-J 4-1 _ iv O — 'ca r- •— O �n v1 Ln O c 4- U EL 4-J 0 > :3 (U N �3 � •> taA O +' U tn U cu +a p +r a L a Lf p in- 41 to Z) L> c 0000% CL co m ,� L a *� xLU tko a) L C) (uu �3 M 0 1 Y L v f6 4a C . C a--+ 0 � v .7 ate--+ OU 0� C C Q) O 4-1L . •� au � N U fa UC L E > O C N f6 a� .CU O N N O -0 Q L L v Q N > 'Q W b.0m ,Ij O v b.0 `� (1) N O C � r ( I U co O v4-1 -a cv - Q. N 4 _ N 3 O c— O � CL c •7 bn •O � L N Q U �_ O — 1 •� U V1 - t4._ O .� O Q c c � d � Fes-- � � 2 I 0 cn U O CL +a E 0 D_ LL cr- 0) 4-0 rml Ln 0 a -J 4-J !n LL w O UO a E 0 .to fa a--+ ul 1l L .Q E w E a--+ N L O O a Q (J) Q N O Q U O N E L O N E 4- i7i, Carroll, f Franck ociates &1357 Highland Parkway Saint Paul, MN 55116 Phone: 651.690-9162 Fax: 654690-9156 canfran®gmail.com Proposal: Facilitation and Consulting Support for Highway 25 Regional Land Use Planning and Environmental Process Below please find our proposal in response to your recent RFP. We are excited about the Coalition's work to advance a unified and compelling vision for the region's future and look forward to the opportunity to leverage our very relevant experience and skills to facilitate and support a successful process and outcomes. InformationFirm Anne Carroll will be the lead consultant and facilitator for this project. Since 1985 when she founded Carroll, Franck & Associates (CF&A), Anne has provided a variety of consulting services primarily to public and some nonprofit organizations, including the following: Public Involvement and Strategic Planning: Designing, developing, and delivering authentic and inclusive public engagement efforts, decision support, visioning, strategic planning and governance support, and organizational development consulting services to address a variety of needs and challenges. Specializing in working with clients to discern and facilitate complex issues and challenges, identifying and successfully engaging underrepresented stakeholders, and reaching sustainable decisions based on inclusive stakeholder perspectives. • Training and Teaching: Designing, developing, and delivering professional development courses, workshops, and graduate -level instruction on public participation design and engaging diverse communities, strategic planning, engagement implementation tools and evaluation, and stakeholder mapping. Anne received a Master of Planning in public affairs from the Humphrey School at the University of Minnesota with a concentration in strategic planning and decision making. She received a Bachelor of Arts in American Studies and English from the same university (Phi Beta Kappa).._. Current and recent board and public service roles include leadership positions with the International Association for Public Participation USA, Minnesota Educational Equity Partnership, Humphrey School Alumni Board and 22 - year mentor, E-Democracy.org, and 16 years as an elected member of the citywide St. Paul Board of Education. Master contracts with State of Minnesota -MMB Manal~ei. lialvsis and Develoi (effective 7/1/19) and Ramsey County; and Minneapolis Target Market. Current DBE, SBE, or WBE certifications include the State of Minnesota and regional agencies; Hennepin County, Ramsey County, City of Minneapolis, City of St. Paul, and subsidiary agencies; the University of Minnesota; and federal 49 CFR Part 26. For more information please visit www.carrollfranck.com. CFA Proposal for TH 25 Coalition Facilitation Page 1 Project Understanding and Approach The Highway 25 Coalition is unusual in your commitment to and substantial progress toward a collaboratively developed, unified, regional approach to meeting critical needs and challenges. Beginning with a primary focus on transportation issues, your healthy blend of common goals combined with formal agreements, and then regular meetings and strong staffing positioned you well to conduct baseline studies that yielded valuable results. Those initial successes around structure, process, and content laid the groundwork to navigate differences within the Coalition and seek out and listen to perspectives from critical partners/potential funders including MnDOT and FHWA. That rich range of experiences brought you to a new joint agreement to look more broadly at critical regional economic development and land use issues. My first connection with this project was in response to a request for information about my work over four years with MnDOT on a very challenging Tier 1 EIS for a potential Minnesota River crossing on Trunk Highway 41 in the southwest Metro. Every project is different, but the TH 41 and Highway 25 Coalition efforts share some key characteristics and position me to be uniquely qualified to support the Coalition's work: • A large number of agency and community stakeholders with a diverse range of perspectives • A messy and complex mix of land use, transportation, economic development, environmental, and stakeholder impacts — both known and unknown, along with potential benefits and negative impacts, and implications of current and future decisions, choices, and actions by public and private sector entities j"The... framework, goals, °and strategies were crafted by River Crossing Implementation Collaborative (RCIQ members... to represent their commitment to a common direction and to working collaboratively over the next 20-25 years to meet the needs of all RC1C members, not just their own. While it is true that the complexity and challenges of this river crossing essentially require such an approach to come to fruition, this group's clear understanding of the context of this effort and their sincere, authentic, and open approach to reaching these Important baseline data, information, and analyses commitments to a common direction Foundational relationships, agreements, and commitments to serves as a model for others in similarly work together toward common regional priorities challenging circumstances." A very long-term process that includes planning and '�� TH 41 RCIC Framework Introduction environmental studies and a probable Tier I EIS process (the TH 41 project I facilitated resulted in Minnesota's only signed Tier 1 EIS) There are also some important differences that bode well for the Coalition's work: Your decision to consult with FHWA and MnDOT before going further with a singular river crossing focus, and to expand your view to regional land use planning and economic development. The learnings from that will prepare the Coalition to reframe the work as a coherent, cost-effective, and defensible process more likely to yield your desired results. Creating the Coalition's JPA before the initial transportation study, along with the associated governance and management systems, structures, and decisions. These allow us to lean into those as the work evolves rather than having to create them concurrently with the demanding regional land use planning project. The choice to bring in a third -party facilitator before beginning the land use planning project. That means we can help ensure a compelling RFP and a strong evaluation and selection process, support the stakeholder engagement design and monitoring efforts, and facilitate the Coalition's work during the land use planning process and beyond to a unified regional vision and next steps to support that. Finally, while I can't either predict the future or guarantee the Coalition's success, my deep experience with the TH 41 project and similar complex multiagency efforts as described below have prepared me well for this work, and my decades of consulting and training in engagement, consensus -building, and rigorous, well -substantiated processes will help me support the Coalition's work toward a unified regional vision and desired outcomes. CFA Proposal for TH 25 Coalition Facilitation Page 2 Common Work and Assumptions Below are services that extend across all phases, along with assumptions that underpin the details below and cost estimates. See Cost section for those assumptions and note that we agree with contract terms in the RFP. 1. Liaison and project management: o This assumes the Coalition will appoint and charge one person or a small group of people as project liaison(s) for coordination purposes o Project management includes working with the liaison(s) on all standard activities such as project oversight and joint scope/schedule management, regular updates, project coordination and scheduling, progress reporting, scope reviews and refinements, and similar o Project management time/costs are estimated conservatively and embedded in each phase 2. Meeting/activity preparation and documentation: o Unless otherwise arranged, CF&A will work with Coalition members and staff to provide meeting materials and will document results of all meetings/ activities we facilitate, lead, or are responsible for o We will agree in advance on formats, timing, processes, and protocols to ensure the Coalition's needs are met, and remain flexible as those evolve overtime o Staff are responsible for all routine communications, scheduling, logistics, copies, and similar Ongoing project documentation, communications: o We will jointly determine and then deliver the most appropriate content, formats, and methods to track and document the Coalition's overall plans, actions, activities, engagements, results, issues and implications, etc., to ensure transparent, timely, meaningful, and relevant communications among members and to support member communications with their communities o This assumes that while the Facilitator is responsible for supporting and working with the Coalition and Coordinating Committee, each Coalition member and the member's staff are responsible for communications, alignment, and coordination between themselves. 4. Time management and meeting format: o To find the right balance between Coalition needs and the budget, we will work together throughout the project to determine which meetings and other activities require in-person support and which can be done by audio/video conferencing o This assumes meetings/activities will be scheduled jointly to best accommodate everyone's schedules and account for travel time/traffic o Estimates assume a minimum 1 in-person Coalition meeting and two virtual Coordinating Committee meetings, locations may vary but are assumed to be approximately 1 hour from CF&A offices 5. Additional stakeholder engagement: While this proposal focuses on Coalition support, it is understood that the work will engage other stakeholders over time. It is assumed that the bulk of stakeholder engagement for the regional land use plan will be within that contract, although we would logically be involved in engagement design and where stakeholder engagement intersects with the Coalition. Further, there maybe work with other agencies necessary to support the Coalition's efforts, some but not all of which may fall within the time planned for routine coordinating committee and Coalition meetings. The scope, responsibilities, and costs for any additional stakeholder engagement will be agreed upon separately. 6. Decision-making processes: Understanding that the JPA requires certain actions be taken by majority vote of the Coalition, this proposal assumes the Coalition will be best served by our facilitating using a consensus - based process. In our experience, this approach measurably improves participation, equity, transparency, and clarity — as well as the rigor, relevance, and sustainability of decisions, results, and outcomes. 7. Collaboration platform and deliverables: o This assumes we jointly identify a common platform for coordination, document storage/access, and that supports live collaboration; we can provide this via Google Drive at no additional cost o All deliverables will be provided electronically CFA Proposal for TH 25 Coalition Facilitation Page 3 Phase 1: Kickoff and Coalition Planning Sep I Oct , Nov Dec fan 2020 Feb I Mar Apr May Jun Jul ; Aug This phase launches the Coalition's new initiative by organizing this project; working with the Coalition and Coordinating Committee to refine the Coalition's process framework and focus and provide high-level guidance for the land use planning; and updating public -facing communications to ensure transparency and continue building broad understanding and support for this collaborative, regional work. This phase begins immediately and likely goes through August. Initial task ideas are outlined below followed by a summary of anticipated deliverables. 1. Review any additional background information. Frame questions and issues for further discussion. 2. Jointly organize and conduct Kickoff workshop to: o Refine the scope and schedule, agree on communications and project management protocols, clarify relationships including a liaison(s), and similar o Review the current Coalition assumptions and agreements relative to the refined focus on regional land use and economic development planning o Clarify schedule for anticipated additional or extended -time meetings with the Coalition, Coordinating Committee, and others as needed o Identify key outcomes and framework for Coalition goal -setting workshop 3. Jointly finalize plans for Coalition workshop: This may have a two-pronged focus: o Creating a refined framework for the Coalition and its work, such as finalizing the working relationship with us as Facilitator, refined Coalition goals and strategies, priorities, process commitments, stakeholder analysis, etc. o Providing critical guidance for the land use planning effort such as outcomes, parameters, and similar 4. Develop workshop prep materials, provide logistics guidance to staff, and complete any final planning or coordination 5. Conduct Coalition workshop, document results, and follow through based on direction/agreements 6. Help develop updated and more detailed public -facing communications about the overall effort, major phases, engagement opportunities and results, and similar. This would include website updates and likely common content from which Coalition members can draw for communications with their own communities. 7. Additional tasks and facilitation as requested Deliverables: • Kickoff plans, materials, facilitation, results • Workshop plans, materials, facilitation. results • Updated and refined public -facing communications materials Phase 2: Regional Land Use Planning Scoping and Selection Process Jul 201 Aug• Nov Dec Jan 2020' Feb Mar I Apr May Jun Jul Aug This phase supports the RFP development and selection process for a consulting team to work with Coalition members to create a relevant and valuable regional land use plan. All tasks are completed jointly with various combinations of the Coalition, Coordinating Committee, and others as appropriate. This phase is likely from late summer into early fall. Initial task ideas are outlined below followed by a summary of anticipated deliverables. 1. Collaboratively develop the RFP framework, scope, evaluation rubric, and selection process to accurately reflect the Coalition's goals, commitments, and unique approach to this regional planning effort. The RFP should, a) Ensure the land use planning process equitably addresses the needs of all Coalition members and CFA Proposal for TH 25 Coalition Facilitation Page 4 the region, and b) intrigue and inspire top-quality consulting teams to prepare carefully tailored, innovative, and robust proposals. 2. Support the evaluation and selection process to ensure alignment with Coalition priorities, and help with scope/contract negotiations as appropriate. 3. Continue helping with transparent and updated public communications and stakeholder reports to build regional understanding and support. 4. Additional tasks and facilitation as requested Deliverables: All materials, plans and agendas, documentation, communications, recommendations, or other content and processes relevant to the work done in this phase Phase 3: Coalition Support and Capacity -building Jul 2019; Aug _Sep •Feb I Mar Apr May I jun Jul Aug The tasks below offer ideas on how we could support the Coalition's work through the regional land use planning process and beyond to come together and clearly communicate a unified, coherent, and compelling vision for regional land use, economic development, and critical supporting transportation and other infrastructure. This phase would likely begin in fall 2019 and continue into 2020 and beyond at the Coalition's discretion. Initial task ideas are outlined below followed by a summary of anticipated deliverables. 1. Facilitate Coalition meetings and workshops to advance the regional land use planning process. Build upon points of agreement, address and help resolve conflicts, strengthen relationships, extend the Coalition's sphere of influence, and so on 2. Further deepen and strengthen the Coalition's deliberations, decision-making, governance systems and structures, partnerships and collaborations, transparency, communications, and overall "health" 3. Work with the Coalition and Coordinating Committee to engage other key agency or stakeholders as appropriate in the larger regional efforts (examples include FHWA, MnDOT district and central office staff, other communities or regional bodies, and similar) 4. If agreed, work with the selected planning consultant on stakeholder -related elements; these could include stakeholder engagement design, implementation planning, and monitoring 5. As the land use planning effort comes to a close, facilitate and support the Coalition to: o Explore and address findings, conclusions, and recommendations o Collaborate within Coalition and between the Coalition/members and key partners and stakeholders o Understand critical issues and implications, and communicate with communities 6. Facilitate sessions and workshops with the Coalition (and others as appropriate) to reach_ consensus on a regional vision, desired outcomes, next steps, key players/stakeholders, evaluation process including measures of success, and so on. 7. Continue helping with public communications, stakeholder reports, and building understanding and support as the work moves toward region -wide consensus 8. Additional tasks and facilitation as requested Deliverables: All materials, plans and agendas, documentation, communications, recommendations, or other content and processes relevant to the work done in this phase CFA Proposal for TH 25 Coalition Facilitation Page 5 I - Project Team and Experience ] Anne Carroll is the proposed lead consultant and facilitator for this project. We do not anticipate any subconsultants, but should that need arise the decision would be made in close consultation with the Coalition. Below is the experience information as requested: • Anne Carroll resume: This includes a brief bio, credentials, and a summary list of related projects and professional development courses Detailed project descriptions, including references and contact information o MN Department of Transportation, TH 41 Tier 1 EIS: Coalition Support and Stakeholder Engagement o Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board, Southwest Light Rail Transit EIS: Stakeholder Engagement and Advisory Committee Facilitation o MN Departments of Education and Human Services, Early Childhood Education Standards: Statewide Stakeholder Engagement and Multi -agency Team Support o Center for Energy and Environment, Healthy Homes: Engagement, Decision Support CFA Proposal for TH 25 Coalition Facilitation Page 6 Project Lead/Facilitator: Anne R. Carroll, M.Plan. Anne Carroll brings 30 years of experience in stakeholder engagement, communications, strategic planning, and visioning with public and nonprofit organizations. Anne focuses on designing robust and inclusive engagement and planning processes, inclusive outreach, and using tailored tools and techniques to ensure successful and authentic participation. She specializes in working with clients to discern and articulate complex issues and challenges, and also brings teaching and training expertise to every project. Project Experience (See below for more detailed information on some projects and more projects and photos at www.carrollfranck.com) • Washington County Regional Rail Authority: Engagement Design and Implementation for METRO Gold Line Station Area Planning • Dakota County: Stakeholder Engagement, Solid Waste Master Plan Update • Center for Energy and Environment (CEE): Engagement and Decision Support, Healthy Homes • Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board: Stakeholder Engagement, Southwest Light Rail Transit Draft EIS and multiple trainings • MN Department of Transportation: Multicultural Communications and Engagement Training Program • MN Department of Transportation: Hwy 41 EIS,. Stakeholder Engagement • City of Rochester: Stakeholder Engagement, Comprehensive Plan • Hennepin County: Stakeholder Engagement, Hiawatha-Minnehaha Corridor Visioning • Hennepin County: Cultural Competency Inventory and Professional Development Guide • City of Minneapolis: Bicycle Master Plan Stakeholder Engagement • MN Department of Transportation: Business Planning • MN Department of Commerce: Strategic Planning/Action Planning Selected Professional Development Original Courses: o Designing for Diversity —Engaging Underrepresented Stakeholders: 2 days o Strategic Planning and Leadership: 6 hours o Investing in Your P2 Infrastructure: with MJ Bull, 1 day o Workshops, Surveys, and Tours —Oh My! (Choosing the Right P2 Tools): 3 hours o Stakeholder Mapping: 3 hours Public Participation Fieldbook: Jointly researched, developed, co - taught, and published with colleague Dr. John Bryson this comprehensive guidebook for the University of Minnesota Extension Service; includes strategies and approaches to authentic and meaningful public engagement around complex issues and often within highly political environments Academic and Instructional Master of Planning in Public Affairs, Humphrey School of Public Affairs, University of Minnesota • Bachelor of Arts in American Studies and English, University of Minnesota Developer/trainer for original courses: Designing for Diversity - Engaging Underrepresented Stakeholders (2 days), Strategic Planning and Leadership (6 hrs), Investing in Your Public Participation Infrastructure (1 day), and short courses Former Adjunct Faculty, Humphrey School of Public Affairs, University of Minnesota Professional and Community • International Association for Public Participation USA, recent Board officer and international Federation Board representative, current national Training Committee chair; Midwest Chapter Board member • Minnesota Education Equity Partnership, Board officer • E-Democracy.Org, Board officer • St. Paul Public Schools Board of Education member, 2000-2015 WBE/SBE/DBE Certifications • State of Minnesota • St. Paul/Ramsey City • Minneapolis/Hennepin City • Sec 49 Code of Federal Regulations Part 26 (DBE) CFA Proposal for TH 25 Coalition Facilitation Page 7 MN Department of Transportation: TH 41 EIS, Coalition Support and Stakeholder Engagement Worked with MnDOT project leadership and a high-profile team of 12 key federal, state, regional, and local agency stakeholders to design and implement Project Team an innovative and collaborative approach to reach consensus on a highly Anne Carroll – project manager and engagement contentious Minnesota River crossing as part of an unusual and rarely used Tier lead 1 Environmental Impact Statement. Project Schedule Decades of flooding and regional transportation demands resulted in pressing 2009-2013 needs for all stakeholders, but the impacts of this very long-term and massive Project Cost project were daunting — and impacts and priorities varied considerably among $44,000 the stakeholders. Project Reference MnDOT project manager Active participants included the Federal Highway Administration and US Fish Diane Langenbach, P.E., 651 - and Wildlife Service/Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge; MnDOT, 234-7721, diane.langenbach Department of Natural Resources, and State Historic Protection Office; @state.mn.us Metropolitan Council; Cities of Chaska, Shakopee, Carver, and Chanhassen; and Scott and Carver Counties. Critical issues included the following: • Environmental justice for people in poverty, of color, and immigrants • Section 4(f) for protected lands and historic properties (including a historic community ballpark) • Noise and visual impacts on historic and other properties • Public safety • Ecosystem and flora/fauna impacts • Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge user impacts We facilitated this diverse group to create a formal collaborative to work with stakeholders and comprehensively explore corridor options and local impacts, develop common goals and strategies to address impacts for all key stakeholders, identify innovative mitigation recommendations, and eventually to create a sustainable structure for authentic and ongoing collaboration and engagement over the next 20+ years. Latino families from a highly impacted manufactured home park worked first with the project team to identify impacts, and then with each other to review mitigation recommendations prepared by their neighbors CFA Proposal for TH 25 Coalition Facilitation Page 8 Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board, Southwest Light Rail Transit EIS: Stakeholder Engagement and Advisory Committee Facilitation In this complicated stakeholder engagement effort for Minneapolis Parks and Recreation (MPRB), supported the appointed Community Advisory Committee Project Team (CAC) to prepare MPRB's formal comments on the Southwest light rail transit Anne Carroll — project Draft Environmental Impact Statement to help protect Minneapolis park and manager and engagement trail users, lands, flora/fauna, and historic structures. lead Key deliverables included the following preparatory and framing materials for Project Schedule the CAC: 2012-13 • Project overview and timeline Project Cost • DEIS regulatory and legal process $28,000 • Sample DEIS content on park impacts and comment letters • Robust and authentic public engagement options Project Reference • Video of the entire Minneapolis section of the LRT corridor for CAC Deputy superintendent members and the public, highlighting all sections over which MPRB had Jennifer Ringold, jurisdiction and were to be included in the CAC's work Minneapolis Parks and Recreation, 612-230-6464, jringold@minneapolisparks.org From the beginning through multiple delays in the Federal process and the formal DEIS comment period, facilitated all CAC meetings and designed and implemented all engagement and input. Finally, provided support the CAC to prepare a comprehensive legal Comment Letter that included: • Station -by -station descriptions • Current site photos, maps, and graphics • Key issues • Critical outcome expectations w �t1Y1..pYii..wYYlOr1.M.��M�.k'�. CFA Proposal for TH 25 Coalition Facilitation Page 9 MN Departments of Education and Human Services, Early Childhood Education Standards: Statewide Stakeholder Engagement and Multi -agency Team Support This statewide engagement for the Minnesota Departments of Education and Human Services provided critical guidance for these agencies to meet rigorous federal and state consultation requirements. These early childhood education standards and indicators of progress directly affect thousands of providers, families, school districts, universities, and regulatory agencies throughout the state. Worked directly with a multi -agency team to collaborate with stakeholders statewide to revise these standards and indicators of progress for children birth to kindergarten entrance. • Facilitated broadly representative Workgroups for the two domains: language, literacy, and communications; and social and emotional • Prepared comprehensive state demographic profile and presented to teams to provide critical perspectives on the current and future of the state • Engaged statewide and national experts, with special emphasis on experts from communities of Color, ii immigrants, and Native Americans to ensure those ` critical perspectives are included • Compiled and organized scholarly research �. • Designed and gathered statewide feedback on draft revision, with special emphasis on underrepresented communities; there were 23 components, each with �+�►'' multiple elements and options on which we were a4 seeking detailed feedback and recommendations. • Compiled and analyzed feedback and presented to teams • Facilitated Workgroups and agencies to reach consensus and prepare final recommendation to their respective state Commissioners Project Team Anne Carroll — project manager/engagement lead Project Schedule 2015-2016 Project Cost $72,000 Project References - Michelle Lenhart, MN Dept of Human Services, 651-431-3871, michelle.lenhart@state.mn.us - Eileen Nelson, MN Dept of Education, 651-582-8464, elleen. nelson @state. mn. us s"� d M iYY 1�r�Ir 1Ye wYY�w.iv �FYir J wlr W � d iw ur+lr Iwe. w�eYnhmne � W. lYe.wnY• rcwneYN Ire 1N�nr�en wr�rd�.ar•xhsw MIMYdvew�nN M• +.M' M !M. W. f�rlM Y.M• w.r�1 t�h.:•+.IIY IF+MdM hrM� M dMnM �f tl WW tYidlYAie}eiil�et • UeHMaiY�liwr2lftAwm6•ruwilrrn}nrf+�4iifv6i1f0]MC1WIt CFA Proposal for TH 25 Coalition Facilitation Page 10 Center for Energy and Environment, Healthy Homes: Engagement, Decision Support The broad purpose of this project was to find ways to make weatherization and Project Team lead abatement services and funding opportunities accessible and actually used Anne Carroll — project lead by many more low-income residents in Minneapolis and Hennepin County. The workshops provided context for the project, built consensus on desired outcomes, used the process flowcharts to identify gaps and opportunities, explored solutions to income -eligibility mismatches across programs, and understood gaps and overlaps in services and criteria. As a result, the final report prepared by CEE was able to identify the critical short- and mid-term issues and recommendations, and Task Force members committed to their roles moving the work forward to better meet residents' needs. I MlaaeapoR, Lead Ha=erd Redual- P,.S— w.O _a ... lo.vI—Weedurhetlen/Nenw Enemy 5e4.p Proenm tiO r � Home EneW Squad ` C Y -..1 _4 _..._ CFA Proposal for TH 25 Coalition Facilitation e r $ERV**EaRIK*F*... OWS OUTER' �e • INTEWTOGERER6Yt MCYMIEM e+ a AXOHM"ff HElWSPA 6?Af if l t oc-�aa.0 ti r cee Page 11 Project Schedule Following research done by CEE staff, worked with multiple agencies to create 2018 draft process maps of the various processes from residents' perspectives, and Project Cost then revised and finalized those in consultation with program staff. $7,000 Worked with CEE to design a welcoming and respectful process to bring Project Reference together the key city and county agencies, nonprofits, funders, and private Project manager Brady entities as a Task Force. Designed and facilitated two intense workshops to Steigauf, 612-244-2485, facilitate collaborative, productive solutions to better serve residents. bsteigauf@mncee.org The workshops provided context for the project, built consensus on desired outcomes, used the process flowcharts to identify gaps and opportunities, explored solutions to income -eligibility mismatches across programs, and understood gaps and overlaps in services and criteria. As a result, the final report prepared by CEE was able to identify the critical short- and mid-term issues and recommendations, and Task Force members committed to their roles moving the work forward to better meet residents' needs. I MlaaeapoR, Lead Ha=erd Redual- P,.S— w.O _a ... lo.vI—Weedurhetlen/Nenw Enemy 5e4.p Proenm tiO r � Home EneW Squad ` C Y -..1 _4 _..._ CFA Proposal for TH 25 Coalition Facilitation e r $ERV**EaRIK*F*... OWS OUTER' �e • INTEWTOGERER6Yt MCYMIEM e+ a AXOHM"ff HElWSPA 6?Af if l t oc-�aa.0 ti r cee Page 11 Below are estimated hours and costs by phase, based on the RFP, understanding, assumptions, and initial task ideas. The scope will be refined and monitored throughout the project, and actual work is based on issues and needs that emerge and always as directed by the Coalition and its representatives. Est Schedule Est Hours Est Cost Phase 1: Kickoff and Coalition Planning July -August 2019 40 $5,600 Phase 2: Regional Land Use Planning Scoping Aug -October 2019 80 $11,200 and Selection Process Phase 3: Coalition Support and Capacity- October 2019 through 2020 (and 225 $31,500 building beyond at Coalition's discretion) Estimated totals: $48,300 • Rates: o Professional services: $140/hour o Travel: Travel for in-person sessions will be carefully managed to optimize value to the Coalition and project while minimizing costs; to reduce the budget burden, travel time to/from Monticello will be billed at 50% hourly rate plus mileage at the then -current Federal rate o Any other expenses will be approved in advance and are generally billed at cost o Staff are responsible for logistics and printed materials, routine communications, and any engagement expenses Included at no additional cost for the project team's use as needed are tele/video communications, access to dedicated Google Drive folders for document access by authorized team members and live joint work, and use of a Survey Monkey professional account (unlimited) Billing and terms: Invoices will be submitted monthly (or 2x/month if requested), including detailed descriptions of work performed, hours, costs, and any pre -approved expenses. Terms are net 15. CFA Proposal for TH 25 Coalition Facilitation Page 12 REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS REGIONAL LAND USE PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROCESS FACILITATOR SECTION I: GENERAL INFORMATION OVERVIEW The Highway 25 Coalition was initiated in April 2016 with the purpose of developing a unified effort to establish a future vision for the TH 25 corridor and the surrounding area. The primary goals of this vision are to improve safety, reduce congestion, and improve freight mobility while encouraging economic development. The Coalition is made up of partner entities including: Sherburne County, Wright County, City of Monticello, City of Big Lake, City of Becker, Becker Township, and Big Lake Township. The Coalition recognizes the importance of the TH 25 connection and the opportunity represented by TH 25, US10, I-94 and the rail line in Sherburne County. More information and the joint powers agreement for the Highway 25 Coalition can be found at the Coalition website httos://www.ei.monticello.mn.us/hi6wav251. The TH 25 corridor between I-94 and Highway 10 is an important regional connection that carries up to 36,500 vehicles per day. It is a heavily used route for freight vehicles and heavily used by recreation traffic during the warm weather cabin months. In addition to being a regional connection, the corridor serves as an important local route for the communities of Becker, Big Lake, and Monticello and is one of only four river crossings connecting Wright County and Sherburne County. Since April of 2017 the Coalition has been working on a transportation study to identify river crossing locations and to determine preferred crossing locations. The goal of the Coalition was to reduce the five river crossing locations identified in the plan down to three preferred options. Due to varying concerns among partner entities, the process stalled and the Coalition was unable to move forward with preferred crossing identification. To keep the Coalition together and find solutions to the congestion on TH 25, the group reached out to FHWA for advice. FHWA has -suggested that as the next step, the Coalition prepare a regional land use plan. This step is prior to entering the NEPA process where a river crossing location would be identified. The Coalition has agreed to move forward with regional land use planning as suggested by FHWA. In order to keep the group moving together through the land use planning and the eventual the environmental process, the Coalition would like to select a facilitator to assist the partners in goal -setting and consensus building. It is estimated that the regional land use planning will take one to two years and the environmental process could take between two to four years. SECTION 2: OVERALL SCOPE OF SERVICES The services required of the Consultant are anticipated to be provided beginning in July 2019 with the completion of the regional land use plan in 2021. This contract may be extended to include assistance during the environmental process which could take an additional 2 to 10 years to complete. Request for Proposals Hwy 25 Coalition Facilitator -------------------------- Page 2 of 4 The successful consultant will work with agency staff, stakeholders, public, and the Coalition to assist in the development of a regional land use plan. This is anticipated to include but not limited to the following: • Further develop goals, practices, and policies for the Coalition and staff. • Help facilitate the selection process and scope creation for a regional land use plan. • Help facilitate and make recommendations to make the process of coming together on a regional plan as painless as possible. • Prepare agendas and materials for Highway 25 Coalition meetings as necessary to complete the regional land use plan. • Facilitate the Coalition meetings and providing complete documentation of the meeting discussion, action items, and next steps • Create and maintain a stakeholder report that will help document the Coalitions efforts. • Prepare information for distribution on the Coalition's website. • Perform any additional tasks and/or facilitate any necessary discussions as requested to complete the regional land use plan. It is anticipated that the regional land use planning process will take approximately 12 months. During this time there will likely be monthly Coalition meetings and bi-weekly coordinating committee meetings. These coordinating meetings will mostly be made up of agency staff. Stakeholder involvement and coordination will also be part of this project. The facilitator will be involved in this effort and the specifics of the stakeholder involvement will be determined along with the regional planning consultants' scope. The facilitator shall remain neutral throughout the project and shall not have any conflicts of interest with their efforts. The facilitator will not be allowed to work on other areas of this contract which include the land use planning, future environmental phases or do work for any Coalition partner agencies throughout the duration of this contract. The proposal shall contain the type of information summarized below. Additional information is allowable as long as it is directly relevant to the proposed project. SECTION[ 3: PROPOSALS — Proposal Format The submittal should follow the Table of Contents listed below: 1. General Information 2. Project Understanding 3. Project Approach 4. Proposed Project Team and Experience with Similar Projects 5. Any Additional Information as Needed 6. Estimated Consultant Cost A brief description of each section is included below. 1. General Information General information and a brief history of the Consultant's firm. Include similar information on key subconsultants, if any, proposed for the project. F:\Rachel\4. Comm Coordinator\City Hall\Hwy 25\Facilitator RFP.RLRev.doc Request for Proposals Hwy 25 Coalition Facilitator -------------------------- Page 3 of 4 2. Project Undeptandinf. A summary of the Consultant's understanding of the work. 3. Project Approach Provide specific approaches, methods, and assumptions that will be utilized to accomplish the development of this project, including each work phase. 4. Proposed Project Team and Experience ■ Identify the key project team members and describe their specific roles on the project. Include key team members from sub -consultant firms if any. ■ Describe relevant experience and provide information on at least three (3) reference projects completed in the last ten (10) years. Provide personal references and contact information. ■ Include one-page resumes for key members of the project team, including field personnel. 5. Additional Information Include any other information that is believed to be pertinent, but not specifically requested elsewhere in this RFP. 6. Total Consultant Cost The consultant cost should be broken out as follows: a. Initial goal -setting and process framework for the Coalition b. Proposed costs for facilitating the regional land use planning process. c. Hourly rates for all consultant employees who are expected to work on this project. SECTION 4: CONSULTANT SELECTION Proposals will be reviewed and evaluated by a team of staff representing Coalition entities on the basis of the following criteria: 1. Consulting firm and key project staff experience with similar projects. 2. Proven track record in successfully completing similar projects. Staff plans to follow up with key staff from referenced projects. Successful experience of both the firm itself and the individual team members will be considered. 3. Proposed approach to completing the project 4. Proposed consultant cost Following review of the Proposals the Coalition may ask Consultants to make a presentation to representatives, staff will select a Consultant to negotiate a contract as follows: 1. If, for any eason, a firm is not able to commence the services in that firm's Proposal within 30 days of the award, the Coalition reserves the right to contract with another qualified firm. 2. The Coalition shall not be liable for any expenses incurred by the Consultant prior to the signing of a contract including, but not limited to, the Proposal preparation, attendance at interviews, or final contract negotiations. 3. The Coalition reserves the right to reject any and all Proposal submittals or to request additional information from any or all of the proposing firms. F:\Rachel\4. Comm Coordinator\City Hall\Hwy 25\Facilitator RFP.RLRev.doc Request for Proposals Hwy 25 Coalition Facilitator Page 4 of 4 -------------------------- SECTION S: CONTRACT TERMS AND CONDITIONS Upon selection of a Consultant, an Agreement or Contract for Services, attached to this RFP, shall be entered into by the Coalition and the Consultant. It is expected that the contract will provide for compensation for actual work completed on a not to exceed basis, and the following conditions: 1. Deletions of specific itemized work tasks will be at the discretion of the Coalition. Payment or reimbursement shall be made based on tasks that have been satisfactorily completed. Billing that exceed the not to exceed amount will not be compensated unless a contract extension has been approved in advance by the Coalition. 2. The Coalition shall retain ownership of all documents, plans, maps, reports and data prepared under this proposal. The consultant will provide hard copy and digital documents throughout the project. 3. If, for any reason, the Consultant is unable to fulfill the obligations under the contract in a timely and proper manner, the Coalition shall reserve the right to terminate the contract by written notice. In this event, the firm shall be entitled to just and equitable compensation for any satisfactory completed work tasks, as determined by the project manager. 4. The Consultant shall not assign or transfer any interest in the contract without prior written consent of the Coalition. 5. The Consultant shall maintain comprehensive general liability insurance in accordance with Section 466.04 of the Minnesota Statutes. 6. The Consultant contract shall be governed by the laws of the State of Minnesota. 7. Project summaries shall be submitted with each invoice during the course of the project. Invoices submitted shall include a detailed breakdown of times, personnel, mileage, etc. chargeable for that period. SECTION 6: CONCLUSION AND SUBMITTAL Any requests for additional information that may be needed for the preparation of the proposal should be directed via email to Angela Schumann at Angela. Schumann.4 monticello.mn.us. All questions must be received before 4:30 pm, June 14, 2019. No responses will be provided for questions received after that time. Please provide 5 paper and one electronic (pdo copies of the Proposal for the evaluation process. Proposals shall be addressed to: Angela Schumann. Community Development Director City of Monticello 505 Walnut Street Monticello MN 55362 Proposals will be accepted until 11:30 a.m. on June 18. 2019 F:\Rachel\4. Comm Coordinator\City Hall\Hwy 25\Facilitator RFP.RLRev.doc MINNESOTA STATUTES 2016 13.591 13.591 BUSINESS DATA. Subdivision 1. Not public data when benefit requested. The following data, that are submitted to a government entity by a business requesting financial assistance or a benefit financed by public funds, are private or nonpublic data: financial information about the business, including credit reports; financial statements; net worth calculations; business plans; income and expense projections; balance sheets; customer lists; income tax returns; and design, market, and feasibility studies not paid for with public funds. Subd. 2. Public data when benefit received. Data submitted to a government entity under subdivision 1 become public when public financial assistance is provided or the business receives a benefit from the government entity, except that the following data remain private or nonpublic: business plans; income and expense projections not related to the financial assistance provided; customer lists; income tax returns; and design, market, and feasibility studies not paid for with public funds. Subd. 3. Business as vendor. (a) Data submitted by a business to a government entity in response to a request for bids as defined in section 16C.02, subdivision 11, are private or nonpublic until the time and date specified in the solicitation that bids are due, at which time the name of the bidder and the dollar amount specified in the response become public. All other data in a bidder's response to a bid are private or nonpublic data until completion of the selection process. For purposes of this section, "completion of the selection process" means that the government entity has completed its evaluation and has ranked the responses. After a government entity has completed the selection process, all remaining data submitted by all bidders are public with the exception of trade secret data as defined and classified in section 13.37. A statement by a bidder that submitted data are copyrighted or otherwise protected does not prevent public access to the data contained in the bid. If all responses to a request for bids are rejected prior to completion of the selection process, all data, other than the name of the bidder and the dollar amount specified in the response, remain private or nonpublic until a resolicitation of bids results in completion of the selection process or a determination is made to abandon the purchase. If the rejection occurs after the completion of the selection process, the data remain public. If a resolicitation of bids does not occur within one year of the bid opening date, the remaining data become public. (b) Data submitted by a business to a government entity in response to a request for proposal, as defined - in section 16C.02, subdivision 12, are private or nonpublic until the time and date specified in the solicitation that proposals are due, at which time the name of the responder becomes public. All other data in a responder's response to a request for proposal are private or nonpublic data until completion of the evaluation process. For purposes of this section, "completion of the evaluation process" means that the government entity has completed negotiating the contract with the selected vendor. After a government entity has completed the evaluation process, all remaining data submitted by all responders are public with the exception of trade secret data as defined and classified in section 13.37. A statement by a responder that submitted data are copyrighted or otherwise protected does not prevent public access to the data contained in the response. If all responses to a request for proposal are rejected prior to completion of the evaluation process, all data, other than the names of the responders, remain private or nonpublic until a resolicitation of the requests for proposal results in completion of the evaluation process or a determination is made to abandon the purchase. If the rejection occurs after the completion of the evaluation process, the data remain public. If a resolicitation of proposals does not occur within one year of the proposal opening date, the remaining data become public. Copyright 0 2016 by the Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota. All Rights Reserved. 13.591 MINNESOTA STATUTES 2016 2 Subd. 4. Classification of evaluative data; data sharing. (a) Data created or maintained by a government entity as part of the selection or evaluation process referred to in this section are protected nonpublic data until completion of the selection process or completion of the evaluation process at which time the data are public with the exception of trade secret data as defined and classified in section 13.37. (b) If a government entity asks employees of other government entities to assist with the selection of the responses to a request for bid or the evaluation of responses to a request for proposal, the government entity may share not public data in the responses with those employees. The employees participating in the selection or evaluation may not further disseminate the not public data they review. Subd. 5. Internal competitive response. (a) For purposes of this subdivision, "internal competitive response" means a bid or proposal to provide government goods or services that is prepared by the staff of a government entity in competition with bids or proposals solicited by (1) the same government entity from the private sector or (2) a different government entity from the private sector. (b) Data in an internal competitive response is classified as private or nonpublic until completion of the selection process or completion of the evaluation process at which time the data are public with the exception of trade secret data as defined and classified in section 13.37. History: 2001 c 202 s 7, 2005 c 163 s 41,42; 2007 c 129 s 38; 2013 c 142 art 3 s 14 Copyright © 2016 by the Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota. All Rights Reserved. SIGN IN SHEET 6-27-19 HIGHWAY 25 COALITION MEETING PLEASE PRINT NAME CITY/TOW N SH I P/COUNTY/ORGANIZATION vV �9 �1 ro u/t ty A/I , cel/ &.,-y or /mow <-,-ct� writ 3� CI�,E'✓� oc,Jr�Svt� lL I on 1ic� mo Page 1