7.2 SR 02-07-2022it ci
Elk*
River
Request for Action
To
Item Number
Mayor and City Council
7.2
Agenda Section
Meeting Date
Prepared by
Public Hearings
February 7, 2022
Michael Hecker, Parks and Recreation Director
Item Description
Reviewed by
County Road 33 Trail
Cal Portner, City Administrator
Reviewed by
Action Requested
1. Mayor Dietz to open and close the public hearing
2. Approve or reject, by motion, CR 33 trail construction.
Background/Discussion
At the December 8 meeting, the Parks and Recreation Commission discussed County Roads 33 and 44 trails. CR
44 was recommended using $250,000 in park dedication funds. CR 33 was again discussed at the January 12
meeting with Mr. Dave Roedel, Deputy County Engineer in attendance to answer questions. After a lengthy
discussion and some debate, CR 33 was recommended by a 3-2 vote with the following conditions:
■ $300,000 coming from the Park Dedication Fund
Request the city amend the Franchise Fee
Renegotiate the cost share with the county
Three property owners attended the January meeting with one homeowner expressing a concern about the trail.
The Commissioners wanted to ensure residents are notified about CR 33. Letters were sent to 115 property
owners on CR 33, CR 13 and adjacent streets seeking public feedback either at the council meeting or by email.
Financial Impact
An updated estimate for the cost of CR 33 trail from Hwy 169 to Twin Lakes Road is $1.74 million. This updated
cost is based on a more detailed design that has gone into the layout since the first concept level estimate.
Mission/Policy/Goal
Elk River Municipal Mission Components: Responsible for every dollar — good stewards, ethical, efficient, and
responsible.
Attachments
■ Letter to CR 33 Area Homeowners
■ CR 33 Sherburne County Information
■ CR 33 Cost Share Spreadsheet
■ Public Comments
The Elk River Vision
A n elcoming community with revolutionary and spirited resourcefulness, exceptional
service, and community engagement that encourages and inspires prosperity.
P I I E I 1 0 IY
NATURE
Updated. August 2020
1-Uver
January 27, 2022
Dear Resident:
I am writing regarding Sherburne County's proposed reconstruction and realignment of CSAH 33 and
the possible addition of a city trail along the new corridor. (See reverse for map)
Road construction and reconstruction are the most efficient and effective times to add infrastructure as
the size and scope of the project, the project planning, engineering, right-of-way acquisition, and
equipment mobilization is all done at the same time. The Elk River Trails Master Plan includes a future
trail connection along this corridor. The Elk River Parks and Recreation Commission recently reviewed
the corridor plan and master plan and recommended the City Council add a trail to the project. The
city trail master plan can be reviewed at Elkrivermn.gov/TrailsMasterPlan.
The county plans to begin road construction in 2023.
Due to the short turnaround to meet the county's project timeline, the City Council needs to decide
whether to add the trail to the project. The Elk River City Council cordially invites you to share your
thoughts and concerns regarding a trail addition at their next meeting on Monday, February 7 at 6:30
p.m. at City Hall. If you are unable to attend the meeting, you are encouraged to provide public
comment by sending an email to me at mhecker&ElkRiverMN.gov. Your comments will be shared at
the meeting.
If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Michael Hecker
Parks and Recreation Director
13065 Orono Parkway
Elk River, MN 55330
763.635.1000
P 0 W E R 1 0 0 Y
NATUREI
ElkRiverMN.gov
PROJECT MAP
Legend & 1 *wawa
_ _L� _
..R_m_,
ONO* ,
a
s � ■e■..■.ea �e■�ml. .
\ ■■�a�.#.a J : .
�
�% ■
Visit c.sebun.m±#B/for more information.
SRF
To: Justin Femrite, PE
City of Elk River
From: Nate Will, PE
Date: December 13, 2021
Memorandum
SRF No. 13725
Subject: City Trail Addition along CSAH 33 from TH 169 to CSAH 13, Sherburne County
Copied: David Roedel, PE
Sherburne County
In response to our discussions related to the addition of a City Trail, the following information
documents our understanding of the location and design criteria that relates to the City Trail.
Included with this memo is an exhibit of the roadway that shows how the City Trail would likely fit
along the south side of CSAH 33 and shows a comparison of the approximate additional preliminary
construction limit impacts for both the rural ditch option (current 30% design) and with the addition
of the 10-foot trail. Also included are the conceptual cross sections and a copy of the preliminary
construction estimate.
Criteria used to add City Trail along CSAH 33:
1. Add concrete curb and gutter paralleling the south shoulder edge of CASH 33.
a. High speed road use 4-inch curb height.
b. Use B424 concrete curb and gutter.
c. Maintain 8-foot shoulder width measured from travel lane to face of curb.
2. Maintain a 10-foot boulevard measured from face of curb to north edge of trail.
a. Exceptions to this will be along right turn lanes upon approaching an intersection.
The Bikeway Manual offers guidance to reduce the boulevard to 6-foot minimum for
roadways with design speeds of 50 and 55 mph at side street intersections. In extreme
situations, further reduction of the boulevard to 2.67 feet (2 feet from back of curb to
trail) is allowed. Additional evaluation and coordination with both the County and City
is needed to finalize the design at the side street intersections to maximize safety while
minimizing impacts to adjacent properties.
• The attached layout currently shows a 6-foot boulevard along the right turn lanes.
www.srfconsuIting.com
3701 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 100 1 Minneapolis, MN 55416-3791 1 763.475.0010
Equal Employment Opportunity/ Affirmative Action Employer
Justin Femrite, PE
December 14, 2021
City of Elk River Page 2
• Potential street signs along the right turn lanes would need to be evaluated for
clearzone requirements. Street signs that impact the clearzone would be installed
outside the trail to meet clearzone requirements.
b. Space within the boulevard is needed for mailboxes while providing minimum clearzone for
trail. Most street signs would be allowed within the boulevard area assuming adequate width
is provided on either side of sign to meet the 2-foot clearzone requirement to the trail and a
10-foot clear area measured from the travel lane.
c. Residential driveway impacts may increase to accommodate trail cross slope (max. 1.5%)
constructed through driveways.
3. 10-foot-wide City Trail with a design section per Elk River Std Plate 2012 (2.5-inches
bituminous and 6-inches aggregate base class 5).
4. A minimum 2-foot clearzone is required along either side of the trail.
a. In areas of environmental concern or potentially large fill impacts to adjacent property,
consider steepening the inslope to 1V:2H along the south side of the trail.
i. This requires the clearzone to be increased from 2 feet to 5 feet, along with the
consideration of adding a safety rail or fencing.
ii. These areas include the Trott Brook crossing and existing wetland areas along the
south side of CSAH 33 west of Quincy Road (Refer to cross sections attached with
this memo).
b. In several key locations, the conceptual grading impacts are relatively large and may severely
impact existing wetlands. Additional design will be needed to review the potential for using
retaining walls or potentially a 1V:1H reinforced soil slope (RSS) system.
Additional soil borings would be necessary for this option.
5. Construct intersection lighting at the side street intersections (Auburn St, Yale St, Vance St,
Smith St, Ulysess St, Qunicy Rd, and Brook St) to improve pedestrian safety.
Construction Cost Summary
Table 1 below summarizes the estimate construction costs for the CSAH 33 project and the
additional costs for the City Trail. These estimated costs do not include additional costs for
preliminary/final design or construction staking/administration, and costs for additional right-of-
way or easements (temporary or permanent) as needed for the City Trail. A detailed copy of the
estimated construction costs is attached with this memo.
Table 1. Estimated Construction Cost Summary
Description Estimated Cost
CSAH 33 without trail $6,958,000
City Trail $1,370,000
Estimated Total Project: $8,328,000
Justin Femrite, PE
City of Elk River
Additional Design / Project Costs
December 14, 2021
Page 3
Prior to adding the proposed City Trail, the County completed a topographical survey, developed a
preliminary layout, held a virtual public engagement process, compiled a 30% Plan, completed the
Wetland TEP and MnDOT CRU approval process, and confirmed the overall drainage guidance to
be followed through final design. These items were established before adding the City Trail.
Additional professional services will be needed to incorporate the City Trail into the County's CSAH
33 project. We anticipate the following professional services will be needed, but are not limited to:
• Revision to the overall Project Schedule
• Topo surveys — south of CSAH 33 / west of Auburn St and potentially driveways (as needed)
• Wedand Delineation / LGU / TEP amend previous delineation report
• MnDOT CRU — coordinate / clear additional trail areas
• Environmental Documentation
o Coordinate with MnDOT Federal Aid Staff to add City Trail to CATEX
o Review and update Noise Wall Analysis for trail
• Update Preliminary design and layout to add City Trail
o Confirm typical section rural to urban (south side)
■ Wider grading limits in key areas
■ Additional tree impacts / damages on private property
o Review potential profile changes on CSAH 33 to reduce impacts south side of trail
• Coordinate additional soil borings for widened trail embankments and/or walls
• Identify need for retaining walls
• Review driveway grading / tie-ins for trail cross slope
• Review overall stormwater approach / redesign drainage system completely
o Replace driveway culverts with storm system
o Daylight storm sewer outside trail - impacts to properties
o Identify new stormwater treatment areas / methods
• Prepare materials for Public Engagement to highlight City Trail addition.
• Update 30% Construction Plan and Estimate to reflect City Trail improvements
• Review and coordinate need for additional Permanent and Temporary Easements
• Final Design — incorporate additional trail / ped ramp items
• Coordinate with MnDOT D3 on involvement needed for trail connection at TH 169 exit ramp.
Justin Femrite, PE
City of Elk River
December 14, 2021
Page 4
SRF is working to identify the additional design costs that will be needed to incorporate the City Trail
improvements into the CSAH 33 project. These costs will be coordinated with the County and City prior to
initiating any additional work beyond what, as of this date, has been previously completed and that is related
to the City Trail attachments included with this memo. We anticipate a formal amendment would be
approved by the County with a formal agreement from the City of Elk River.
H:AProjects\13000\13725\—Sent\other\E1kRiver\211116_Trail Criteria and Layout\ 13725_TrailMemo_R1.docx
SHfABUANE CSAH 33 (205th Ave NW)
couxTr
RECONSTRUCTION AND
REALIGNMENT PROTECT
PROJECT MAP
PROJECT AREA ISSUES
CSAH 33, between Auburn St and CSAH 13, has safety, capacity and operational issues. Improvements will
support continued growth along the corridor and improve mobility for large trucks and other vehicles that
use the roadway. Several key issues include:
Substandard horizontal curves and a dangerous
"S" curve
Limited shoulder width and difficult side slopes
Increased heavy truck traffic hauling materials
across the northern suburbs
Safety issues at existing intersections,
including need for dedicated right turn lanes
and left bypass lanes.
Unsafe sightlines at several key intersections
CSAH 33 crash rate is 4 times higher than
the average statewide crash rate for similar
facilities.
PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
The project is anticipated to be fully reconstructed in 2023. When completed, improvements will increase
safety for drivers and pedestrians and improve traffic flow. Project limits include 0.9-miles of existing align-
ment and 0.8-miles of new alignment. The project will:
Add dedicated right -turn lanes along CSAH 33:
• Yale St, Vance St, Ulysses St, and Smith St
» Add left -turn bypass lanes:
Auburn St, Yale St, Vance St, Ulysses St, Smith St
and on CSAH 13 at County Road 34.
Add dedicated left -turn and right -turn lanes
at the improved CSAH 33 and Quincy St
intersection
Construct new alignment of CSAH 33 east of
Quincy St:
reduce east/west vehicle trips by 1.2 miles
remove the dangerous "S" curve from CSAH 33
Flatten horizontal curves on CSAH 33 between
Vance St and Smith St
PROJECT SCHEDULE
Reconstruct CSAH 33 to meet current 10-ton
roadway design
Construct a new roundabout at the new
alignment of CSAH 33 at CSAH 13
approximately 600 feet south of County Road 34
improve difficult right turn movements at CSAH
33/13
Widen shoulders and improve side slopes to
reduce potential rollovers.
Increase sight distance within corridor to
improve driver safety.
New crossing over Trott Brook
Drainage and stormwater treatment
improvements throughout corridor
Public
Engagement Preliminary I-�
Ongoing :Design Environmental Investigations
Fall 2020/ _ (wetlands, noise, cultural)
Summer 2021 Summer 2021
Final Right of Way Construction
:Design :Acquisition :Winter/Summer
Fall 2021 Fall 2021 - 2023
Summer 2022
2020 2021 2022 2023
STAY CONNECTED
SRF Comm No 13725.00
H:\Projects\13000\13725\Design\Cost Estimates\13725_Trail Estimate_R1.xlsx
1
SRF
SHERBURNE CO. CSAH 33 - CONCEPTUAL TRAIL COST
Concept Cost Estimate (based upon 2020 bid price information)
Prepared By: SRF Consulting Group, Inc., Revised December 30, 2021
CSAH 33 Trail
Sherburne County
City of Elk River
ITEM DESCRIPTION
UNIT
UNIT
PRICE
EST.
QUANTITY
EST.
AMOUNT
COST
SPLIT
COST
SPLIT
PAVING AND GRADING COSTS
GrP 2a
12106 Common Embankment CV
cu. d.
6.00
25 500
153,000
153 000
GrP 4b
Bituminous Walk / Trail
1
s d.
25.00
10 340
258 500
258.500
GrP 4c
IADA Pedestrian Curb Ram
each
1800.00
8
114,400
14 400
r
oncrete Curban utter
in.
Additional Tree Clearin /Grubbin to construct trail
acre
10000.00
1.3
13 000
13 000
SUBTOTAL PAVING AND GRADING COSTS:
$693,280
$693,280
DRAINAGE, UTILITIES AND EROSION CONTROL
Dr 5 Draina e - urban 1 30%
208 000
$104,000
$104,000
SUBTOTAL DRAINAGE, UTILITIES AND EROSION CONTROL
$208,000
$104,000
$104,000
RETAINING WALLS & OTHER MINOR STRUCTURAL COSTS
RW 1
Box Culvert -
2
lin. ft.
3.050
20
61.000
61.000
RW 2
Cattle Pass
I In. ft.
300
20
6,000
6 000
RW 3
Reinforced Soil Sloe RSS & Mod. Block Retainin Walls
3
s d.
160
950
152 000
30 400
121 600
KW 26
are oc ravi a
scl.
SUBTOTAL RETAINING WALLS & OTHER MINOR STRUCTURAL COSTS:
$338,250
$30,400
$307,850
LIGHTING COSTS
SGL 3 At Grade Intersection Li htin ermanent - non si nalized 4 each 18 000
7
126 000
126,000
SGL 4 Modif Liahtina Unit at TH 169 Exit Ram each I 10 000 11
1.00
$11D.UIDU
10 000
SUBTOTAL LIGHTING COSTS:
$136,000
$10,000
$126,000
SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS: $1,375,530
$144,400 $1,231,130
MISCELLANEOUS COSTS
M 2 Non uantified Minor Items 1 1 5%
70 000
$8,000
$62,000
SUBTOTAL MISCELLANEOUS COSTS:
$70 000
$8 000
ji $62 000
ESTIMATED TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS without Contingency:
$1,445,530
$152,400 $1,293,130
1 lContingency or "risk" 15%
$217,0001
$23,000 1 $194,000
ESTIMATED TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS PLUS CONTINGENCY:
$1,662,530
$175,400 $1,487,130
OTHER PROJECT COSTS:
RAN ACQUISITIONS (ADD. TEMP EASEMENT FOR TRAIL)
sq. ft.
$1.00
70000
1 $70,0001
$70,000
DESIGN ENGINEERING
Lump Sum
I $180,000
1
1 $180,0001
$180,000
SUBTOTAL OTHER PROJECT COSTS
1 $250,0001
$250,000
TOTAL PROJECT COST
L
1 $1,912,5301
$175,400
1 $1,737,130
NOTE:
(1) 2.5' Bituminous and 6" aggregate base class 5 per Elk River Std Plt 2012
(2) Does not include excavation.
(3) Additional cost for Reinforced Soil Slopes and/or smaller large block retaining walls are anticipated in key locations to reduce impacts to
wetlands and private properties.
(4) Intersection / Ped lighting, 7 "T intersections, 2 light units per intersection, separate service cabinets and equipment.
Estimate does NOT include any costs for Construction Administration.
PRINTED: 12/30/2021 12:32 PM
Elk River City Council
13065 Orono Parkway
Elk River, Minnesota 55330
RE: CSAH 33 Trail Proposal
Dear Council:
Speaking as a resident of the City of Elk River who lives on the east side of our community, I am in favor of
the trail construction along CSAH 33. My personal story occurred a few years ago when my husband went
biking alone one evening after work. He was gone an unusually long time. It was starting to get dark, and I
became concerned as to what happen to him. I grabbed my car keys and proceeded to search for him having
no idea which direction he went. As I was getting in my car, my husband came biking down our road. He was
bruised up and told me someone ran him off the road and he laid unconscious in the ditch. He didn't know
how long he was out, and we believe no one saw him so no one stopped to help him. The car that ran him
off the road did not stop. He was biking along CSAH 33.
Per the Parks and Recreation Master Plan
■ Page 17 discusses how trail -based activities are by far the most popular features of our park system
with over 70% of Elk River residents identifying trails as a high priority. Elk River's trail system is
smaller than the trail system in many of its peer communities.
■ Page 27 highlights the need for off -road trails because of the lack of safe trails in some locations of
our community due to high traffic and low visibility.
■ Page 28 there is a map which clearly shows the deficiency in trails for the northeast quadrant of our
community.
Under Recommendations & Strategies, Initiative 3 Strengthen Trail Connections.
■ Page 56 a map highlights this segment as a priority connection to the existing Great Northern Trail
and part of a proposed greenway trail connection.
■ Page 57 highlights a strategy to connect neighborhoods on the east and west side of Highway 169 to
the Great Northern Trail.
■ Page 58 outlines utilizing opportunities to expand the trail system by coordinating new trails with
county construction projects and to build trails on all collector/arterial roads where possible.
Many deaths have occurred in the northeast quadrant of our community on both County Road 13 and
County Road 33, causing safety concerns with sharing the current road system between vehicles, pedestrians,
and bikers. As you can see from the Plan, the northeast quadrant is lacking much in safe trail amenities
compared to the rest of our community and there is a need to start somewhere when opportunities become
available.
I ask Council to look at the larger community vision and the long-term goals created with the Parks and
Recreation Master Plan. It will cost less to build the trail now when there is opportunity to do so versus
building it later. County roads are shared regionally by area residents and have faster, heavier traffic; therefore,
this trail will serve area trail users not just those who live on this street. I feel if you build this, other
opportunities will also arise to continue expanding these area trails in the future, and you need to start
somewhere. For those living closer to TH169/33 this trail will also someday help safely connect them to the
Twin Lakes Park amenities on the eastern border of our community.
I hope Council will capitalize on this opportunity as I would love to safely bike from my home to the Great
Northern Trail and Woodland Trails Regional Park someday.
Sincerely,
Tina
9660 20Pt Avenue
Elk River, Minnesota 55330
Hecker, Michael
Subject: RE: Public Hearing CSAH 33 trail
From: Chris Miller
Sent: Friday, January 28, 2022 11:05 AM
To: Hecker, Michael <MHecker@ElkRiverMN.gov>
Cc: David. Roedel@co.sherburne.mn.us; Larson, Dawn <dlarson@elkrivermn.gov>
Subject: Re: Public Hearing CSAH 33 trail
Thank you. I appreciate it.
Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
Get Outlook for Android
From: Hecker, Michael <MHecker ElkRiverMN.eov>
Sent: Friday, January 28, 2022 10:38:21 AM
To: 'Chris Miller
Cc: David. Roedel@co.sherburne mn us <David.Roedel@co.sherburne.mn us>; Larson, Dawn <dlarson@elkrivermn.eov>
Subject: RE: Public Hearing CSAH 33 trail
Hi Chris -
Thank you for your email. CSAH 33 is a county project so anything related to land acquisition is the responsibility of the
county. I have forwarded your question to Dave Roedel with the County.
Michael
From: Chris Miller
Sent: Friday, January 28, 2022 10:11 AM
To: Hecker, Michael <MHecker ElkRiverMN.eov>
Subject: Public Hearing CSAH 33 trail
Mr. Michael Hecker,
I, Christopher Miller am a resident residing on the corner of Auburn Street and CSAH 33. ( 20488 Auburn Street )
I am writing in regards to the upcoming meeting on February 7 2022 on the proposed walking trail on CSAH 33 from
HWY 169 to Twin Lakes Road. I will be unable to attend this meeting and I am requesting additional information
on the extent of land acquisition proposed for this project. The focus of my concern is the area immediately
adjacent to my property.
The distance between my garage and the CSAH 169 easement has already been compromised. This
occurred when the overpass on 169 was completed and the turn lane to Auburn Street was added.
Please forward to me any documentation that my affect this area of concern.
Thank you for you assistance in this matter,
Chris
Hecker, Michael
Subject: RE CSAH 33 *rail proposal
From: Ashley Welsh
Sent: Friday, January 28, 2022 3:08 PM
To: Hecker, Michael <MHecker@ElkRiverMhl.gov>
Subject: CSAH 33 trail proposal
Good afternoon,
I wanted to follow up on the public hearing that is set for Feb 7"'. I won't be able to attend but wanted ask a few
questions.
saw the proposed trail map— and while this is exciting for a much needed path on country road 33, 1 wonder when
Brook road/221" will be able to attach to the proposed trail? There are no walking paths off of brook road/221" and the
road itself, doesn't have a wide shoulder to safely bring children on. I would like to know when this could be addressed
and if there could be a cost savings by doing both at the same time?
Thank you,
Hecker, Michael
Subject: FW: Public Hearing on CSAH 33 Trail Proposal
From:
Sent: Monday, January 31, 2022 9:05 AM
To: Hecker, Michael <MHecker@ElkRiverMN.eov>
Subject: Public Hearing on CSAH 33 Trail Proposal
As a resident of Trout Brook Farm ,this trail would be fantastic and a relief. I have been trying to find a safe way to get
from my home to Great Northern Trail. The last time I tried routing my way to the foot bridge across 169 1 almost was on
the hood of a beat up old minivan when the driver cut a corner.lt must've been too difficult for him to get into the right
lane after his lazy maneuver. This trail would allow the rapidly growing residential area of the east side to have safe
access to this expanding trail system.
Jeff Albers
Sent from ProtonMail for iOS
Hecker, Michael
Subject: RE: CSAH 33 Trail Addition
From: Marie Koblas
Sent: Monday, January 31, 2022 9:34 PM
To: Hecker, Michael <MHecker@ElkRiverMN.gov>
Subject: CSAH 33 Trail Addition
Dear Elk River City Council,
My family supports the addition of a trail alongside county road 33, which would make walking or biking in the area
safer. There is not currently a good place for us to do this without being nervous of the passing traffic. Please add a trail
to the road project. It would greatly increase our appreciation and enjoyment of the neighborhood.
Thank you,
Marie Koblas
11287 205th Ave NW
Get Outlook for Android
7.2 County Road 33 Trail
Subject: FW: Public Comment Co Rd 33 Trail
Sent: Monday, February 7, 2022 9:27 AM
Subject: Public Comment Co Rd 33 Trail
To the Elk River City Council,
I would like to voice my support for the County Road 33 Trail. This is a project that will be an important link in our trail
system and enhance the lives of Elk River residents and beyond. Let's make Elk River a destination for bicycling and
outdoor exercise, similar to how Woodland Trails has become a destination for cross country skiers.
I live in the neighborhood of Co Rd 33 and I also foresee the trail as a positive for daily walkers and bikers. Currently the
road is too dangerous for pedestrians and folks on bicycles.
Sincerely,
Myrna Krueger
Elk River, Minnesota, USA
Subject:FW: County Rd 33 Remake
CƩƚƒʹClairOlson
{ĻƓƷʹMonday,February7,20221:26PM
ƚʹPortner,Cal
{ǒĬƆĻĭƷʹCountyRd33Remake
TotheElkRiverCityCouncil
EventhoughIamveryunhappythattheremakeofCo33willcomethroughmyproperty,Iaminfavoroftheproposed
trailthatcouldbeincludedintheproject.Itwouldcreateasafetybufferforallpeoplewhowalk,run,bike,etcalong
provideagreatconnectinglinktomanyothertrailsintheElkRiverareaforwhichmanypeoplewill
thatroad.Itwould
benefitinthepresentandfuture.
ClairOlson
10476205thAve.NW
1
From: Susan Arnold
Sent: Friday, February 4, 2022 1:50 PM
To: Hecker, Michael <MHecker@ElkRiverMN.gov>
Subject: City Trail Plan
Michael, we live a little more than 2/4 mile off County Road 33 on Smith Street. We frequently bike around the city
and feel safest where there are trails, given the increase in traffic in past years. We no longer bike on #33 as the
shoulder is exceptionally narrow, and there is too much traffic, especially truck traffic. We would be more than pleased
if, in the reconstruction of Country Road 33, a biking/walking trail were also constructed alongside the roadway. It
would be a trail that we would surely use.
Susan and Mike Arnold
From:
Sent: Monday, February 7, 2022 8:38 AM
To: Hecker, Michael <MHecker@ElkRiverMN.gov>
Subject: Trails county 33
Why spend millions of dollars of taxpayer money on a trail that would be used by only a few people. What a waste of
money taken from people that are already overtaxed. How about putting it on a ballot and let us vote on it, I don't think
it would stand a chance. Have you ever checked to see how many people would ever use this trail to nowhere. If the
county has money to bum I think it could be put to better use, or reduce taxes. This expense should be funded by the
people who use it or by donations not from ANY taxpayer, city, county, state, or federal. Thank You For asking for input.
Don Kreger
From: Leah Stevens
Sent: Sunday, February 6, 202210:52 PM
To: Hecker, Michael <MHecker@ElkRiverMN.gov>
Subject: CSAH 33 Trail Proposal
Dear Mr. Hecker
We have been Elk River residents for 35 years and wanted to voice our opposition to the proposed CSAH 33 trail. First of
all, we are EXTREMELY concerned with the overall cost of this project especially when the destination of this trail leads
to "nowhere". in reference to the Star News article it was mentioned by Mr. Niziolek that it was a very dangerous
situation without a trail on this road. I invite him and every decision maker to travel the span of road in Elk River that we
do everyday, that is a far better candidate for some type of trail or sidewalk system that would Finally provide safety to
the many pedestrians, cyclists, and runners that we see on it. This is the -seven tenths of a mile span from Upland Ave
that turns into Meadowvale and would hook up to an existing trail/sidewalk at the tracks at County Road 35/192nd
Avenue. This trail then brings you over to Country Road One/Elk Lake Road where then the citizens can access the trail
that leads you to W000dland Trails. So with the addition of the new walkway from Orono Park to Downtown Elk River
along Highway 10 you can conceivably access Woodland Trails (A Destination) safely all the way from Orono Park by
using this suggested byway.
This span of road is extremely narrow and has heavy traffic, so when a driver comes upon a walker, biker or runner the
vehicle basically has to come to a stop to allow the passing vehicle to go by otherwise you run the risk of hitting the
individual. There are also a number of commercial vehicles on this road due to the industrial businesses located there
which make things even more hazardous for these people and all the residents of the neighborhoods in this area.
Our other area of concern is the suggestion of using the City Franchise fees for this project. We are emphatically
opposed to this. When the Franchise Fee was initiated it was for ROAD improvements to our city streets so the
residents would not have to pay for future assessments when their street was in need of replacement. We have already
paid for a street assessment 23 years ago so needless to say our street is "due" again for repavement along with others
in our general area so we oppose those funds being used for "Park" trails. If I understand correctly, our Parks
Department amounts to 37 percent of our City Budget. That is a very hefty amount when you consider all the other
areas of a city budget. As residents we are not only paying for City Franchise Fees every month but we are also paying a
half a percent in additional sales tax for our Community Event Center & Parks, as well as another half a percent to the
County for "Transit", & their $10 Wheelage Tax, and on top of that we are still paying on the bond for the YMCA. When
you combine our "City" sales tax/fees and the "County's" we are one of the highest taxed cities other than Minneapolis
& Bloomington in the state.
Please, there is a far GREATER need for a sidewalk or even widening of the above mentioned span of road compared to
the CSAH 33 area. Please, we do NOT need additional taxes & fees placed on our residents. Please, we do NOT want
our Franchise Fees being used for Park trails or Park Parking Lots.
Thank you for your time and service to our community.
Brad and Leah Stevens
:4
From: Donjune Ege
Sent. Saturday, February 5, 2022 4:39 PM
To: Hecker, Michael <MHecker@ElkRiverMN.gov>
Subject: Trail
February 5, 2022
Mr. Hecker,
We do NOT want a trail in front of our place!!!!!
We live in the country for a reason - to have peace and quiet!!!!!
Also - we think that it's really stupid to spend our tax money on
a "city trail" in the country!!!!!
Don and June Ege
-----original Message ----
From: Hilyars
Sent: Monday, February 7, 2022 1:12 PM
To: Hecker, Michael <MHecker@ElkRiverMN.gov>
Cc: jdietz@ElkRiverMN.gov
Subject: New Trail
Good afternoon Mr. Dietz and Mr. Hecker, I hope you will read this at tonight's meeting. I wish I could be there but the
post -polio things I'm dealing with prevent me from getting around that much, but as always, I watch all city meetings on
cable tv.
I was reading about the city possibly spending 1.7 million dollars for a trail connection. I started thinking about what
the city and the school district has combined to do with the new hockey arenas and the new softball complex. Both
facilities are the best in the state and are wonderful additions to the community. The arenas and the softball complex
have helped put the Elks on the map not only for the ER athletes and fans but the visiting players and fans.
I'm sure the trail connection will be also be wonderful but how about the city working with the school district and spend
some money on Hales Field either before spending money on the new trail or at least along with the trail. I pitched four
years of high school baseball for the Elks back in the mid 70's and the only changes to the field since then is the location
of the field and they now have a flag pole and score board which we did not have. Besides that, and besides field the
maintenance, the high school baseball field has not been upgraded in 47 years.
The City of Elk River collaborated with District 728 to bring top notch hockey and softball facilities to ER so before 1.7
million dollars are put into a trail connection I think it's time to put some money into Hales Field. I would be willing to
help out if I can. Thank you for taking the time to read this and thank you for all you do for Elk River.
Sonny Hilyar
13344196th Ave NW
Elk River MN 55330
Sent from my Whone
From: Christopher Bickman
Sent: Monday, February 7, 2022 12:12 PM
To: Hecker, Michael <MHecker(5)ElkRiverMN. ov>
Subject: Public Hearing CSAH 33 Trail Proposal
Hello Michael,
I am unable to attend the public hearing tonight but I wanted to voice my support and approval of the trail proposal. I
am active snowmobiler on Lake Orono and a resident of 30+ years. I have always struggled getting from the West side of
Elk River over to the East and South side of town. Any additional trail connections would be greatly appreciated by
myself, those I ride with and my family of next generation riders who will be on the trail soon!
Thank you for all that you do,
Chris Bickman
18560 Simonet Dr.
Elk River, MN 55330
CSAH 33 Trail Public Hearing
Facebook comments as of February 7, 2022
Elk River City Government.
IiR' Published by Kaylin Clement 0 - January 28 at T42 AM - 0
Public Hearing on CSAH 33 Trail Proposal I
The public is encouraged to attend the [Monday, February 7 City
Council meeting and offer input on a proposed trail on County State
Aid Highvmy (CSAH) 33 'fron, H%-%�}r 169 to Tkvin Lakes Road (CSAH 13).
The meeting is at 630 p.m. at Elk River City Hall (13065 Orono
Pattvay) ivher-e a public hearing will be held to discuss the two-mile,
10-foot trail proposal on the soruth side of CSAH 33.
Sherburne County plans to reconstruct CSAH 33 between Auburn
Street and Twin Lakes Read in 2023, and depending on feedback and
council consensus, this would be the time to coordinate the trail into
the county`s final design plans for the project.
if you are unable to attend the Monday, February 7 meeting, you are
encouraged to provide public comment via email to Parks and
Recreation Director Michael Hecker at mheckeru ElkRiverMN.gov to
have your feedback. entered into record.
The Elk River Parks and Recreation Commission recently recommended
the City Council add a trail to the corridor, as it aligns with the City, of
Elk River's trail master plan, available for review at
ElkRiverMN.gov/TrailsMasterPlan.
Mary Lindberg
Sounds wonderful!
Like Reply hide
Brandon Lehn
Sketch of said trail?
Like Reply Ride 1
Elk Rarer City Government
Brandon Lehn It would fallow the same
realignment of CSAH 33 in conjunction with the
county's project if approved.
Like Reply 1w 0
Brad Schmidt
So which trail are we talking about because
that trail doesn't match up to the trail plan
link? And there's multiple trails in the link?
Like Reply Elide 1w
Elk River City Government
Hi there, Brad Schmidt - the 2018 Master Trail
Plan doesn't include the Sherburne County
realignment of CSAH 33, which is why it isn't
hart of that plan. The image above in the
comment section from Elk River City
Government reflects the entire 1.9 mile
proposed trail length highlighted in the
image. Please reach out with other questions!
Have a great weekend
CP Brad Schmidt
Elk ever City Government so are they trying
to approve one trail at a time or all the
highlighted trails? My concern is the trail
going from viking Blvd to Tyler st.
Like Reply Hide iv,,
Mark Lea
Total waste of $1.734 000 for a 1.9 stretch of trail that
leads no where H Lots of negative impact to propert)E
owners as well
"Why put a trail in the "rural " area of Elk River before
putting it in more densely populated :areas first ??
Uke Reply Hide 1%,,
EV Michele olesen
Mark Lea yes! t lave on what I'd bet is the most
densely populated street in town and we are on an
island over Mere with no way to safely leave on foot
or bike. Our street is so busy you can't safely bike
or walk on it and in order to get to a safe area you
have to dodge fast moving traffic. These trail
connections are poised as a way to improve lour
city but it seems they are meant to improve current
and future developments.
Lake Reply Hide 1; 04
Tim llanderhoff
Mark Lea exactly! Where I live in town, we don't
even have a sidewalk on either :side of the very
busy road. I have came close to getting hit on the
shoulder, and have watch many people come close
to getting hit.
Like Reply Aide iv., 02
Elk River City Government
Hi there Mark. Lea - Thank you for reaching out!
The proposed trail was approved as a part of long-
term planning and the most cost-efficient time to
do it is in conjunction with the Sherburne County •••
road project. The city is continually seeking
opportunities to connect trails in more densely
populated areas as opportunities to purchase the
needed right of way arises.
Like
� Mark Lea
Elk River City Govemment i agree to a point.
Park n Rec does not have the money nor does
the City of Elk River. When they updated the
west side of Cty 33 up to Auburn st, why did
they not put the trail in that section while
under construction?
The city has way more highly densely
populated inner city area that could use these
funds( that do not exist) far better than in
outer rural Elk River area
Lake Reply Hide Send Message 4n
'- Elk River City Government
Great question Mark Lea!
That segment Hof CSAH 33 was constructed in
2003 which means planning would likely have
started 25 years ago. That preceded the
current Parks and Recreation Director who
initiated Elk River's first Master Trail Plan.
Further, Shelburne County only recently
updated and implemented their cost
participation policy which triggered the
city/county collaboration. The goal of the Trail
Master Plan is to identify desired trail
:segments as early as possible to minimize
costs. This roadway will likely not have major
reconstruction for 25-30 more years at which
time right of way acquisition and construction
costs will be significantly higher.
Labe Reply Lti
Mark Lea
Elk diver City Government It's great to have a
Faster plan. But my there is still zero funding
,available along with far greater needs within
inner city that would benefit residents greater
in the higher density developments
Like Reply Elide Send Message
Reply to dark Lea...
Rhonda Rognstad-Taylor
Steve Taylor 0-
Like Reply Hide 1 �,,
Filly Reimer
Maybe the money should be spent on developments that
have sewer problems
0s
Stacy Lynn
I'd use its,
Like Reply Elide 1w
,f Rhonda Rognstad-Taylor
Amanda Stanley (D
Like Reply Hide U
Mark Johnson
Make all the trails and walk ways! The trail system is a
great resource for Elk River!
Like Reply Hide 02
Robert Kidd
Let them take your property than and see how you
feel
Like Reply Hide 1w
Ajh
or Mark Johnson
Robert Kidd I totally understand where you
are coming from and if arrangements can't be
made then scrap it.
If it were me 1A be happy to oblige,so that
more people could enjoy walking and riding
around our fair city.
Like Reply Hide h 1
Brand+en Ebert
Those worried about losing property to trail...... you likely
already have a utility and Right -Cif -Way easement where
I would suspect the trail would go. You really have no
influence as to what happens in the easement area.
Like Reidy Hide 1w 02
Kevin Moritz
Well the farmer that owner the 84 acres they want to go
across is not in favor.
Like Reply Elide 02
Eddie Meixell
Kevin Moritz I don't blame him
Like Reply Elide
z Arlo Greenberg
It seems to me that The [SOT should concern itself with
fining up the existing roads that have been neglected for
the last 30 years. None of the roads in Elk River have
been expanded to accommodate for Elk Rivers massive
growth.
We are still driving on the same roads that were
designed for farm tractors and an occasional model T
truck,
Maybe the leadership in ER should stand up to Saint Paul
that is more concerned with b1q. (cles than being
concerned with the incredible congestion and
dilapidated roads
That makes it a nightmare to cross through Elk River
especially for the commuters trying to get to work. 03
Like Reply Hide
Richter, Jolene
Subject:FW: Elk River Proposed Trails
From: Laura Scheff
Sent: Monday, February 7, 2022 2:01 PM
To: Hecker, Michael
Subject: Elk River Proposed Trails
Hello,
I am writing in regards to the master plan for trails in Elk River. I think the meeting tonight is specifically in regards to the
section proposed alongside 33, east of 169. I live north of 33, off of Brook road/221st Ave. I can’t easily access a trail
next to 33 at this time, but I noticed there is a proposed trail that goes alongside Brook rd/221st Ave as well. What is the
timeline for this? I love the vision of getting trails out to this area so that we can connect to other trails safely. These
county roads are incredibly dangerous for walkers/bikers. That said, I’m curious when there will be more conversations
about the trails specific to 221st Ave so that we can raise any questions or concerns about trails near our homes. While I
love the concept, I also have some hesitation.
Thank you!
Laura
1
Richter, Jolene
Subject:FW: Trail map question
From: Carrie Delaney
Sent: Monday, February 7, 2022 1:01 PM
To: Hecker, Michael
Subject: Trail map question
Hi - I am an Elk River resident who lives just off Brook Road. I was looking at the map of the proposed trail and just
wondering what the yellow dotted line means. The key on the map says "conceptual connection". It looks like it runs on
the property line between our property and our neighbor's.
Thanks - Carrie Delaney
1