6.13. SR 08-16-2004Item 6.13.
CITY OF ELK RIVER/SHERBURNE COUNTY
ENGINEERING MEETING
ELK RIVER CITY HALL
TUESDAY, JULY 27, 2004
DRAFT
Auendees:
Ame Engstrom, Sherburne County Commissioner; Rachael Leonard,
Sherbume County Commissioner; Brian Bensen, Sherbume County Administrator;,
Dave Schwarting, Sherburne County Engineer, Louise Kuester, Elk River City
Councilmember, Dan Tveite, Elk River City Councilmember; Pat Klaers, Elk River
City Administrator; and Terry Maurer, Elk River City Engineer
1. County Road 40 Tm-Back Discussion
Terry Maurer started out by indicating that at the May 11, 2004 meeting, it was agreed upon
that the potential turn-back of County Road 40 between CSAH 12 and CSAH 13 would be
brought to the Elk River City Council for general discussion. Terry did that the first meeting
in June by preparing a memo which generally discussed the pros and cons and the
framework for a possible mm-back of County Road 40. After some City Council discussion,
the consensus was that the city staff was to continue the discussion with Sherbume County.
Terry indicated that Dave Schwarting, County Engineer, and Rhonda Lewis, Assistant
County Engineer, continue the discussion at their June 22, 2004 monthly meeting.
Terry went on to highlight some of the issues. First was the Federal grant that Sherburne
County has acquired for the reconstruction of County Road 40. That grant is in the amount
of $71%104 in fiscal year 2006. Terry indicated that the grant amount is capped and cannot
go above the stated amount. TenT indicated that he has had discussions with Calvin
Howieson, District 3 State Aid Engineer, and has confirmed that the Federal grant can be
passed from the County to the City with the mm-back of the roadway.
The next item discussed was the necessary land acquisition. Terry showed the layout
previously prepared by Sherbume County and indicated there is approximately 21 acres of
land acquiskion dealing with 20 separate parcels. Two parcels control a large portion of the
total area of land acquisition and are owned by developers on the west side of County Road
40. One is currendy proceeding through the development process. It is likely that the City
will be able to acquire the necessary right-of-way from that parcel through the platting
process. There was much discussion concerning Sherbume County's policy that cities are
responsible for acquiring all right-of-way, while in township areas the County is responsible
for land acquisition. Councilmember Kuester questioned why the County did not participate
financially in land acquisition in city areas. Dave Schwarting briefly discussed the County's
role in transportation relative to the use of public rights-of-way for utilities, pedestrian
movements, and other development-driven issues. Dave indicated that because
development in cities often times drives the need for County road construction above and
beyond the needs for general transportation, the policy was derived to require the cities to
acquire the necessary right-of-way. Dave indicated with the development pressures the
County is seeing in township areas, there will likely be discussions in the future regarding
whether or not townships should be required to pay more for County road projects.
Terry indicated that the County received the Federal grant based on an application which
anticipated a 44-foot wide rural roadway design. Terry indicated that if the roadway is
mined back to the City, the City would likely construct an urban roadway with concrete curb
and gutter. Tent indicated because of the local collector nature of the roadway, it would
City of Elk River/Sherburne County Meeting
July 27, 2004
Page 2
likely be build narrower than the 44 feet. Terry estimated 32-36 feet wide. There was some
discussion about whether or not the 100-foot right-of-way that the County has identified to
be acquired could be narrowed, if the City were to take back the roadway and construct a
narrower urban section.
Terry discussed the potential financing of a mm-back project. He indicated that the Federal
grant could be used for pavement which currendy is paid for by the County 100 percent, and
also could be used for concrete curb and gutter which is the responsibility of the City 100
percent. He indicated that it was the consensus of Terry, Dave, and Rhonda when they met
that the fairest way to distribute the Federal grant would be to have it cover a pordon of all
fundable items from curb line to curb line, with any remaining costs apportioned to the City
and County based on the County cost participation policy. Terry indicated at this point, he
did not have a detailed cost estimate showing what the finandal responsibility for each entity
would be in this scenario. Terry suggested that this would be the next appropriate course of
action to prepare such an estimate, have Dave and Terry route it through the City and
County Administrators, and to the City Council and County Board for consideration of
proceeding with a mm-back agreement. If things proceeded from this point, Terry
suggested that the County Attorney should prepare the actual turn-back agreement with the
City being in a reviewing role. Terry indicated that the requirements of the Federal grant
would require that all right-of-way be under the City and/or the County's jurisdiction by
April 15, 2006. Although that is 20 months away, it can generally take well over a year to
acquire the necessary right-of-way. Therefore, he indicated that he lek it was imperative that
work on a mm-back agreement happen quickly and a conclusion be reached relatively soon.
Dave Schwarting discussed briefly the potential benefit the City would acquire by being able
to take back County Road 40 and put it immediately onto the Municipal State Aid System,
above and beyond their allotted mileage. Terry indicated that he had provided that
information with an estimate of the financial gain in the memo to the City Council in June
2004.
It was the consensus of all attendees that County Road 40 should be turned back to the City
and become part of the City's Municipal State Aid System. Follow-up actions to be
accomplished as soon as possible are that Terry will prepare a detailed construction cost
estimate and a funding scenario, allocating the Federal dollars to all eligible items from curb-
to-curb and then assessing the remaining cost to the City and/or County based on the
County's cost participation policy. Terry will provide this information to Dave Schwarting
for review and discussion as soon as it is available, likely within the next two weeks. From
there, it will be presented to the two administrators and onto the elected offidals for their
consideration and discussion.
There was brief discussion that if the road is turned back, there will be a financial
commitment from both the City and the County. The County indicated they are currently in
the budget cycle in discussing future bonding for road improvements, so timing would be
good for this discussion. It was briefly discussed that how the payments would be made
would be an issue to be worked out later. The options would be to bill the County for their
portion after construction, or similar to a Municipal State Aid project request 90 percent of
the County's participation once a bid is received. With those two extremes, there seemed to
be plenty of room to negotiate a payment schedule.
S:MVIINUTES\2004\Council Minutes\07-27-04 cc & County.doc
City of Elk River/Sherbume County Meeting
July 27, 2004
Page 3
3. Next Meeting
The next meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, October 26, 2004 at Elk River City Hall at 3:30
p.m. The main topic of discussion will be the status of the County Road 40 project and the
County's cost participation policy.
Submitted by,
Terry J. Maurer, P.E.
S:KIVIINUTES\2004\Council Minutes\07-27-04 cc & County.doc