Loading...
5.14. SR 06-07-2004Item ~ 5.14. City/County Engineering Meeting Tuesday, May 11, 2004 Elk River City Hall Attendees: (Unable to attend): Arnie Engstrom, Sherburne County Commissioner Rachel Leonard, Sherburne County Commissioner Brian Bensen, Sherburne County Administrator Dave Schwarting, Sherburne County Engineer Louise Kuester, Elk River Council Member Pat Klaers, Elk River City Adminstrator Terry Maurer, Elk River City Engineer Dan Tveite, Elk River Council Member County Road 33 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Dave Schwarting handed out a copy of a MOU between MnDOT and Anoka County. This MOU deals with studying the potential of the turnback of Anoka County Road (CR) 22 to MnDOT for conversion to a highway across northern Anoka County. There is no timing for this study listed in the MOU. Dave has met with MnDOT Metro District personnel and Anoka County to discuss whether or not a MOU would be appropriate with MnDOT District 3 for the portion of roadway from the Anoka County border to Trunk Highway (TH) 169 in Elk River. Dave is working with Craig Robinson of MnDOT District 3. Dave will try to set up a meet!ng with Craig to discuss adding to the TH 169 study that MnDOT will be going with a Requests for Proposals later this year. Louise Kuester asked what Elk River had requested of Sherburne County previously. Terry Maurer indicated that the City Council had asked Sherburne County to study a corridor alignment to connect CR 33 at TH 169 with the Anoka County 22 (CR 65) at the Sherburne/Anoka County line. The Elk River Council also asked Sherburne County to look at interim solutions to the sharp curves on CR 33, anticipating that traffic volumes will be increasing as the CR 33 interchange with TH 169 attracts more traffic. Arnie Engstrom asked if the City/County had established a corridor for this route officially yet. The answer was that a conceptual alignment had been shown on the City and County's transportation plan, but no work had been done in the field to determine the exact route, and no official mapping had been completed. Arnie indicated the City and County may want to begin work on that. Louise Kuester asked about the connection of the TH 169 study and CR 22 issue with the TH 10 study. The answer was that they are not technically connected, but certainly traffic in a regional fashion is all interconnected. The TH 10 study and the Dayton River Crossing would certainly have an effect on traffic patterns on CR 22 and TH 169. Pat Klaers indicated that the Elk River City Council would likely be willing to support any type of resolution requesting the MOU with MnDOT or some kind of scoping study. Brian Bensen indicated he thinks the County would do likewise. C:\Documents and Settings\pklaers\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKB\CCEM - 051404-minutes.doc Dave Schwarting will take the lead in setting up the meeting with Craig Robinson of MnDOT. He will inform Terry Maurer when the meeting is scheduled. After the meeting is held, Dave and Terry will report back. County State Aid Mileage Request Dave Schwarting indicated that CR 33 has been requested to be added to the County's State Aid Highway (CSAH) system. He also indicated that in reviewing the request, District 3 State Aid Engineer Kelvin Howieson was okay with adding CR 33 but wanted CR 21 taken off of the CSAH system. Terry Maurer asked whether the CR 33 addition to the CSAH system would include both east and west and TH 169. Dave indicated that it did include the realignment through the gravel mining area west of TH 169 and the alignment just recently discussed east of TH 169 going to the County's east border. Dave Schwarting indicated that CR 40 between CSAH 12 and CSAH 13 was requested for addition to the CSAH system. Kelvin Howieson turned that request down and indicated to Dave that he felt CR 40 belonged on the Municipal State Aid system. Dave Schwarting indicated that the County has asked for 60 miles of additional County State Aid highways. In reviewing the request, Kelvin Howieson suggested that 43 miles were more appropriate. The County State Aid Mileage Subcommittee has toured all of the requests and has supported 16 miles of additional CSAH. Dave gave a brief discussion of the process of adding CSAH mileage and indicated that Sherburne County would be going back to the County's Screening Committee in the fall of 2004 to discuss this request further and try to increase the additional mileage above the 16 miles recommended by the Mileage Subcommittee. Dave also indicated in response to questions that the additional 16 miles would add approximately $170,000 a year to the County's annual allotment. Forty percent of that goes to maintenance, sixty percent to construction. Dave indicated that currently the County gets approximately 1.2 million dollars of construction dollars, which is 60 percent of their annual allotment. County Highway 40 Project Status Dave Schwarting indicated again that in reviewing the request to put CR 40 on the CSAH system, District 3 State Aid Engineer Kelvin Howieson indicated he felt CR 40 was better on the City's Municipal State Aid system. Dave reaffirmed that the County does have a federal grant of approximately $900,000 for the reconstruction of CR 40. That money has been moved from fiscal year 2005 to fiscal year 2006. Discussion continued regarding the potential of a turnback of CR 40 from Sherburne County to the City of Elk River. There are benefits to the City in taking back a County Road through additional mileage they would receive through the Municipal State Aid system. The negative, of course, is that there would then be additional mileage for the City to own and maintain. Terry Maurer asked Dave Schwarting if the federal grant could be passed to the City along with the roadway. Dave indicated that he felt that it could be. Terry reaffirmed the County's turnback policy and that the project money would go with 2 C:\Documents and Settings\pklaers\Local Settings\Temporary I nternet Files\OLKB\CCEM - 051404-minutes.doc the road. The County would pay their fair share of the reconstruction of the road above and beyond the federal grant based on the County's Cost Participation Policy, and then include two years of gravel road maintenance. Terry indicated that he will bring an item forward to the Elk River City Council to determine whether or not the City Council is interested in pursuing discussions with Sherburne County regarding a potential turnback with CR 40 between CSAH 12 and CSAH 13 with the City of Elk River. County Road 44 Project Status Dave Schwarting indicated that CR 44 was programmed as part of the County's three-year bonding road construction project. However, due to overruns and unforeseen costs, the total bond proceeds have been spent, and CR 44, along with other road projects, has not been completed. Brian Bensen indicated that the County Board will be discussing later this summer, probably by the end of August, whether or not to pursue another bonding project or to go back to using general property tax levy to fund road projects. Brian and Dave also indicated that because of budget cutbacks, the County Board would likely discuss whether or not to pursue as aggressively in the future reconstruction of roads like CR 44 or look at alternative means such as mill and overlay or recycling of the surface as a means to cut costs but maintain a drivable surface. Brian Bensen went on to talk about a potential $1.6 million budget cut that Sherburne County is concerned about from the State in the next bi-ennium. In answer to a question, Dave Schwarting indicated that CSAH designation could not be put on CR 44 and indicated that CR 44 may also be a candidate for discussion of turnback potential. County Cost Participation Policy Before this item's discussion began, Brian Bensen and Rachel Leonard had to leave the meeting. There was general discussion regarding the County's Cost Participation Policy. Terry Maurer indicated that he had researched several metro and St. Cloud area Counties and had constructed a matrix of County Cost Participation Policies. He also indicated that he had prepared an example utilizing CR 40 and CR 44 to determine the City's share of project costs under the various County Cost Participation Policies. The difference between the CR 40 and CR 44 hypothetical examples is that there is substantial right-of-way acquisition in the CR 40 project. Terry indicated that Sherburne County's policy is least favorite of the County policies looked at for urban designs with land acquisition needed. The three main areas where Terry indicated Sherburne County's policy seems to be the most restrictive of all the County policies looked at is right-of-way, storm sewer, and concrete curb and gutter. There was general discussion regarding the County's policy relative to urban versus rural design roadways. There was general consensus that the County and City would continue to work together and discuss these issues on the next urban design project undertaken within the City. This will likely be the CR 40 and/or CR 44 project. 3 C:\Documents and Settings\pklaers\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKB\CCEM - 051404-minutes.doc Miscellaneous Items A few items on the agenda did not receive discussion due to limited time. These will be discussed at the next meeting. These items are Access Management Policies, CR 30/CR 77 Realignment Status, and Old CR 33 West of TH 169 Maintenance Issues. Next Meeting The next meeting between the City and the County with the administrators and the elected officials invited was set for Tuesday, July 27, 2004, at 3:30 p.m. The location is yet to be determined. 4 C:\Documents and Settings\pklaers\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKB\CCEM - 051404-minutes.doc