Loading...
3.0. - 7.0. SR 03-07-1994 rei ---'\) ( )j ~I~ MEMORANDUM: TO: MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL FROM: PAT KLAERS, CITY ADMINISTRATOR FEBRUARY 16, 1994 SUBJECT: 317/94 JOINT COUNCIL/COUNTY BOARD MEETING AGENDA DATE: County Coordinator Dave Loch and I have met and developed a list of topics to be discussed at the 317/94 City/County meeting. This tentative agenda includes the following: e 1. Sherburne County MSA Designation. 2. County ditches within the City of Elk River 3. Implementation of the State Wetlands Law 4. Transportation - Long range transportation plans and improvement projects scheduled in the next few years. 5. Status of the fairgrounds (see attachment) 6. Discussion on the future needs of the Government Center. 7. Library System. e P.O. Box 490 · 13065 Orono Parkway · Elk River, MN 55330 · (612) 441-7420 · Fax: (612) 441-7425 r~1 ---\j ( )j rli< MEMORANDUM TO: MAYOR & CITY COU~CIL /f ' PAT KLAERS, C 'IT~/~STRATOR MARCH 4, 1994 FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: JOINT MEETING A joint meeting of the City Council and Sherburne County Board is scheduled for 6:30 p.m., Monday, March 7, 1994. Most of the agenda items have previously been discussed at joint City and County meetings in 1992 and 1993. The agenda calls for discussion to continue on these issues that are of mutual concern to the City and the County. e 3. Ditches Within the City Limits Mayor Duitsman and Building and Zoning Administrator Steve Rohlf are two of the City representatives on a City Committee to evaluate the County ditch system in Elk River. Commissioner Engstrom and County Coordinator David Loch are two County representatives that are appointed to a similar County Committee. These four individuals plus others have had at least one meeting to discuss the County ditch system in the City of Elk River. One issue that has been discussed is the City taking over responsibility for the ditches within our City limits. Some of the rationale for this takeover includes our work currently being undertaken around Ditch #10 and the Highway 1011169/10 project. Another rationale for this takeover is that the City is considering a city-wide fee structure to finance storm drainage improvements. If this city-wide fee is implemented, it would be redundant to have the County also do drainage improvements to the ditch system and assess these costs out to Elk River property owners. e A number of issues need to be resolved before any exchange of responsibility takes place. These issues may include an evaluation of how the existing ditch system is functioning, an identification of necessary repairs and the cost of this work, and an accurate legal P.O. Box 490 · 13065 Orono Parkway · Elk River, MN 55330 · (612) 441-7420 · Fax: (612) 441-7425 e e e description and/or map identifying the existing ditch systems. A few years ago there was some improvements that took place to Ditch #28 on the west side of the City and it is anticipated that future improvements to this ditch system will be necessary. The other ditch in the City limits is Ditch #31 which runs through the City park and golf course. 4. WETLANDS A new state law has gone into effect regarding the management of wetlands. The County is the regulatory local governmental unit (LGU) for most of the County as it relates to forcing this wetlands law. The City has assumed the responsibility as the LGU within our City limits for the management of the City's wetlands. This is more of an update item than anything else. Steve Rohlf, Building and Zoning Administrator, is the individual in charge of the wetlands in Elk River and he should be able to provide an update on this issue at this meeting. 5. TRANSPORTATION There are long range plans and short range construction projects that need to be reviewed. First, the City is anticipating that County Road #1 will be upgraded by the County from where the 1991-92 improvements ended near the daycare and public maintenance garage, all the way to County Road #32 at the north end of the golf course. We anticipate that this project will happen in stages with the southern stage happening in 1995 and the northern stage happening in 1996. At least the southern stage will have to be built to urban standards. The City has recently passed a resolution authorizing the City Engineer to take the lead in this project and to manage the project much like the City did with the Proctor Avenue improvements. This project still needs to be approved by the County before funding can be allocated to this improvement. Regarding long term needs, it is anticipated that when future road corridors are developed in Elk River, these corridors will perform a regional or County function and not a City or local function. Likewise, as the community grows, it is anticipated that some existing County roads will serve more of a local function than a County function. In this regard, it seems that an exchange of transportation routes should take place so that the appropriate road can be under the responsibility of the appropriate governmental agency. At this time, if a consensus of e e e the City Council and County Board can be achieved on this general approach to transportation within the City, then the staffs will put together a proposal for the City and County review. It is not necessary at this meeting to determine which roads are most appropriate to be transferred to the other agency. Many other issues including the costs for new roads and the upgrading or maintenance expenses for existing roads needs to be looked at so that a fair economical exchange can also take place. 7. FAIRGROUNDS A memo from Dave Loch to the County Fair Board on this topic has previously been distributed to the City Council and is again attached for your review. I believe the County will take the lead in this discussion and review with the City the future plans for the fairgrounds. As the City Council is aware, improvements are scheduled in the near future around the fairgrounds property. A preliminary plat for residential development south of the fairgrounds is scheduled to go before the City Council in March. This residential development will also involve the extension of roads and utilities and assessments to benefited property owners. 8. GOVERNMENT CENTER I believe the County will take the lead on this topic and will discuss the future needs of the Government Center. One issue that has previously been discussed relates to the transportation routes on the western side of the City. I understand the County does not desire a road to go through the southern edge of their existing Government Center property which is what the long range plans of the City indicates. These plans could be adjusted by the City, but we then need access to the existing County frontage road (and Highway 10) if the other access is deleted from our plans. This road corridor issue is important if the County is pursuing land south of their existing property. Also, the County may discuss with the City the need for municipal serVIces. e e e 9. LIBRARY SYSTEM I understand that the County will take the lead in the discussion on this issue. The County and Wright County have had discussions regarding the future of the Regional Library System and the finances for the Regional Library System. There are some changes that are possible in how the region receives its revenues to finance the Library System and these changes may have an effect on local taxes.