On the agenda: West Saint Paul meeting — colocation (Jun 8)

OPEN COUNCIL WORK SESSION
Municipal Center Council Chambers
1616 Humboldt Ave, West St. Paul, MN 55118
June 8, 2026
5:30 PM
1. Welcome and Note Attendance
2. Agenda Item(s)
A. Introduction of South Metro Fire Department Chief - Mike Nelson
B. Delaware Avenue Reconstruction & Butler Avenue Trail & Sidewalk Improvements
Project Overview
Documents:
OCWS ITEM -DELAWARE BUTLER PROJECT OVERVIEW.PDF
OCWS ATTACHMENT - PP DELAWARE BUTLER.PDF
C. Facilities System Plan Update
Documents:
OCWS ITEM - FACILITIES SYSTEM PLAN.PDF
WEST ST.PAUL RFQ RESPONSE_HELSEM.PDF
WEST ST. PAUL FEE PROPOSAL_HELSEM.PDF
D. Council Directed Discussion
Documents:
OCWS ITEM - COUNCIL DIRECTED DISCUSSION.PDF
3. Regular Meeting Consent Agenda Review
4. Adjourn

4. Adjourn

If you need an accommodation to participate in the meeting, please contact the ADA Coordinator at 651-552-4108 or
email [email protected] at least 5 business days prior to the meeting.
Si usted desea que alguna parte del paquete de esta agenda sea traducida al Español, por favor solicitelo
al [email protected].
www.wspmn.gov
EOE/AA

OCWS Item
Subject: Delaware Avenue Reconstruction & Bulter
Avenue Trail & Sidewalk Improvements Project
Overview
Meeting Date: June 8, 2026
Submitted/Presented by/Department: Ross Beckwith/Public Works
Action Type
☐ Consent Item
☐ Discussion/Direction
☐ Public Hearing
☒ Informational Only
☐ Action/Motion
☐ Report
☐ Resolution
☐ Other:
Action
NA
Background
The upcoming Delaware Avenue Reconstruction and Butler Avenue Trail and Sidewalk
Project is being led by Dakota County. Plans are nearing completion and the county will give a
presentation of the project.
Attachments
Attachment - PowerPoint
Previous Relevant Actions
5/26/26 Receive Feasibility Report and Order Public Hearing for the Delaware Avenue
Reconstruction Project 25-3
Alternatives
Financial
Budgeted: ☒ Yes
Fund: Street Improvement/Sanitary/Sidewalk
Department:
Account:
Amount:

☐ No Financial Impact

Page 1 of 1

Delaware Avenue Reconstruction & Butler
Avenue Trail and Sidewalk Improvements
West St. Paul City Council
June 8, 2026

Overview
•
•
•
•

Project overview and design
Construction Schedule
Project Schedule
Public Involvement

Delaware Avenue

3

Full reconstruction from
Dodd Ave. to Marie Ave.
• New trail on west side of
Delaware Ave.
• New storm sewer
• Water, sanitary sewer
replacements
• Intersection Improvements

CP 26-60: Allen Way to Babcock Trail Segment

Butler Avenue
•
•
•
•

Trail construction on south side
Sidewalk construction on north side
Water, sanitary sewer replacements
Mill and overlay of roadway

4

Typical Segment: Marie Ave. to Emerson Ave.

5

Typical Section: Emerson Ave. to Dodd Road

6

Typical Segment: Butler Avenue

7

Intersection Improvements
Wentworth Ave.
•

Additional markings and signage for the
approaches

Emerson Ave.
•

Pedestrian-activated crossing lights on
south side

Dodd Road
•

New right turn lane onto Dodd

8

Dorset Ave. Cul-de-sac
• Steep approach grade created
safety issues for vehicles that are
not resolvable with project
• Additional concern with ‘offset’
intersection with Moreland Ave.
• Dorset to be converted to cul-de-sac
•
•

Will have trail connection to
Delaware Ave. trail
Project will include private driveway
modifications

9

Project Schedule
Three phases over two years
• Significant public utility installations
to prolong work
• Desire to limit extent of closures,
detours to smaller areas
Phase 1 (late 2026-2027)
• Tree clearing
• Pond modifications in Somerset C.C.
• Private utility relocations

Project Schedule
Phase 2 (Spring-Fall 2027)
• Reconstruction of Delaware Ave.
from Wentworth Ave. to Dodd Road
Phase 3 (Spring-Fall 2028)
• Reconstruction of Delaware Ave.
from Marie Ave. to Wentworth Ave.
• Overlay, trail/sidewalk and utility
work on Butler Ave.

Project Schedule
Right of Way
• Easements needed on 43 parcels in West St. Paul
• 62 of 82 parcels settled to date
• Condemnation process underway, but negotiations ongoing
• Aim for possession of easements by early September
Construction Bidding
• September 2026 advertisement

Public involvement
• Project update mailing in late April
• May 18 open house
• Project goals
• Final plans
• Construction schedule and considerations

• Previous open houses in December 2024, April 2025

13

Thank You
Joe Morneau
Senior Project Manager
952-891-7986
[email protected]

14

OCWS Item
Subject: Facilities System Plan Update
Meeting Date: June 8, 2026
Submitted/Presented by/Department: Nate Burkett City Manager
Action Type
☐ Consent Item
☒ Discussion/Direction
☐ Public Hearing
☐ Informational Only
☐ Action/Motion
☐ Report
☐ Resolution
☐ Other:
Action
NA
Background
SUMMARY
helseM Architects, paired with Capstone Public Sector Solutions, has been selected to deliver
the Facilities System Plan. Total fee for Tasks 1 through 5 is $24,500 not-to-exceed, with
optional Task 6 collaborative planning support billed hourly. Reimbursable expenses are
included in the not-to-exceed totals. The fee is within the City Manager's purchasing authority,
so this discussion is to perform a status and go/no-go check with the Council. What this memo
is asking of Council is something separate from the contract: confirmation that the planning
work is worth doing, with an understanding of what it commits us to on the back end. Kickoff
is June 2026. Delivery and presentation to Council are scheduled for December 2026. The
schedule supports the Fire Station 1 groundbreaking target of no later than 2029.
What this plan delivers, and what it does not.
The Facilities System Plan delivers the strategic framework: the best sequence for moving the
dominoes, recommended sites for each facility, building cost estimates at the planning level,
and financial phasing aligned with bond capacity. The output is the roadmap Council and staff
need to make informed go or no-go decisions on each facility, in the right order, with the right
financing pattern.
The plan does not include schematic design or architectural drawings of any building. No floor
plans, no elevations, no renderings. Those products come later, as part of design engagements
that follow specific Council decisions to proceed on specific buildings. The planning work
tells us what to build, where to build it, when to build it, and how to finance it. The design
work, which is a separate procurement, tells us what the building looks like. Keeping that
boundary clean keeps the planning work efficient and keeps each future design engagement
open to the best available firm at the time.
WHY THIS WORK IS NEEDED
Our facilities are behind. They have been for years. The case for moving now is grounded in
five things.
Page 1 of 6

OCWS Item
Subject: Facilities System Plan Update
Fire Station 1 is the urgent driver. The CNH Architects assessment delivered in December
2022 documented what staff and Council already knew. The station was built in 1974 with an
addition in 1999. The building is significantly lacking against current Best Practices for fire
station design. Three of the five apparatus bays are not wide enough to accommodate adjacent
apparatus with their doors open at the same time. The bays are too short to properly fit current
apparatus. The building has poor ventilation and outdated contamination separation, which
translates to carcinogen exposure for firefighters every shift. The public entrance is routed
across the apparatus bay path, and the police sally port is adjacent to the apparatus bays, both
of which create unsafe traffic flow and can disrupt response times. The building was not
constructed to support a second story, and the space needs analysis identified a shortage of
more than 31,000 square feet. The existing site is approximately 1.55 buildable acres against a
roughly 4.0-acre requirement for a fully compliant drive-through station. These are not
aesthetic deficiencies. They affect response, safety, and the long-term health of the firefighters
who serve in the building.
The Police Department needs are real and accumulating. The CIP brainstormed list
documented the gap: better officer workspace, better space for attached employees (360
Communities, embedded social workers), interview space, secure evidence storage, locker
rooms, in-custody processing, and overall workflow improvements. The $1.2M invested in the
PD remodel in 2020 was a meaningful patch on the workspace problem, not a structural
solution. CJIS compliance, which is non-negotiable, governs access control, sightlines, data
infrastructure, and circulation in ways that the existing footprint cannot easily accommodate.
Storage is an organizational capacity problem. Police, Fire, Parks and Recreation, and Public
Works all have significant and growing storage needs. We are close to proposing leasing
privately owned space, probably outside of the City to meet the need. As one recent and
concrete example, Fire asked this week about adding another 40-foot storage container to
handle equipment that has nowhere else to go. Parks and Recreation has items stashed at every
park with a building that should be stored in a central location. When we consider purchasing
equipment that could create efficiency, decrease overall costs or improve service we run it
through the filter of where it will be stored and often have to shelve the idea. It is what we hear
regularly because no single department has the room to absorb what it actually needs, and no
shared facility has been planned to consolidate the demand. The result is a patchwork of
containers, and equipment stored where it should not be. A Facilities System Plan that treats
storage as a portfolio-wide need, rather than a department-by-department patch, is the only
way to right-size the solution.
Our employees told us this is the problem. The 2026 Employee Experience Survey did not ask
about facilities. Facilities came up anyway, as the single most frequent open-ended theme
across the organization. South Metro Fire respondents named specific elements: the station,
bathrooms, kitchen, dorms, layout. The instrument was designed to measure engagement. It
Page 2 of 6

OCWS Item
Subject: Facilities System Plan Update
picked up the facilities theme regardless, because it is what people wanted to talk about when
given the chance. When the people doing the work tell us this consistently, on a survey that
did not prompt for it, that is a signal worth weighing.
The financial window opens at the right moment. The 5/27/25 CIP showed bond payments
expiring on a schedule that meaningfully grows available levy capacity through the early
2030s. By 2030, $391,308 of bond capacity rolls off. By 2032, $911,158. By 2034, $2.88M.
By 2035, $4.03M. The capacity to do this work is appearing on a timeline that lines up with
the Fire Station 1 2029 groundbreaking target if we start now. Waiting longer compresses the
planning window without changing the underlying deficiencies.
The point of the Facilities System Plan is not to confirm what we already suspect. It is to take
what we know and the work CNH already did, integrate it with the PD, City Hall, Public
Works, and recreational portfolio, and produce options that are real, costed, phased, and
aligned with bond capacity. None of these facilities can be solved in isolation. The dominoes
only fall in one direction.
WHAT WE ARE ASKING
The fee is not the commitment. The commitment is the work that follows if helseM brings
back a workable plan.
Planning work generates effort and energy across the whole organization. Staff time goes into
interviews, options sessions, and review. Council time goes into options conversations and
decisions. The community starts paying attention and engaging. We undertake this work with
the honest expectation that if a workable plan comes back, we will move it forward. If we do
not have that intent, the right answer is to stop now and not spend the time, the money, or the
public's attention.
The financial mechanism is bond replacement. Existing bond payments roll off the levy over
the next several years, and new bond payments for new facilities would take their place. In a
clean transition, the levy impact on residents is close to neutral. The realistic case is a
temporary overlap, possibly a year, where both old and new bond payments are being made at
the same time. That overlap shows up as a temporary spike in property taxes. We will not
know the exact shape of that overlap until Ehlers runs the numbers against the helseM options,
but it is the most likely real-world outcome of moving forward.
Council is not being asked to commit to any of this now. Decisions on options, costs,
financing structure, and levy impact will all come back to Council in the ordinary way after
the planning work delivers. What we are asking now is for Council to confirm that the
planning work is worth doing. That means a shared understanding that if a workable plan

Page 3 of 6

OCWS Item
Subject: Facilities System Plan Update
comes back, Council will give it serious consideration and is prepared to act, including on
financing decisions that may temporarily increase the levy.
If that read is right, the planning work is well spent. If Council is not prepared for the
financing realities on the back end, the right time to say so is now, not after the work is done
and the expectations are set.
THE SELECTION
The team. Tom Wesley, AIA, LEED-AP, NCARB, principal in charge, with 20-plus years
leading municipal projects including fire stations and a county sheriff's department. Ginnie
Schneider, AIA, LFA, project manager, with more than 15 municipal feasibility studies
completed in the past five years and prior work alongside Ehlers on multiple engagements.
Jerry Streich, OPD, of Capstone, public safety advisor, former fire chief with 37 years of field
and executive experience, currently reviews more than 60 station designs per year, and has
collaborated with Schneider on prior public safety facility work. Every team member named in
the proposal will be personally involved from kickoff through the Council presentation. There
is no hand-off to junior staff.
Why helseM. The submittal was the most West St. Paul-specific in the field. helseM named
the 1.55 buildable acres at the Humboldt campus against the roughly 4.0-acre footprint
required for a fully compliant drive-through fire station. They referenced the $1.5M City Hall
remodel completed in 2021 and the $1.2M Police Department remodel completed in 2020 as
investments to leverage, not abandon. They built their work around the three-test rec
framework rather than reciting it back. Pricing was sized for a planning engagement, not a
design engagement. Several other firms in the field were not.
Process. Seven submittals were reviewed against the five-page limit and the systems-thinking
criterion set in the RFQ. Three were set aside on cost. The remaining four received full review.
The review team was the City Manager, Assistant City Manager Nowicki, Police Chief
Sturgeon, Fire Chief Nelsen, Parks and Recreation Facilities Manager Ramirez, and Chief
Building Official Schilling. Schilling toured firms ahead of selection.
THE WORK
Framework. Every facility decision changes the decision tree. The fire station is the most
urgent need, but how it is sited and sized will directly determine what the Police Department
and City Hall can become, and what the existing Humboldt campus can be repurposed to do.
helseM will hold that systems logic as the governing discipline across every task.
Scope. For each facility priority (Fire Station, Police Department, City Hall, Public Works),
helseM will develop a minimum of three options: renovation or addition, new construction,
and co-location. Each option will be evaluated for feasibility, order-of-magnitude cost, site
Page 4 of 6

OCWS Item
Subject: Facilities System Plan Update
implications, and cascading effects on the rest of the portfolio. Options will include cost
transparency across building systems (pre-engineered metal, precast, steel-framed CMU,
masonry and steel), with maintenance requirements and expected lifespans for each. No single
program will be delivered without a pragmatic alternative alongside it.
Site work. Fire station siting will evaluate the current Humboldt campus, the Sports Complex
site, and any additional sites identified by the City Manager, assessed against response time
impacts using the CNH study drive-time analysis as the baseline.
Recreation evaluation. The dome, ice arena, Harmon Park, Sports Complex, and the new
recreation center concept will be evaluated against the three tests named in the RFQ: financial
feasibility within bond capacity, operational fit with the City's service delivery model, and
demonstrated community interest. Deliverable is a decision-ready recommendation with orderof-magnitude costs and a clear assessment of how existing facilities are repositioned under the
recommended approach. Community engagement methodology for the "demonstrated
community interest" test will be developed with helseM during kickoff.
Partnership scenarios. Dakota County and ISD 197 shared or co-located scenarios will be
evaluated with the same options and cost discipline. This task is contingent and activated only
at the City Manager's direction.
Phasing. All options will account for maintaining continuous City and emergency operations
throughout construction. West St. Paul is a fully built-out city. Phased construction in active
facilities is a design constraint addressed from the first option sketch, not a footnote added at
the end.
Ehlers and Amcon remain at the table. Amcon as the City's representative and construction
management advisor, present throughout. Ehlers anchoring the financial framework so options
remain grounded in bond capacity.
SCHEDULE
June: Task 1 kickoff in West St. Paul.
July: Task 2 baseline review and validation, kickoff
August: Tasks 3, 4, 5 working meeting in West St. Paul.
September: Tasks 3, 4, 5 second working meeting in West St. Paul.
October: Tasks 1-5 conclusion meeting, Task 6 kickoff.
November: Finalize report and Council presentation.
December: Deliver report to City, present to City Council.
FEES
Total not to exceed for tasks 1-5 - $24,500.
Page 5 of 6

OCWS Item
Subject: Facilities System Plan Update
Hourly rates for task 6 - Wesley $150, Schneider $130, Streich $200, design support staff
$100.
WHAT IS NEXT
Kickoff in June. First substantive Council touchpoint on options as the work develops in late
summer or early fall. Final report and Council presentation in December.

Attachments
Attachment - PowerPoint
Previous Relevant Actions

Alternatives
Financial
Budgeted: ☒ Yes
Fund:
Department:
Account:
Amount:

☐ No Financial Impact

Page 6 of 6

May 22, 2026
Nate Burkett
City Manager of West St. Paul
1616 Humboldt Ave. West St. Paul, MN 55118
Dear Mr. Burkett and the City of West St. Paul Selection Team,
West St. Paul has framed this engagement exactly right; no facility decision happens in isolation, and the
dominoes only fall in one direction. That systems-level discipline is how we approach every municipal planning
engagement, and it is why helseM Architects, paired with Jerry Streich of Capstone Public Sector Solutions, is the
right team for this work.
We have done this work before. Our principal has designed fire stations and a county sheriff's department. Our
project manager has led more than 15 municipal feasibility studies in five years, several resulting in constructed
multi-department facilities. Our public safety advisor is a former fire chief who reviews more than 60 station
designs per year. This team has deep, directly applicable experience, brought together under the helseM name
with the personal investment and responsiveness that only a principal-led firm can deliver.
Our approach is grounded in three commitments:
Stewardship of what exists. The City has invested meaningfully in its facilities, $1.5M in City Hall and $1.2M in the
Police Department in recent years alone. Our first instinct is never to replace what works; it is to find what those
investments can do next. We will bring the same creative rigor to evaluating adaptive reuse and phased
renovation as we bring to new construction, and we will not recommend building new where existing assets can
be made to work.
Options that are actually fundable. We have seen feasibility studies stall because they delivered a single topof-line program that no community could finance. Our commitment is to work with Amcon to provide a
genuine range, from lean renovation to full new construction, with honest cost estimates across multiple building
systems, so that every conversation with Council is grounded in what is real, not what is aspirational.
A team that stays at the table. helseM is a small firm by design. Every team member named in this proposal will
be personally involved from kickoff through Council presentation. There is no hand-off to junior staff.
We are ready to begin.

Tom Wesley, AIA, LEED-AP, NCARB | Principal in Charge [email protected] | 701.213.6900
Ginnie Schneider, AIA, LFA | Project Manager [email protected] | 952.334.6863
helseM Architects | Elk River, MN | East Grand Forks, MN www.helsemarchitects.com
Capstone | Minneapolis, MN www.capstonepss.com

TOM WESLEY, AIA, LEED-AP, NCARB - PRINCIPAL IN CHARGE
LICENSED IN MN, ND, TX, AZ, CA, OR

Tom is the owner and principal architect of helseM Architects with over 20
years of experience leading complex projects from concept through
construction. As Principal in Charge, he provides strategic oversight across
all tasks and leads the recreational facility evaluation.

Bemidji Fire Station Renovation
Grand Sky Fire Station
Grand Forks Air Force Base
Grand Forks County Sheriff's Department
Grand Forks County Correction Facility
Crosby Arena and Community Center
GFPD Blue Line Club Ice Plex Renovation
Eagles/BLC Arena Renovations
Moorhead Youth Hockey
Devils Lake Convention/Wellness Center
ICON Sports Center
Ralston Sports and Entertainment Center

A LEED-AP and Living Future Accredited professional, Tom brings
sustainability discipline to every project, with particular focus on solutions
that reduce long-term operating costs, a direct priority of this
engagement.
His municipal portfolio includes fire stations, law enforcement facilities, and
large-scale institutional and aviation projects requiring complex phasing
and operational continuity throughout construction.
His recreational portfolio is directly relevant to West St. Paul's evaluation
questions. He brings firsthand knowledge of how these facility types are
built, operated, and financially structured, essential context for evaluating
whether a new recreation center is warranted and in what form.

GINNIE SCHNEIDER, AIA, LFA - PROJECT MANAGER
LICENSED IN MN

Newport City Hall & Public Safety
Hibbing Public Safety Center
St. Francis City Hall & Fire Station
Blue Earth City Hall
Duluth Facilities Study
Maple Grove Fire Station #3 Renovation
Elgin Fire Feasibility Study
Fairmont Facilities Feasibility Study
Wabasha City Hall & EMS Feasibility Study
Delano Fire Feasibility Study
Ponemah Public Works
Nicollet County Public Works FS
Rice Lake Fire Feasibility Study

Ginnie is an architectural professional with extensive experience
supporting public-sector and community-focused projects across the
United States. She has led more than 15 municipal feasibility studies in the
past five years, spanning fire stations, police departments, city halls, and
public works facilities, developing solution options, associated cost
estimates, and presenting recommendations to City Councils. Several
have resulted in constructed multi-department facilities; she has learned
as much from the efforts that stalled on funding realities as from those
that built.
To understand what firefighters actually need, Ginnie spent a day in the
field, learning the rhythms of fire service work firsthand. That experience
informs her station programs at an operational level that goes beyond
standard programming.
She has worked alongside financial consultants, including Ehlers, on
multiple engagements and understands how to structure options that
hold up under bond capacity scrutiny.

JERRY STREICH, OPD - PUBLIC SAFETY ADVISOR,
CAPSTONE PUBLIC SECTOR SOLUTIONS
Former fire chief, emergency manager, and national public safety advisor
with 37 years of field and executive experience. Jerry advises
communities, fire departments, and architecture firms on station planning,
governance, staffing, operational fit, and the leadership realities that
shape successful public safety facilities. Jerry bridges the gap between
first responders, command staff, elected officials, and design
professionals, so that facility decisions reflect how public safety actually
operates, not just how it looks on paper. Jerry has collaborated directly
with Ginnie Schneider on multiple public safety facility engagements.

APPROACH TO SCOPE OF SERVICES
Our Framework: Every Decision Changes the Decision Tree

West St. Paul's facility portfolio is a system, not a list of buildings. The fire station is the most urgent need, but how it is sited,
sized, and configured will directly determine what the Police Department and City Hall can become, and what the existing
Humboldt campus can be repurposed to do. We will hold that system’s logic as the governing discipline throughout every
task, from the first stakeholder interview through the final options presentation to Council.
Tasks 1 & 2: Kickoff, Orientation, and Baseline Validation

We will arrive at the kickoff meeting having read every attachment and prior study. Our goal in Tasks 1 and 2 is not to
confirm the baseline; it is to pressure-test it. We will conduct structured interviews with each department head, focused on
day-to-day operational flow, not just space counts. We will specifically probe for the gap between stated needs and
genuine priorities, and we will flag where the staff-prepared program may reflect aspirations that financial capacity
cannot support.
For the fire station, Jerry Streich will lead operational interviews with SMFD joint powers leadership. His background as a fire
chief means those conversations go deeper than a standard programming exercise; he speaks the language of shift flow,
contamination control, and apparatus circulation from lived experience. We will review the CNH study program to
determine sufficiency to support operational needs, co-location opportunities, and bond capacity. Where concessions are
required, we will document them as trade-offs against best practices, not present them as design choices.
Task 3: Options Development

For each facility priority, we will develop a minimum of three options: renovation/addition, new construction, and colocation, and evaluate each against four criteria: feasibility, order-of-magnitude cost, site implications, and cascading
effects on the rest of the portfolio. No option is analyzed in isolation.
Cost transparency across building systems. A pre-engineered metal structure, a conventional wood-frame addition, a
precast structure, and a full masonry/steel build do not cost the same, and communities deserve to see those differences
clearly, including their respective maintenance requirements and expected lifespans. We will not deliver a single program
that cannot be financed, nor will we present only the expensive option without the pragmatic alternative alongside it.
Fire Station — Priority 1: Site constraints at the existing Humboldt campus (~1.55 buildable acres) pose a hard planning
reality given a ~4.0-acre requirement for a fully compliant drive-through station. We will evaluate the current site, the
Sports Complex site, and any additional sites identified by the City Manager, and assess each against response time
impacts using the CNH study drive-time analysis as a baseline.
Police Department — Priority 2: CJIS compliance requirements are non-negotiable and will govern every design decision
affecting access control, sightlines, data infrastructure, and circulation. The $1.2M invested in the PD remodel in 2020 is an
asset to be leveraged, not abandoned.
City Hall — Priority 3: The $1.5M City Hall remodel completed in 2021 represents a significant public investment. Our
analysis will prioritize scenarios that build on that investment through adaptive reuse and targeted expansion. Co-location
savings of 2,450–4,350 SF (per the City's own estimates) make a shared facility scenario the financially compelling
answer in many configurations. We will quantify those savings clearly for each option evaluated.
Public Works: Structurally sound with targeted operational deficiencies. We will evaluate the storage mezzanine versus
garage extension as the central options question, alongside covered outdoor storage as an additive solution. Relocation
of non-PW storage is a prerequisite to accurate right-sizing and will be sequenced accordingly in the phasing plan.
Phasing — All Facilities: All options will account for maintaining continuous City and emergency operations throughout
construction. West St. Paul is a fully built-out city, and phased construction in active facilities requires careful sequencing.
This is a design constraint we address from the first option sketch, not a footnote added at the end.

PROPOSED SCHEDULE
June: Task 1 Kickoff
Meeting (West St. Paul)

July: Task 2 Review Meeting,
Kickoff Tasks 3/4/5 (Virtual)

August: Tasks 3/4/5
Meeting 1 (West St. Paul)

Task 4: Recreation Facility Evaluation

We will evaluate the existing recreational portfolio, dome, ice arena, Harmon Park, Sports Complex, and the new recreation
center concept against the three tests named in the RFQ: financial feasibility within available bond capacity, operational fit
with the City's service delivery model, and demonstrated community interest.
Tom's experience designing and renovating ice arenas and community recreation centers gives this analysis a grounding
in how these buildings actually function over time, what they cost to operate, and what community benefit they can
realistically deliver. The deliverable is a concise, decision-ready recommendation with order-of-magnitude costs and a
clear assessment of how existing facilities are repositioned under the recommended approach.
Task 5: Partnership Scenario Evaluation

As conversations with Dakota County and ISD 197 develop, we will evaluate the feasibility and spatial and cost implications
of shared or co-located facility concepts. We will approach partnership scenarios with the same options-and-cost
discipline applied to Tasks 1–4, evaluating what each partner actually needs, what the City needs, and where genuine
mutual benefit exists, without overstating the likelihood of outcomes that remain highly contingent.
Task 6: Collaborative Planning Support

We will participate as a resource at the table throughout the City-led interdisciplinary process, contributing technical
expertise, cost validation, and options refinement as the team works through phasing and sequencing. We are not driving
this phase; the financial framework developed with Ehlers will govern what is feasible, and our role is to support that
process with honest, informed input.

September: Tasks 3/4/5
Meeting 2 (West St. Paul)

October: Tasks 1-5
Conclusion Meeting, Task
6 Kickoff (West St. Paul)

November: Finalize Report
and Council Presentation

December: Deliver Report
to City, Present to City
Council (West St. Paul)

WHY HELSEM

The firm is new. The team is not.

Our team members have been doing this work for decades. Every credential, every comparable project, every lesson
learned in this proposal belongs to the people who will be in the room with West St. Paul from kickoff to Council
presentation, not to a firm history or a legacy portfolio we are trading on.
That distinction matters for this engagement specifically. West St. Paul is not looking for a large firm that hands this project
to a project manager after the kickoff meeting. You have said so directly. You want practical, decision-ready analysis from
people who understand how municipal facility decisions are made, how they stall, and how to keep them moving. That is
exactly what this team delivers.
What we have learned from the studies that did not build.

We have led engagements that resulted in constructed facilities. We have also led engagements that stalled when
funding realities collided with stakeholder expectations. We have learned more from the latter. The single most common
failure mode is a feasibility study that delivers one program, the best possible facility with every amenity, and leaves the
City Council with no path forward when the bond capacity falls short.
We do not work that way. Every engagement we lead produces a genuine range of options, from the pragmatic to the
aspirational, with costs that reflect real building systems and real market conditions. That range is what makes
compromise possible and what keeps planning processes from dying on the vine.
Small firm. Personal commitment.

Our team is small by design. Tom Wesley and Ginnie Schneider will personally lead every task in this proposal. Jerry Streich
will be present for every public safety operational interview. There is no associate layer between our team and your staff.
When you call, you will reach the person doing the work.
Example Studies for Similar Municipalities:
Studies completed under the direct leadership and management of Tom Wesley and Ginnie Schneider under prior
associations. Content within the link below is confidential and not to be shared with the public.
helseM Architects - Additional Information

REFERENCES

Ginnie Schneider References

Tom Wesley References

Name

Title

Organization

Project

Phone

Erik Jankila

Fire Chief

City of Hibbing, MN

Hibbing Public Safety Center & Feasibility Study

218.421.8363

Greg Pruszinske

City Administrator

City of Hibbing, MN

Hibbing Public Safety Center & Feasibility Study

218.969.4850

Kate Thunstrom

City Administrator

City of St. Francis, MN

St. Francis City Hall & Fire Station Feasibility Study

612.804.8350

Caroline Gregerson

City Administrator

City of Wabasha, MN

Wabasha Facilities Study - Ambulance, City Hall &
Police Station

763.494.6391

Brad Gerken

Professional
Engineer/Principal

North Sky Construction

Grand Sky Development

210.373.2376

Tom Ford

County Administrator

Grand Forks, ND

Grand Forks County Correctional Center

701.780.8288

Danny Weigel

Police Lieutenant &
City Council VP

Grand Forks, ND

Various Projects

701.330.0317

FEE PROPOSAL | helseM Architects & Capstone Public Sector Solutions
City of West St. Paul - Facilities System Plan Services
HOURLY RATES
Role

Name

Hourly Rate

Principal in Charge

Tom Wesley, AIA, LEED-AP, NCARB

$150/hr

Project Manager

Ginnie Schneider, AIA, LFA

$130/hr

Public Safety Advisor

Jerry Streich, OPD - Capstone

$200/hr

Design Support Staff

Taylor Amble & Jenna Bergantine

$100/hr

TASK-BASED FEES (NOT-TO-EXCEED)
Task

Name

Deliverables & Scope Summary

1

Kickoff & Orientation

Kickoff meeting with City Manager, Amcon, and department heads. Review all
attachments and prior studies. Facility tours. Gap identification.

$3,500

2

Baseline Review & Validation

Review and pressure-test the City-prepared Facilities Inventory and Space Needs
Summary. Structured stakeholder interviews. Confirm baseline sufficiency for options
development.

$2,500

3

Options Development

Develop minimum three options per facility (renovation/addition, new construction,
co-location). Evaluate each for feasibility, order-of-magnitude cost, site implications,
and cascading portfolio effects.
Fee includes development of report document for entire project and Council
Presentation.

$13,500

4

Recreation Facility Evaluation

Evaluate new recreation center concept and existing recreational portfolio (dome, ice
arena, Harmon Park, Sports Complex) against three tests: financial feasibility,
operational fit, and demonstrated community interest.

$2,500

5

Partnership Scenario Evaluation

Evaluate feasibility, spatial, and cost implications of shared or co-located facility
concepts with Dakota County and ISD 197.

$2,500

6

Collaborative Planning Support

Participate as technical resource in City-led interdisciplinary process through Council
consideration (est. early 2027).

Hourly as
Required

TOTAL FEE (Tasks 1-5, not-to-exceed; Task 6 hourly)

Fee (NTE)

$24,500

REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES

Reimbursable expenses are included in the not-to-exceed totals above.

FEE NOTES

Tasks 1–5 are proposed as not-to-exceed fixed fees. We will invoice monthly based on percent complete per task.
Task 6 is hourly as required/requested by the City. We will invoice monthly against actual hours and provide a
running summary of hours by team member.
Task 5 (Partnership Scenario Evaluation) is contingent work activated at the City Manager's direction. It is included
here for completeness; the fee will not be incurred unless the task is authorized.
Out-of-scope services, if any, will be authorized in writing before proceeding and billed at the hourly rates above.

OCWS Item
Subject: Council Directed Discussion
Meeting Date: June 8, 2026
Submitted/Presented by/Department: Nate Burkett, City Manager
Action Type
☐ Consent Item
☒ Discussion/Direction
☐ Public Hearing
☐ Informational Only
☐ Action/Motion
☐ Report
☐ Resolution
☐ Other:
Action
NA
Background
During its review of Council rules and procedures in late 2025 and early 2026, the Council
discussed how members can bring topics of interest into the agenda pipeline. The concern was
that there was no consistent, transparent path for an individual Council member to surface an
item for the full Council's attention short of having it placed on an agenda by staff or the
Mayor. The approach that emerged was to reserve time on the Open Council Work Session
agenda for Council to raise those topics directly.
This item establishes that standing segment. Council Directed Discussion is a recurring block
on the OCWS agenda where any Council member may raise a topic they would like the
Council to take up. For each topic raised, the Council has two paths: discuss it during the work
session, or direct staff to bring it back through the normal pipeline as a future work session
item or a regular meeting action item. The segment does not typically carry attachments. When
it does, the attachment is a running list of topics members have raised, along with staff's read
on when each can realistically reach an agenda. The segment is meant to serve as the open, onthe-record front door for member-initiated topics in place of one-off requests.
The practical stakes are straightforward. The segment gives every member an equal and visible
way to get an item in front of the full Council, keeps agenda-setting transparent and in public
view, and lets staff scope and prepare an item properly rather than responding to it cold. It also
keeps the roles clear: the Council sets direction on what it wants to take up, and staff carries
that direction into the pipeline.
Attachments

Previous Relevant Actions

Alternatives
Page 1 of 2

OCWS Item
Subject: Council Directed Discussion
Financial
Budgeted: ☐ Yes
Fund:
Department:
Account:
Amount:

☐ No Financial Impact

Page 2 of 2