4.0. SR 05-27-2003River
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
Mayor and City Council
^ ..~
Pat Klaers, City Admi~
May 27, 2003
SUBJECT: Joint Meeting with Sherburne County Board of Commissioners
Item 4.
The joint meeting with the Sherburne County Board of Commissioners is scheduled for Tuesday,
May 27, 2003, at 6:30 p.m., at the Government Center. Most of the agenda items will likely be of "an
update" nature. It is anticipated that transportation issues will be the focus of the meeting. There are
a few attachments to this memo for your review prior to the joint meeting. Below are some brief
agenda comments.
4. I. StreetsIRoads
ae
County Road 33 and Highway 169 Interchange
This project is under construction. Terry Maurer may have some project status
information to provide but it is likely that County Engineer Dave Schwarfing will
have the most up-to-date information on this project, as it involves a Sherburne
County road.
0
County Road 33177 Reconstruction
Please see the comments in the attached Terry Maurer letter.
Ce
County Road 33 East of Highway 169
Issues with this segment of County Road 33 are two-fold. One issue is straightening
out the curves in this road that are just east of Highway 169. The other issue is the
connection to Anoka County Road 22 and that this road may become a major
corridor. Having Anoka County Road 22 become a major corridor would mean that
we need to plan accordingly for a significant influx of traffic coming through the city
to access Highway 169 at the interchange. This connection to Anoka County is likely
to be a point of discussion when the city transportation plan is reviewed later in the
year.
Page 2 of 3
4.2.
De
County Road I Plans for 2005
Terry Maurer's letter includes some comments on this project. Dave Schwartmg
should be able to provide an update on the project.
Ee
County Road 40 Improvement Project Proposal
County Road 44 Improvement Project Plans
Please see the comments in the attached Terry Maurer letter.
In general, we have a little communication problem on each of these projects. With
County Road 40, the city was not aware of the extent of its financial involvement
before the grant was submitted. With County Road 44, after a joint staff meeting, we
assumed that they understood that the city was not going to take over this project
since no Council action to do so was approved and since no letter requesting this
county action was sent. Hopefully the delay in letting the county know our official
position will not change the improvement schedule.
City Transportation Plan Update
This will likely be a very brief update. The city always wants our plans to work in
conjunction with the county transportation plans. Our plan is expected to continue
to emphasize the need for future road corridors and improvements to existing road
corridors; both of a city and county nature.
Ho
Standards for Urban County Roads
Councilmember Kuester requested this item to be on the agenda. Last year,
discussion took place regarding a crosswalk on County Road 77 near Salk Junior
High School.
Solid Waste/Environmental
ao
Lake Orono and Watershed Drainage
Steve Rohlf will be in attendance at this meeting to provide some comments on the
city's issues and concerns with water quality at Lake Orono.
Be
Ditch 28
The county requested this item to be on the agenda. The city pays for ditch
improvements made within the city limit. This ditch has been repaired numerous
times at numerous locations over the past ten years.
C.
Landfill Activities
The landfill has recently received county approval to expand its construction debris
operation into Livonia Township, north of the city. The city and county work in
conjunction to regulate landfill activities. It is anticipated that there will be a landfill
expansion request made in the not too distant future.
RDF Contracts
The city was recently advised that NRG has filed for bankruptcy. This is not
expected to significantly affect the RDF operation in Elk River. The contract for the
S:\CO U NCIL\Pat~2003\jointmeetingmemo.doc
Page 3 of 3
RDF project expires in 2009 and commitments are needed by the counties involved
in the project in 2004 in order for the program to continue.
4.3. Miscellaneous/Other Business
Legislative Update
Hopefully the special Legislative Session will be concluded by May 27, 2003.
Regardless, County Administrator Brian Benson and I should be able to provide an
update on such things as the stares of the Northstar Corridor funding proposal, levy
limits, state aid reductions, etc.
County Fairground Status
Over the past few years there have been comments made periodically about the
fairgrounds moving to Becker. Maybe Councilmember Tveite, County Admimstrator
Benson, or some County Commissioners can provide an update on the current status
of fairground relocation discussions.
GIS Program
City Engineer Terry Maurer should be able to provide an update on the stares of the
city GIS program and the coordination between the city and the county for
exchanging information.
S:\CO U NCI L\Pat~2003\jointmeetingmemo.doc
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE ELK RIVER CITY COUNCIL
HELD AT THE ELK RIVER CITY HALL
MONDAY, MAY 6, 2002
Members Present:
Members Absent:
Mayor I~l.inzmg, Councilmembers Dietz, Kuester, and Motto
Councilmember Tveite (out of town on business)
County Commissioners Present: Chair Nagorski, Commissioners Engstrom, Friedl, Wergin, and
Leonard
City Staff Present:
County Staff Present:
1. Call Meedng To Order
City Administrator Pat K2aers, City Engineer Terry Maurer,
Building and Zoning Administrator Stephen Rohtf, and City Clerk
Sandra Peine
County, Administrator Brian Benson, Auditor Treasurer Ramona
Doebler, County Engineer Dave Sch~vartmg, and Assistant County
Engineer Rhonda Lewis
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the joint meeting of the Elk River City Council and
Sherburne County Board of Commissioners ~vas called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Mayor
Ia-dinzing.
Northstar Corridor Funding/Project Update
Commissioner Wergm gave an update on the Northstar Corridor project. She indicated that
there currently is no news regarding the funding issue and stated that she does not expect
that there will be any news until the legislative session comes to an end.
GIS
City Engineer Terry Maurer gave on update on the progress made by both the City and
County on GIS. Terry Maurer indicated that the City has completed fdlmg in the parts of the
base map that weren't finished. Dave Schwartmg indicated that the County is reviewing the
work. He further indicated that there are many new plats in the City and that the County will
have to include these plats in the base map.
Legislative Update
City Admimstrator Pat Kdaers gave a legislative update.
Mayor I~linzing talked about the market valuation not keeping up with the sales ratio for Elk
River property. Mayor KImzing stated that the City would like to be kept more informed
regarding this issue.
Gravel Audit
Building and Zoning Administrator Steve Rohlf discussed the possibility of conducting an
audit of the gravel companies for the purpose of ensuring that the appropriate amount of
City Council Minutes Page 2
May 6, 2002
gravel tax is being paid. Steve noted that the total cost of the audit would be $30,460.
County Board members and City Council members discussed the merit of conducting an
audit. Councilmember Motin suggested adding a clause to the conditional use permit that
would allow an audit; with the gravel company being responsible to pay for the audit if a
significant discrepancy were found. Following further discussion it was the consensus of the
County Board and City Council not to proceed with an audit, but to add language to the
conditional use permit as suggested by Councilmember Motto.
6. County. Fair/Fair~ounds Status
Brian Benson indicated that the Fair Board has authorized t. he County to look at site and
layout options at the Cox property for a new fairground site. He indicated that the County is
in the early process of looking at this alternative site and that no decision has been made at
this time. Mayor Klinzing noted that the City is very interested in keeping the fair in ELk
River at its present location. Councilmember Dietz suggested that the County consider fair
attendance when look. rog at the economic impact in moving the fair to Becket.
7. Streets/Roads
Brief updates were given on the following road issues.
7.1.
CR 33 and 77 Reconstruction (and CR 33 - Hwv 169 Interchange
Status/Timetable)
County Engineer Dave Schwarting provided an update. He noted that the County
has applied for federal funds for the project. He further noted that the County is
working at getting the final agreements to the landowners. Dave noted that it might
be possible to complete the project with no cost to the County or the City.
Councilmember Dietz indicated that some improvements must be done to County
Road 33 in the interim. Councilmember Kuester indicated that there should be a
plan to include a trail to move pedestrian traffic ~vith the new project.
County Commissioner Friedl left the meeting at 7:25 p.m.
7.2. CR 12 and CR 13
County Engineer Dave Schwarting provided an update on County Road 12. City
Engineer Terry Maurer provided an update on County Road 13.
7.3. CR 40
County Engineer Dave Schwarting provided an update on CR 40. Fie noted that the
County wants to work with the City in designing the alignment of the road. Funding
is available for improvements in 2004.
7.4. CR
County Engineer Dave Schwardng provided an update on County Road 44. He
noted that there should be a cooperative plan between the City and the County. The
County is planning an improvement of this road to urban standards in 2004
City Council Minutes
May 6, 2002
10.
Page 3
7.5. Signal at Hxw 10 and Waco Street; Signage; and Government Center Access to
Frontage Road
City Engineer Terry Maurer provided an update on this issue. He noted that a
public hearing has been scheduled for the signal project.
7.6. CR77 and Schools - Crossings and Pathways
Counciknember Kuester indicated that the School Board has a concern with
students crossing County Road 77. She noted that they are requesting a pedestrian
crossing at the Highland Avenue location.
7.7. Interregional Corridor Studies
City Administrator Pat Klaers provided an updated on this issue and indicated that
NLn_DOT has been requested to hold an informational meeting in Elk River.
Mayor Fdinzing provided an update on the North Metro l-{ig~vay t0 Coalition. The
Mayor encouraged the County to join the Highway 10 Coalition.
7.8. City Transportation Plan Update
An update was given on the plan to redo the City plan.
Solid Waste/Environmental
Updates on the fo[lowing solid waste and environmental issues were provided by Building
and Zoning Administrator Stephen Rohff and County Administrator Brian Benson.
8.1. Land£fl/Activities
8.2. Lake Orono and Watershed Discussion
8.3. County Ditch Issues - #28 in Western Elk River
8.4. R_DF Contract
Other Business
There was no other business.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Klinzing adjourned the meeting of the Elk River
City Council at 8:30 p.m.
San&a Peine
City Clerk
Howard R, Green Company
September 27, 2002
File: 8-1"1:g~0~03:25
Mr. Dave Schwarting
County Engineer
Sherbume County Government Center
13880 Highway 10
Elk River, MN 55330
RE: COUNTY ROAD 33 EAST OF TRUNK HIGHWAY 169
Dear Mr. Schwarting:
Enclosed is a resolution adopted by the Elk River City Council on September 23, 2002. The
resolution requests that Sherbume County undertake an alignment study of County Road 33 (CR 33)
east of Trunk Highway 169 (TH 169). This request is in response to the planned construction of an
interchange on TH 169 at CR 33. The City is concerned that the construction of an interchange will
dramatically change the traffic pattems on CR 33 east of TH 169. We understand that traffic patterns
should change to encourage highway traffic to access TH 169 at the new interchange. As you are
aware, there are significant curve issues on CR 33 east of TH 169. We would request the County
undertake this study as a precursor to an ultimate reconstruction and realignment of CR 33. The
alignment study will help the City of Elk River in identifying rights-of-way needed for an ultimate
redesign of CR 33. We may be able to acquire some of these rights-of-way through development of
property in this area or other means as the property becomes available.
The resolution also requests that a speed study on CR 33 east of TH 169 be requested of MnDOT
after the interchange project is complete.
Please let me know if there is any way the City of Elk River can assist Sherbume County in
undertaking the requested alignment study.
Sincerely,
Howard R. Green Company
Te~ J.~~ure~r, p~.E.
TJM:sgw
CC:
Pat Klaers, City Administrator
Brian Bensen, County Administrator
Ltr-092702-Schwarting
1326 Energy Park Drive · St. Paul, MN 55108 · 651/644-4389 fax 651/644-9446 toll free 888/368-4389
RESOLUTION 02 - 90
A RESOLUTION FOR THE CITY OF ELK RIVER
A RESOLUTION REQUESTING SHERBURNE COUNTY TO IMPROVE THE ALIGNMENT OF
COUNTY ROAD 33 EAST OF TRUNK HIGHWAY 169 AND TO REQUEST MN/DOT TO
PERFORM A SPEED STUDY
WHEREAS
WHEREAS
WHEREAS
Mn/DOT is proceeding to construct an interchange at the intersection of TH 169
and CR 33; and
this interchange is anticipated to significantly increase the traffic on CR 33; and
CR 33 east of TH 169 has two sharp curves which are unsafe to travel at posted
speed limits;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Elk River, Minnesota:
The City of Elk River requests Sherburne County to undertake a study of the
alignment of CR 33 east of TH 169 anticipating a reconstruction project in the
near future.
The City of Elk River request Sherburne County. asks Mn/DOT to perform a
speed study on CR 33 after the construction of the interchange at TH-169 is
complete.
Passed and adopted this 23'd day of September, 2002.
ATTEST
,~ar~ra A. Peine, City Clerk
'- Stel::~anie A. Klinzing, M~or' i
C:\windows\T EM P\Res2-091802-CR33.doc
Howard R, Green Oompany
May 7, 2003
File: 230000-0325
Mr. Dave Schwarting
Sherbume County Engineer
Sherburne County Government Center
13880 Highway 10
Elk River, MN 55330
RE:
VARIOUS COUNTY ROAD ISSUES
CITY OF ELK RIVER
Dear Mr. Schwarting:
Thank you and Rhonda Lewis for taking the time to meet with me on Thursday, May 1, 2003, to
discuss various County transportation issues within the City of Elk River. This letter is intended to
summarize the items we discussed about the vadous county road projects.
A. County Road 40 (Cleveland Avenue)
· You indicated you have received the correspondence from the City indicating that the City
is not in a position to expend the monies necessary to acquire the right-of-way for this
project. The City feels it would be better to wait for development to occur in the area so
the platting process can be used to obtain right-of-way at no cost to the City.
· We agreed that you would attempt to ask Kelvin Howieson, Distdct 3 State Aid Engineer, if
the federal funding earmarked for the County Road 40 construction in fiscal year 2004
could be postponed into fiscal year 2005.
· It is understood that if the project can not be moved or the City is in the same position of
not buying right-of-way in fiscal year 2005 and sufficient development activity has not
provided the right-of-way, the federal funding would be lost.
B. County Road 44
You indicated that you do not have current staff available to work on the design of this
project and have it ready for construction in 2004. Therefore, you were thinking that you
may need to hire an outside consultant. I made a suggestion that you consider asking the
City to lead the design since the City is going to be interested in coordinating with the
abutting/adjacent property owners and also is interested in trying to establish a pedestrian
pathway somewhere in the County right-of-way.
This arrangement could potentially be accomplished with the County offering to let the City
lead the design and establishing a set fee that the County would be willing to pay for the
Ltr-050703-Schwarting
1326 Energy Park Drive · St. Paul, MN 55108 · 651/644-4389 fax 651/644-9446 toll free 888/368-4389
Mr. Schwarting
May 7, 2003
Page Two
design based on your preliminary construction cost estimates. It would be understood that
the County would have final say on the road section and any amenities such as left or right
turn lanes, bypass lanes, etc.
You had indicated that the County has done the topography on this road but has not done
all the necessary research to establish existing right-of-way. Therefore, the County has
not laid a preliminary design onto the existing right-of-way, so there is no determination at
this point whether or not additional right-of-way would be necessary.
We did talk about the potential of having the entire road be constructed as an urban
section. I believe the odginal proposal was to have this portion of County Road 44 south of
the railroad tracks be an urban section, and the portion north of the railroad tracks remain
a rural section. I indicated that the portion north of the railroad tracks is in the City's urban
services district and is developed in an urban manner so it may be appropriate to consider
an urban road section.
C. County Road I
· You indicated that the County has the reconstruction of County Road I north of County
Road 32 to the north City limits in their 2005 reconstruction plan.
· County has 100 feet of right-of-way in this area, so no additional permanent right-of-way
would be needed.
· It is likely that some temporary slope easements would be necessary along the route. You
indicated that temporary slope easements would be obtained by the County at the
County's cost. If a property owner refused to give a temporary slope easement and
wanted it to be a permanent easement, that request would tdgger a City expenditure to
acquire a permanent easement.
· You indicated that the reconstruction would be a rural section, and based on cost
participation policy, you did not anticipate that there would be any significant City share in
the construction costs.
· I indicated the City's desire to potentially look at a bituminous trail continuing north to the
City limits. You indicated that because of some of the severe slopes and wooded areas
adjacent to the existing road, it may be difficult at many locations to establish a corridor for
a detached bituminous trail.
D. County Road 331County Road 77 Realignment
· You indicated that the draft State Transportation Improvement Program does contain
funding for this project in fiscal year 2006.
· The one issue that we discussed was whether or not the City would allow County Road 33
to be realigned between the Elk River Country Club and Woodland Trails Park. You
indicated that from the County perspective, if that connection is never going to happen, you
would prefer to see the realigned County Road 33/County Road 77 to have the east-west
movement the predominant movement with County Road 77 the intersecting roadway. I
suggested that you wdte a letter to myself or the City Council requesting a decision on that
future road alignment to answer this question.
· We agreed that if the County needed any participation from the City in dealing with the
property owners and/or the utility companies, the request would go through Steve Rohlf.
Ltr-O50703-Schwarting
Howard R. Green Company
Mr. Schwarting
May 7, 2003
Page Three
E. County Road 33 Alignment (East of TH 169)
You asked about a realignment request that the Mayor had indicated had been forwarded
to you previously for the section of County Road 33 east of TH 169. I have researched my
files and have found the attached letter and resolution that was sent to your attention on
September 27, 2002. If you have any further questions about this issue, please contact
me.
Please review this summary of our meeting. If you have any additional and/or different recollection of
our conversations, please let me know.
Sincerely,
Howard R. Green Company
Terry J. Maurer. P.E.
TJM:sw
Enclosures
Cc: Pat Klaers, City Administrator
Lb'-050703-Schwarting
Howard R, Green Company
Construction Cost Pa~licipation Policy ~
flERBURi E COUNTY HIGflWAY DEPARTMENT
Dave Schwarting
County Highway Engineer
Sherburne County
Construction Cost Participation Policy
Purpose:
TO establish set participation costs for highway construction projects~
within Sherburne County.
~reas
Construction Item Type Cost Paricipation %
Bituminous Bike Paths ......................... New ...................................................... 0%
................................................................. Replacement ....................................... 0%
Clearing and Grubbing .................................................................................... 100%
Culverts ..................................................
1 OO%
Curb & Gutter ......................................... New
0%
.............. 100%
Drain Tile .....................
n; ,,,..r, vewa~,s .............................................. New 0%
...................................................... ;,~-~.7 ,~,;, ,e~,,acemen, ....... i n n
~encln ..... '
g ............................ ~.,~:~,,... ~;-;,~,. New ....................0 o/,
...................................... ,,,, .... ;~.;~.:.~:,....~;Rep acement ~ nno/
~;: ~ *'~< ~ -- · ................................... I ~ /O
Grad n g ................... ~: ;:~ ,~ ~ ~;~;::
......... ??~?,~,;: ',~-: ~'; ;~; ..... ................................................................... ~ ~n O//o
'' "m~ersec~mg Streets .............................. New ...................................................... 0%
................................................................. Replacement .................................... 100%
Landscaping .......................................... New ...................................................... 0%
................................................................. Replacement .................................... 100%
Lighting ................................................... New ...................................................... 0%
................................................................. Relocation ........................................... 0%
Construction Cost Participation Policy
9/9/97
Construction Item ..................... Type .......................... Cost Paricipation %
Mailbox Supports ............................................................................................. 100%
(must be in compliance with
current county standard)
Medians .................................................. New ..................................................... 50%
................................................................. Replacement .................................... 100%
Pedestrian Ramps ................................ New .................................................... 100%
Removals ........................................................................................................... 100%
Retaining Walls ..............................
Seal Coats ......................................................................................................... 100%
Seeding/Sodding/Mulching ...............
100%
Shoulders ..............................................
100%
Sidewalks .............................................. New~,, ................. ~ 0%
................................................................. Repl~ 100%
Storm Sewer ...............
- Main Lines/Manhole~tc~Bas~ns:~, ..............................
Sudacing - Travel Lan~?~;.. ~'~
Sudacing - Parking Lane~:~;::~ ........................................................................... 0%
Sufiacing - Le~RighVCedterTurn Lanes ...........................................................
Utilities ....................................................
- Sanitary Sewer Modifications .................... ; .............................. . ..................... 0%
- Watermain Modifications ................................................................................ 0%
- Private Utility Modifications ............................................................................ 0%
5O%
0%
Public Utility Modifications ................................................................................. 0%
(Other than sanitary sewer and watermain)
221st ^VE
--'CO RD 79
CO RD 21
33 ~
SCHOOL ST
HWY
o
~ CO RD
RAver
175th AVE
165th AVE
Countv Ditch 28
;OUNTY RI
CITY