2.0. SR 03-30-1998October 31, 1997
File: 230000m-0325
Mr. Pat Klaers
City Administrator
City of Elk River
13065 Orono Parkway
P.O. Box 490
Elk River, MN 55330-0490
RE: PROPOSED SHERBURNE COUNTY COST PARTICIPATION POLICY
Dear Mr. Klaers:
As you requested, I have reviewed the proposed cost participation policy put forth by Dave
Schwarting, County Engineer. In reviewing this policy, I have used the survey of outlying
counties given to us by Dave Schwarting. This survey included Carver, McLeod, Rice,
Sherburne, Scott, Washington, and Wright Counties. I have also reviewed the cost participation
policies for the urban counties of Ramsey and Hennepin. Attached is a copy of Sherburne
County's draft cost participation policy. Based on our review of this policy and review of the
information referenced above, we would offer the following comments. We have structured our
comments in the same order that the draft participation policy presents them for ease of
comparison and only commented on items not 100% County funded.
1. Bituminous Bike Path (New)
Sherburne County proposes zero participation in the construction of new bike paths. In
reviewing the various policies of other counties, it appears that the most urbanized
counties do participate to some extent in the construction of new bike paths. We would
recommend that the policy be changed from zero participation to 25% participation on
behalf of the County. This seems to be the most prevalent cost participation in the more
urbanized counties.
2. Bituminous Bike Paths (Replacement)
Sherburne County proposes zero percent cost participation in the replacement of
bituminous bike paths. We would suggest that the replacement of an existing path
caused by a county road reconstruction project should be 100% funded by the County.
Mr. Pat Klaers
October 31, 1997
Page 2
3. Concrete Curb and Gutter (New)
o
o
Sherburne County's draft policy proposes zero percent participation in the construction
of new concrete curb and gutter. We would suggest that this should be set at 50%
participation. We base this on the fact that the survey provided by Dave Schwarting
indicates that has been the typical practice in Sherburne County, as well as the practice
in Scott and Washington Counties. It is also the practice to participate in concrete curb
and gutter in Hennepin and Ramsey Counties. We believe that when looking at the
participation and items that are definitely more urban in nature, the policy must be set by
looking to the more urban counties.
Driveways (New)
Sherburne County proposes zero participation in the construction of new driveways We
are not sure what is meant by new driveways, but we could envision a situation where
the property may be developing adjacent to a county road construction project. We
would hope that the policy would allow for 100% participation in the basic construction of
the driveway opening such as providing the driveway apron or lowering the curb in the
case of concrete curb and gutter.
Fencing (New)
The draft policy indicates there will be zero participation in new fencing. We cannot
envision a situation where the City would be requesting fencing along a county road.
This seems to be a reasonable position for the County policy to take.
Intersecting Streets (New)
Again, as with the driveways, we are not sure what a new intersecting street is versus a
replacement. We would hope, again, that if a developing area adjacent to a county
reconstruction project can identify the street locations, provisions would be made to, at a
minimum, allow for new curb openings or the radii to be poured, and that would be
100% funded by the County.
Landscaping (New)
The draft County participation policy indicates zero percent funding of new landscaping.
However, it does indicate 100% funding of replacement landscaping. It is worth pointing
out that this does not include seeding or sodding, which are covered later. We believe
that this is a reasonable position for the County to take. If the City would request
landscaping on a new county road, we would assume that it would be in conjunction with
some type of development, in which case the developer would be asked to pay.
Replacement landscaping, we assume, would be items that have to be removed by
street construction and would be replaced new at the County's cost.
\\ElkriverXsys\S HRDOC\COUNCIL\000-3101 .DOC
Mr. Pat Klaers
October 31, 1997
Page 3
8. Lighting (New and Relocation)
The draft County participation policy indicates zero percent funding for both new and
relocated lighting. We feel that the County should be responsible for providing enough
light to address safety issues along their county roads, and that this should be at the
County's cost. We concur that any additional lighting or decorative lighting that is
requested by the City should be funded by the City.
9, Medians (New)
The draft County participation policy indicates 50% funding of new medians. We believe
that medians required by traffic considerations such as a median to provide a protected
turn lane at an intersection should be 100% funded by the County. We would agree that
if the City requested a median down the middle of a county road for aesthetic purposes
only, for instance to turn the 4-lane road into a divided parkway situation, the City should
have some cost participation in that type of installation.
10. Retaining Walls
The County draft participation policy indicates 50% funding for retaining walls. We
believe that this should be 100% funding because typically these retaining walls are
installed in lieu of acquiring additional easements. Since the easement acquisition is a
County issue, anything to be installed to mitigate or in lieu of easement acquisition we
believe should also be a County issue.
11. Sidewalks (New)
The County draft participation policy indicates zero percent funding of new sidewalks.
We believe that the policy on new sidewalks should be the same as on new bituminous
trails, in which case we recommend a 25% funding level from the County.
12. Storm Sewer (Main Lines/Manholes/Catch Basins)
The County draft participation policy indicates 50% funding of the storm sewer items.
We would recommend that the County should be responsible for 100% funding of the
State Aid eligible expense. State Aid calculates their eligible extent of funding based on
contributing area. Therefore, if they would fund 75% of the installation, it is because
they feel that 75% of the storm drainage is attributable to the county road right-of-way.
13. Surfacing (Parking Lanes)
The County draft participation policy indicates zero percent funding for surfacing of
parking lanes. We assume that a parking lane construction would be requested by the
City and, given that, we can concur with the County policy of zero percent funding.
\\Elkriver\sys\SHRDOC\COUNCIL\000-3101 .DOC
Mr. Pat Klaers
October 31, 1997
Page 4
14. Surfacing (Left/Right/Center Turn Lanes)
The County draft participation policy indicates zero percent funding for turn lanes. We
believe there are a number of different scenarios covered under this broad item. We
believe that if turn lanes are necessary for the amount of traffic on a county road turning
onto an adjacent road, that should be 100% funded by the County. We would concur
that if a new development comes in and, based on County review, is required to put in a
left or right turn lane or a by-pass lane, that cost should be borne by the development.
So, in conclusion on this item, we believe there are instances where it should be 100%
funded by the County, and there are also instances where it should be zero percent
funded by the County.
15. Utilities (Sanitary Sewer/Watermain/Private Utility Modifications)
The County draft participation policy indicates zero percent funding for these items. We
would concur with this position since these utilities are typically in the county rights-of-
way by permit. The permit typically indicates that any modification or movement of
these utilities would be at the owner's expense. We would hope that if the situation
arises, the County would be willing to bid this work and then bill the City for
modifications to their utility systems, rather than require the City to make adjustments.
16. Public Utility Modifications
The County draft participation policy indicates zero percent funding for public utility
modifications. We believe that this is a reasonable position, given that these utilities are
also in county rights-of-way by permit and by this permit are required to pay for the
modifications.
If you have any questions regarding these comments, please call.
Sincerely,
Howard R. Green Company
Terry J. Maurer, P.E.
TJM:tw
\\Elkriver~sys\SHRDOC\COUNCIL\000.3101 .DOC
Constructs~n Cost Partiopation Po/icy 9/9/97
SHERBUR E COUNTI HIGHI A¥ DEPAR'TIIBT
Dave Schwarting
County Highway Engineer
Sherburne County
¢onstruc n Cost Participation Policy
Purpose:
TO establish set participation costs for highway construction projects in urban areas
within Sherbume County.
Construction Item Type Cost Paricipation %
Bituminous Bike Paths ......................... New ...................................................... 0%
................................................................. Replacement ....................................... 0%
Clearing and Grubbing .................................................................................... 100%
Culverts ...................................................................................... .-.i.;::~'.' ............. 100%
~,~ ~¥... ,.. :...
Gurb & Gutter ......................................... New ............... :..?:.:,.;: ...... :.:'..:..,; ........... 0%
, · ..r.: 6.*,. k ~ .,
................................................................. Re p lacem ent!,:~:.,:,.,:.;:.-.,, ........ ,:::,: ............. 100%
Drain Tile ....................................................... .~...-..,, ............ ~.{'-;~?.': ......................... 100%
Dnveways .............................................. New...,,;, .... ;.., ....................................... 0 R
.......................................................... =¢.,.Replacement .................................... 100 R
Feno~ng ........................... ;.-':--':~'-""','.~;R: New ...................................................... 0 Yo
...................................... ,:i!.~.'. :;-~:E~i:.. ~:.~¢;!' Replaoement .................. ~ ................. 100%
Grading ......................... ;i;".,L.;.".;i:. ...................................................................... 100%
,, '
Intersecting Streets .............................. New ...................................................... 0%
................................................................. Replacement .................................... 100%
Landscaping .......................................... New ...................................................... 0%
................................................................. Replacement .................................... 100%
Lighting ................................................... New ...................................................... 0%
................................................................. Relocation ........................................... 0%
/o0
loo go
/oo ~7~
/~
Conslruction Cost Participation Polly
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 .................................................................................................. 50%
Seal Coats ......................................................................................................... 100%
Seeding/Sodding/Mulching .......................................... ,~, .';~7:;,~?.:. 100%
Shoulders ..............................................
...................
.- .... ,,., .............................. 100%
Sidewalks ..............................................
~,~;. :,.~, ,~ ':,-;-' ...........................
................................................................. Replacement .... ~.:~ .......... 10%
00%
Signing/Striping..
....................... ;;'~'?~r ......... ?";r ............................................ 100%
Storm Sewer ................................
- Main Lines/Manholes/C~atcs"Ba~i~-;~; ............................................................
Su,acing - Parking Lan~:¢~:.';': .................................. ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Su~acing - Le~Righ~Ce~t:~rTum Lanes .........................................................
Utilities ....................................................
- Sanitary Sewer Modifications .................... : .............................. - ..................... 0%
- Watermain Modifications ................................................................................ 0%
- Private Utility Modifications ............................................................................ 0%
Public Utility Modifications ................................................................................. 0%
(Other than sanitary sewer and watermain)
50%
0%