HomeMy WebLinkAboutCCP 03-20-2006
~
e
")
1\&yo.-:
~my~.
~.
,~, " '" ~
DavidGnllt. ,
'. IIAtuIlllfeIid'ea '.', :
~""'-' .. .
w-t,hlh.... ,.
k:Atd_'_;t:.:ilY:'€uUB~.'
'\Vf.tlU{, SESSIQN
. 5:80p.m.
. MIt_y"Mareb.20;2086
AgeBda
1... CaIl.~
2.
~alteBUl.
A. u:......u....v_....Tftffk COIIeeIIII'
S~~terf
~ Soler, ~qCountj
Traftk'En~';
Krls~a
. MU!hell#. Wo{fe
Mli1i4gIJmentTeallf
MrlyOr",,4plikows/r:i .
B. . 2006 PMPUpdate
C.Ct>.....,....D4 Co"""Gltiddh.es
D.'Security forClty Hall
E. 1-35)V Corti"- ~VertJld
3.; Ad\OfrD-t ..
';
.\,
" 1_W._II"'~
. ......,~~ 118
'.. ,", >S5112
";0 ".l51Al4.512l1
~....'l1~ . ~-'''''''"'lIII
, "'--,', "','
,",,'," --
',-',
C.."'.',.'
'.";;~l~:;:F1:,~~:\.:,. ~~
;.'..,
.'Mt .
.~
i""
'r"
,c'
,. :~
. ". '~':'. -""j,. .<"
-<~~,>.
.
Message
Page 1 of 1
Jackie Freppert
From: Jackie Freppert
Sent: Thursday, March 16, 200612:49 PM
To: timesaver02@aol.com; bob.fletcher@co.ramsey.mn.us; bulletin@lillienews.com;
cwilson@ctv1S.org; dprobst@mspmac.org; egurnon@pioneerpress.com; focus@mnsun.com;
kgprophet@aol.com; kmaltman@msn.com; mlsmith@startribune.com; smccann@startribune.com;
sschroeder@smithmicrotech.com
Subject: Agenda for Upcoming CC Worksession 3/20/06
Jackie Freppcrt, Oflice Support Specialist
City of Arden Hjlls
Phone 651.634.5120
Fax 651.634.5137
www.ci.arden-hills.mn.us
.
.
3/16/2006
.
.
.
~
~
EN HILLS
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
March 15, 2006
AGENDA ITEM 2.A
TO:
Mayor and City Council
~(f{M<<l
FROM:
Kristine Giga, Civil Engineer
SUBJECT:
Hamline Avenue- Traffic Concerns
The possible redevelopment of the Old City Hall site raised several traffic related concerns along
Harnline Avenuc among residents in the area, including increased traffic volumes and increased
delay times when turning onto Hamline from intersecting streets. The City requested Ramsey
County to assess the existing traffic conditions along Hamline A venue. Ramsey County has
completed a traffic study of Hamline from CSAH 96 to County Road F. Dan Soler, Ramsey
County Traffic Engineer, will attend the work session to present the County's findings.
\\Mclru-ineLus\ardenhills\PR&PW\EngioCC"ongQ006\Work Sessions\3-20-06 Hamline A ve.doc
.
e
.
~
~
EN HILLS
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
March 16, 2006
AGENDA ITEM 2.B
TO:
Mayor and City Council
Kristine Giga, Civil Engineer !~
FROM:
SUBJECT:
2006 PMP Update
BACKGROUND
URS has continucd to work on the 2006 PMP Improvements as directed by staff and Council.
Included for your review are the following documents:
. Rcquest for Council Action dated January 9, 2006, authorizing URS to complete final
plans;
· Minutes from December 19, 2005 Work Session
. Minutes from August 29, 2005 Council Meeting with Public Hearing
. Corrcspondence related to thc assessment of the Josephine Hills Association on the 2003
Street Reconstruction Project.
. An e-mail from Tom Franz of the Arden Hills Island Beach Club regarding the possible
assessmcnt of the Beach Club
DlSCUSSION
Rain gardens
The drainage approach for the project has been refined as a result of discussions with Rice
Creek Watershed, the Island Beach Club and various residents in the neighborhood. The
current design includes the use of portions of the Island Beach Club property, existing private
ponds north of the Beach Club wetland and a portion of the private property adjaccnt to Lift
Station #3 for ponding. There has been a strong interest expressed by residents and the
watershed to include upstream infiltration by the use of infiltration rain gardens. The current
dcsign has identified approximately 16 locations where rain gardens would benefit the
function and effectivencss of the ponds and sewer network. Residents of I 0 of thcse locations
" Mctro- indo us",,-Jellhills,PR&P\l{',Enginc~'rj ng 02006. Work Sessions'J-20-06 2006 PM p, doc
2006 PMP Update
3/J 6/2006
Page 2
have enthusiastically supported the inclusion of the rain gardens. The use of rain gardens
will not eliminate the need for a storm sewer system, but will aid in improving the water
quality and will potentially reduce the size of pipe needed for the storm sewer.
Rain gardens are areas where storm water is captured and allowed to infiltrate into the
ground. They are shallow (<32", usually <8" for residential) depressions, typically planted
with water absorbing native plants, strategically located to collect, infiltrate, and filtrate rain
that falls on hard surfaces like roofs, driveways, alleys, or streets to minimize negative
impacts of excessive runoff from these surfaces on lakes and streams. URS has identified
approximately fifteen areas in the neighborhood that would be suitable for a rain garden. The
rain gardens would be constructed to overflow back into the street, to prevent yards and
homes from flooding.
Staff requests that Council consider the maintenance of these rain gardens. Other cities, such
as Maplewood and Bumsville, have prepared maintenance agreements between the city and
the property owner. The document would indicate that the plants will be paid for by the City,
that a conservation easement would be placed over the area, and the property owner would be
required to maintain the rain garden. Would Council be in favor of preparing similar
agreements with property owners?
Arden Hills Island Beach Club Assessment
At the December 19,2005 work session, Council had asked staff to research past projects
where associations were assessed. In the February 24, 2006 Administrator's Update, you
were provided with documentation regarding the assessment of the Josephine Hills
Association and the resulting appeals.
In evaluating whether or not to assess the Arden Hills lsland Beach Club, the following
information should be considered:
In 2003, the assessment policy was to assess properties on a front footage basis. The
assessment policy was changed in 2004 to assess properties on a per lot basis. The
assessment policy is based on 50% of the costs of one half of the street.
The 2003 assessment that was appealed by the Josephine Hills Association and exempted
by Council was in the amount of$4,512.00. The potential assessment for the Arden Hills
lsland Beach Club is at $6,500 per lot, with the Beach Club being assessed for an
equivalent of 12 lots. This amounts to $78,000.
If the Beach Club is not assessed, the assessment rate for the surrounding properties will
increase to $8,800. The exemption of the Josephine Hills Association's assessment did
not affect the amount ofthe assessment to the other properties.
Assessment Schedule
In the past, properties have been assessed prior to the construction of the project. These
assessments have been based on the estimated costs of construction. At the December 19,
e
.
.
.
e
.
2006 PMP Update
3/1 6/2006
Page 3
2005 work session, staff recommended holding the assessment hearing following completion
of the construction project. If this is done, property owners will be assessed for the actual
construction costs. The timing of the construction project and the time that assessment
information is needed by Ramsey County is such that the assessments would be delayed until
2007 ifbased on actual costs. Staff is comfortable with this type of schedule for a few years,
but has concems that cash flow issues may arise over a longer period of time.
Miscellaneous Design Issue Update
URS will briefly discuss status of property easements, driveway reconfigurations (Siems
Court), tree impacts and curb and gutter design.
CONCLUSION
^ third neighborhood meeting for the project is scheduled tor Thursday, March 23, at 7 p.m. in
City Hall Council Chambers. Staff is requesting that Council consider whether or not to assess
the Beach Club, for action to be taken at a future Council meeting. Staff plans on informing the
residents at the meeting that Council is still determining the possibility of assessing the Beach
Club, and will provide two possible assessment rates, based on assessing and not assessing the
Beach Club. Staff is also requesting Council to consider the overall assessment schedule.
/'~~
.. Prepared by: Greg Brown
DepL: Engineering
Council Mtg. Date: Jan 9,2006
Final Action Needed By: Jan 9, 2006
~
~HILLS
City ot Arden Hills
. B-equest for Council Action
~......"""""",~"'i
i" (;-
I\.."\,.,,~.
Agenda Item 6.A.
2006 PMP Ridqewood Neiqhborhood
Budgeted Amount: 1.764.000
Actual Amount: TBD
Funding Source: Multiple
Council Action Request:
Authorize City Engineer to prepare final plans and specifications for the reconstruction of the Ridgewood
Neighborhood streets as outlined in the Feasibility Report received August 8, 2005 and the attached
memo outlining general direction regarding project options.
Staff Recommendation:
Advisory Commission Action:
Commission
Date
Action
Planningu
PTRC
_Not AppIiGa.I:JI,,~____
NotApplicable
Not iJ2pJicable____
Supporting Documents (which are attached to this Action Form):
D Memo/Letter:
.
D Resolution (No. )
D Ordinance (No. )
[:5<J Engineering Recommendation:
See attached memorandum.
D Attorney Recommendation:
DOther:
Financial Implications:
Final design per the professional services contract with URS is estimated to cost approximately $50,000.
Administrator/Staff Comments:
.
Page 1 of 1
URS
Agenda Item 6.A
.
MEMORANDUM
lbresher Square
700 Third Street South
Minneapolis, MN 55415
Phone, (612) 370-0700
Fax: (612) 370-1378
To:
Ms. Michelle Wolfe/
City of Arden Hills
Copy:
Tom Moore/AH
Frank Ticknor/URS
File:
31809837
From:
Greg Brown
URS Project Manager
Date:
January 4, 2006
Subject:
2006 PMP Final Design Authorization
Background
The Ridgewood Neighborhood was identified for pavement reconstruction in 2006 as a part oflhe
ongoing Cily pavement management program. Neighborhood meetings were held in January and March
and meetings with the Lake Johanna Beach Club wcrc held in April and July. The Feasilibily Report for
the project was received by Council on August 8, 2005 and a public hearing was conducted on August 29,
2005.
.
The Feasihility Report included a number of project options to be considered by the CounciL The report
and options were presented at the public hearing in August, 2005 and discussed at the December 19,2005
Council Worksession.
Final Design Approach
The following is a summary of the Engineer's understanding of the Council's direction regarding the
options included with the Feasiblily Report:
a.
Ridgewood Court Option: No Reconstruction of Ridge wood Court, minor connection work at
north end as necessalY to connect to Ridgewood Road.
Street Cross SectIOn: Construct all streets to with sum1cuntable curb and 22 feet of width between
face 10 face of curb
Siems Court Wall Option: Pursue a design which creatcs three individual driveways in lieu of the
single parallel driveway. Remove existing retaining wall, minimize new retaining wall area. Work
with residents on details of drivcways, grading and walls.
Ridgewood Road ROW Issue: A portion of Ridge wood Road currently exists on private property
Pursue acquisition of approximately 2.030 square feet of riGht of way from property owner at
nominal or no cost. - Backup plan to reconstruct roadway with in existing ROW.
Roundabout Option: Roundabouts will not be included wit:1 the project.
Sidewalk Option: Sidewalks will not be included with the uroject.
Assessments: The Beach Club Association property will be included as an asscssable entity (12
equivalent units) resultmg in an estimated unit assessment ,-ate of$6,500. The assessment hearing
.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f
h.
.
.
.
Memorandum
January 4,2005
Page 2
will be held at the conclusion ofthe project instead of the beginning of the project.
'- WatcTII1ain Improvement Scope: Replacement of all valves, hydrants in neighborhood as
well as the watermaill along Arden Place. Additional watermain would only be replaced if
conditions warrant from field inspection.
J. Sanitary Sewer Improvement Scope: Replace forcemaill from LS #3 and LS #7
k Storm Drainage Improvement Scope:
- Pursue agreement with residents adjacent to Lift Station #3 to incorporate public pond
- Pursue agreement with Island Beach Club to incorporate ponding/infiltration in wetland
area along Ridgewood Road
City Council Work Session Meeting
Dccember 19, 2005
3
rates that were charged to the consumers. The refund will be approximately $2.50 per cable
subscriber.
.
Mr. Craig Wilson reported that the telephone companies are trying to get federal legislation
passed that would eliminate franchise agreements for cable services. The telephone companies
are currently trying to offer cable TV services to residents through the telephone lines.
Councilmcmber Holden asked if the City will be receiving any reimbursement from the federal
government for utilizing the City's right-of-ways for installing telecommunication lines.
Mr. Wilson reported that it would be very difucult for the City recover those costs.
Mayor Aplikowski asked if a cable customer has an opportunity to choose certain channels.
Mr. Craig Wilson reported that the ala carte idea has been discussed, but the cable companies are
against this idea since it would minimize incentive for new channels to enter the market place.
Mr. Wilson also reported that the problems with webcasting City Council and City Planning
meetings should be resolved. The Cable Commission purchased a new software package that
should resolve a number of the problems residents were experiencing while utilizing the
webcasting system.
Councilmember Larson asked if cable companies are required to provide access to local cable
channels to residents that do not subscribe to cable TV.
.
Mr. Craig Wilson reported that cable companies are required to provide access to local cable
channels.
Councilmember Rem stated that residents are required to pay for the cable set-up to view local
cable access channels.
Mayor Aplikowski asked who detennines what IS being broadeasted on local cable access
channel 16.
City Administrator Michelle Wolfe reported that Arden Hills and the other City's that are
affiliated with the local North Suburban Cable Commission determine what is being shown on
channel 16.
City Administrator Michelle Wolfe also noted that the City Council will have to designate an
alterative to Mr. Wilson in case he cannot attend a future North Suburban Cable Commission
meeting.
2006 PMP-Ridl!.ewood Neil!.hborhood Proiect Update
City Engineer Greg Brown provided the City Council with a status update on the proposed 2006 .
Ridgewood PMI' project. City Engineer Brown is seeking direction from the City Council
City Council Work Session Meeting
Deccmber 19, 2005
4
. regarding the following options that were outlincd in the feasibility report. The following is a
summary of the design issues discusscd in the feasibility report:
.
e
A. Ridgewood Court Option-City Engineer Greg Brown recommcnds that no street
improvcments be made to Ridgewood Court at this timc.
Councilmember Holdcn asked if Ridgewood Court would have to be rcconstructed prior to the
25 year expectcd life expectancy of the street projcct.
City Engineer Greg Brown reported that Ridgewood Court has a PCl rating of 100. It was
ovcrlayed six years ago and should not have to be reconstructed for 25 to 30 years.
Councilmember Holden asked if thc Ridgewood Court residents would be assessed for the
improvcments even though there will not be any work done on their street.
City Engineer Brown said that all residents are proposed to be assessed for this project.
B. Streets Widths-City Engineer recommends 22 foot face to face of curb.
Councilmember Larson asked why the City Engineer is proposing to decrease the size of the
streets. The City should be consistent in requiring that a street be 24 feet wide and not be
reduced to 22 feet as suggested in the plans.
City Enginccr Brown stated that the City is building a 24 feet wide street if you include the two
feet used for curbing. City staff is comfortable that the proposed dimensions will not impede the
snow plows or truck traffic.
Councilmember Larson said that the City has a standard of 24 foot wide streets; we should
attempt to make the roads this size.
City Engineer Brown said that the following two streets are not scheduled to be 24 feet wide:
. Arden Place;
. Siems Court.
Members of the City Council were in agreement that the streets width should be 22 foot face to
face of the curb.
C. Siems COUJi Wall Option-
City Engineer Brown statcd that the City's objective is to lower the driveways and re-grade the
area to improve water drainage issues. The proposed project will include the reconstruction of a
few residential driveways and the removal of a few trees. City staff does not recommend
rebuilding the retaining wall at this time.
City Council Work Session Meeting
December 19,2005
5
City Engineer Brown said that he will work with the residents in the Siems Court area to rectify
the drainage issues in this neighborhood.
.
Members of the City Council were in agreement with City Engineer's Brown suggestion of
working with the affected residents to compile a final configuration of the driveways and
possibly retaining walls.
D. Ridgewood Road ROW Issues-A portion of Ridgewood Road currently exists on
private property.
City Engineer Greg Brown noted that a portion of Ridgcwood Road is on private property. It is
staffs recommendation to acquire approximately 2030 square feet of the roadway.
Councilmember Larson asked what the City would gain by pursuing option #2.
Mr. Brown said that the proposed construction would impact the existing trees, landscaping, and
decorativc stones. In order to replace these items it would result in additional costs to the City.
City Administrator Wolfe said that the City may utilizc adverse possession for this land since it
is currently being used as a public road.
Councilmembcr Grant asked how many easements the City would have to purchase for this .
project.
City Engineer Brown reported that the City would have to purchase one easement.
Members of the City Council recommended that City staff pursue option #2 by attempting to
purchase 2,030 square feet of right-of-way from the affected property owners at minimal or no
cost.
E. Roundabout Option-City staff docs not recommend roundabouts for this neighborhood.
Members of the City Council were in agreement with this recommendation.
F. Sidewalk Option-City staff does not recommend sidewalks for this project.
Members of the City Council were in agreement with this recommendation.
G. Curb and Gutter Option-City staff is recommending 6" barrier curb for maintenance
purposes.
Members of the City Council recommended 4" surmountable curb for the Ridgewood
Neighborhood.
.
City Council Work Session Meeting
December 19,2005
6
.
II.
Assessments-City staff recommends including the Beach Club Association as an
assessable entity and hold an assessment hearing following completion of the
construction project.
Councilmember Larson requested that City staff research whether or not Beach Club
Associations have bcen assessed in the past. The City may have set a past precedent during other
reconstruction projects.
City Administrator Wolfe said that City staff will rcscarch this issue further and report back to
the City Council for further consideration.
I. Watennain Improvement-Staff recommends replacing all of the valves, hydrants, and
watermain along Arden Place. Additional watennain will only be replaced if
conditions warrant.
.I. Sanitary Sewer Improvements-Staff recommends replacing thc force main from Lift
Station #3 to Lift Station #7.
K. Stonn Drainage-Staff recommends pursuing an agreement with residents adjacent to
Lift Station #3 to incorporate a public pond and pursue an agreement with the Island
Beach Club to include ponding/infiltration in the wetland area along Ridgcwood Road.
Members of the City Council werc in agreement with these recommendations.
. Lift Station #7 Repair Agreement-In Coniunction with Presbyterian Homes
Operations and Maintcnance Director Tom Moore provided the City Council with somc
background information regarding the purposc of the Memorandum of Understanding between
the City and Presbyterian Homes. In 2004, the City upgraded Lift Station #7 with a submersible
pump system. Lift Station #7 primarily services Presbyterian Homes and a fcw homes along
Sandeen Road. In the past, City staff has spent a significant amount of time responding to
emergency callouts due to fabric materials being placed in the sanitary sewer system by residents
or employccs of Presbyterian Homes. In order to resolve this issuc, the City and Presbyterian
Homes installed two choppcr pumps. Presbyterian Homcs agreed to purchase the chopper
pumps and salvage somc of the existing pumps for future use by the City.
The Memorandum of Understanding fonnalizes the responsibilities of Presbytcrian Homes and
the City regarding the maintenance of Lift Station #7 and the pumping equipment. Presbyterian
Homes is responsible for purchasing the two pumps and all necessary spare parts. The City will
be responsible f(lr normal maintenance and operation of the lift station. In the future,
Presbyterian Homes will reimburse the City for replacing the choppcr pumps due to age and
nonnal wcar and tear.
Members of the City Council were in agreement with the Memorandum of Understanding and
requestcd that this item be placed on the agenda at the next City Council meeting.
.
~
.-A~HILLS
.
Approved; September 12, 2005
CITY OF ARDEN IIlLLS, MINNESOTA
REGULAR CITY COlJNC1L MEETING
AUGUST 29, 2005, 7;00 P.M.
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 1245 WEST HIGHWAY 96
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING CALLED TO ORDER/ROLL CALL
Pursuant to due call and notice thcreof, Mayor Beverly ApJikowski called to order the
rcgular City Council meeting at 7:05 p.m.
Present:
Mayor Beverly Aplikowski, Councilmembers Grcgg Larson, Lois Rem (left
the meeting at 9:25 p.m.), and Brenda Holden.
Absent:
Couneilmemher David Grant (excused).
Also present were City Administrator, Michelle Wolfe; Director of Operations &
Maintcnancc, Thomas Moore; Finance Director/Treasurer, Murtuza Siddiqui; City
Engineer, Greg Brown; Assistant to City Administrator, Sehawn Johnson; City Planner,
Pctc Hellegers; and Recording Secretary, Kathleen Altman. .
1. APPROY AL OF MEETING AGENDA
The agcnda was approved as presented.
2. APPROY AL OF MINUTES
A. August 8,2005 City Council Meeting Minutes
B. August 8, 2005 Special City Council Meeting Minutes
MOTION: Couneilmember Larson moved and Councilmember Holden seconded a
motion to approve the August 8, 2005 City Council Meeting Minutes as
presented, the August 8, 2005 Special City Council Meeting Minutes as
presented. The motion carried unanimously (4-0).
3. CONSENT CALENDAR
a.
Claims and Payroll
Authorizc City StafTto Prepare Final Plans for the 2006 Highway 96 Landscaping
Project
Changc Order No. 2 to Amt Construction lor the 2004 PMP in the amount of
$55,607.
Pa}1nent NO.5 to MC Builders, Inc. for the Perry Park Pavilion
.
b.
c.
d.
\\Metro- incl. us\ardenhi fls\Adm in\C ouncil\J.,.1 inutes\ReguJar\2005\08- 29 -05 Approved.doc
.
.
.
ARDEN HILLS REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
AUGUST 29,2005
2
MOTION: Councilmcmber Rem moved and Councilmember Larson seconded a
motion to approve the Consent Calendar and to authorize execution of all
necessary documents contained therein. The motion carried unanimously
(4-0).
4. PUBLIC INQUIRIES/INFORMATIONAL
A. Represenlative Char Samuelson and Senator Satveer Chaundry
Representative Char Samuelson presented a 2005 Legislative Update.
Senator Satveer Chaundry summarized what had been accomplished in the 2005 Legislative
seSSIOn.
Couneilmember Larson suggested for they look at the possibility of drafting legislation to
determine if police/sheriff pursuit policies should be standardized. Senator Chaundry stated he
would be willing to attend any meeting the City had regarding this.
5. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A.
2006 Ridl!ewood Neil!hborhood PMP Publie Hearing
Mr. Brown stated the feasibility report was received by Council at the August 8, 2005 meeting and
outlincd the anticipated improvements, options, costs and funding associated with the 2006 PMP
project. Two general neighborhood meetings have been held to date as well as a meeting with the
Lake Johanna Beach Club and a meeting with Rice Creek Watershed and the Beach Club
leadership. The public hearing will allow residents to voice their opinions, raise concerns and ask
questions about the projcct in a formal setting.
Councilmembcr Larson asked for additional information as to where they were in discussions
with the landowner on the corner of Siems Court and Lake Johanna Boulevard. Mr. Brown
replied they had met with a representative of the owner as well as Rice Creek and the comments at
the time were they would like the pond to happen, but they alluded to they might have something
immincnt. He indicated he would approach them again.
Councilmember Larson requested Mr. Brown to pursue this further. He asked what the
condition of the sub-base and base on Ridgewood was. lIe inquired as to how long that road
would hold up. Mr. Bl'Own responded Ridgewood was overlaid, but be did not believe it had
been rebuilt. He stated he did not have anything to show what the sub-base was, but he believed it
was probably fairly heavy clay. He indicated it was still in good surface condition. He believed it
would remain in good condition for another decade with a reasonable amount of serviceability.
Hc statcd the only concern he had with Ridgewood was possible drainage issucs that had been
ARDEN HILLS REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
AUGUST 29, 2005
3
brought to his attention by a couple of residents along Ridgewood. He did not believe
reconstructing this street at this time would be money well spent.
.
Council member Larson asked if the residents of the Beach Club were the same residents in this
project. Mr. Brown replied he believed there were three or four less people in the association
than the neighborhood at large.
Councilmember Larson asked if the Siems Court driveway was on City property. Mr. Brown
replied part of it was, but it was not maintained by the City.
Couneilmember Larson asked if there was any reason for the City to maintain that driveway
rather than deed it over. Mr. Brown responded he believed this functioned as a private drive, but
he was not sure how this fit in legally. He suggested they might want to have some type of an
easement agreement.
Council member Holden asked if the anticipated costs were current. Mr. Brown responded they
figured this project on 2006 dollars.
CounciImember Holden asked what the rating on Ridgeway Court was. Mr. Brown replied the
rating was in the high 80's and it was performing well.
.
Couneilmember Holden asked if visibility, turning from Lake Johanna onto Siems/Ridgewood
was a problem for pedestrians since Siems/Ridgewood did not have a sidewalk. Mr. Brown
noted Lake Johanna Boulevard was a different situation and he believed there was a fair amount
of right-of-way for a sidewalk if the Council wanted to look at a sidewalk on this street.
Councilmember Holden inquired about the additional cost of a roundabout. Mr. Brown replied
it would be approximately $35,000 additional. He indicated a roundabout was not necessary
because the amount of cars on the streets were minimal, so they would only be fi)T aesthetic
purposes.
Mayor Aplikowski opened the public hearing at 8:21 p.m.
Janet Connor, 3489 Siems Court, inquired about the accessibility. She asked if accessibility
would be by foot or by car. Mr. Brown responded it would be generally by car and the only time
they would not be able to access their garages was when the concrete was poured, which would
need a couple of days to cure.
Ms, Connor asked if the residents be able to vote on the options presented tonight or would the
Council make the decision. Mayor Aplikowski responded the Council wanted to hear from the
residents tonight and the decision would be made by the Council.
Ms. Connor stated she did not like curbing and she wanted to keep the "country feel". She .
expressed concern the neighborhood would lose its character with curbing. She indicated she was
.
.
.
ARDEN HILLS REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
AUGUST 29, 2005
4
completely against the roundabouts. She stated she was under thc impression that buying into the
neighborhood that she was automatically a member of the Beach Club.
Tom Ostby, 3517 Siems Court, stated he would be materially affected by the changes to the
retaining waIL He indicated he would like to see the street continue to go through and they have
been maintaining it, not the City. He did not believe an easement agreement would be necessary.
He stated he wanted more information with respect to the vegetation on the hill and the retaining
wall look. He stated he was willing to compromise and would like to meet with the City
Enginccr. He stated he wanted to keep the right-of-way open because they owned two lots and
believed his property value would be affected if the right-of-way were closed.
Steve Erickson, 3442 Siems Court, stated he was in favor of a 4" surmountable curb. He agreed
a surmountable curb would lead to a less structured appearance. He stated he had done an
informal poll and several of the surrounding cities and neighborhood residential areas had
surmountable curb. He indicated he was not in support of the roundabouts and did not believe
there was enough traffic to warrant them, but rcquested the City take an aggressive stance on
roundabouts and adding them on Old Snelling. With respect to drainage, hc did want to see more
information as to what was being proposed, ineluding the design. He stated he believed the
membership ofthc Beach Club was 50-55 residents, which was 10-12 under the assessed number
of homcs. He also noted thcrc were some Snelling A venue residents that were also mcmbers,
approximately 3-4, that would need to also be taken into consideration when the assessment was
put together. He requested more information as to how the water main decision was going to be
madc. Mr. Brown responded in the past they replaced the mechanical parts of the system and if
they found a main that was in poor condition, it was replaced, but in this case, they would first
start with the budget
Mr. Erickson stated he was not in favor of sidewalks and there was not enough traffic to justifY
them. He askcd about the construction on lift station 4 and the fill being placed in there, as well
as the trees being removed. Mr. Brown replied with respect to fill, there should not be any
sizable change when it was done, but temporarily there were spoil piles which would bc graded
down whcn the old lift station was removcd. With respect to the trees, where the force main carne
out, some trees necded to be removed, and would not be replanted ovcr the main. He stated they
would attempt to provide screening though.
Mr. Erickson noted he had volunteered to be the Beach Club's liaison.
Bill Henry, 3520 Ridgewood Court, Beach Club Secretary, stated they had a Beach Club
meeting and there was a genera] enthusiasm for the storm water nmoff project and using the
Beach Club marsh as some part of that, but questions were raised as to the compcnsation to the
Beach Club. He stated they did not want roundabouts and they wanted to preserve as many trees
as possible. He stated in genera] he believed everyone was looking favorably toward this.
Steve Nelson, 3475 Siems Court, pointed out there was a 2-inch overlay placed on Siems Court a
few years ago which raiscd the elevation up. He asked them to take that into considcration when
ARDEN HILLS REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
AUGUST 29, 2005
5
setting the clevation. He stated he would rather see the surmountable curb. He was not in favor
of the roundabouts or sidewalks. With respect to the watermain, he inquired as to how mueh
would that increase the assessments. Mr. Brown replied replacement of the watennain was a
City expense and would not be assessed to the residents.
Mr. Nelson stated he did not believe the Beach Club should be assessed.
Bill Thorton, 3510 Siems Court, statcd he was opposed to roundabouts and traffic did not
support a roundabout. He stated he was also opposed to sidewalks. He expressed concern about
the assessment cost and asked someone take a look at what was behind the cost and obtain
additional bids. He asked if they possibly looked at some kind of a trade off for the Beach Club
marsh lands.
Jim Connor, 3489 Siems Court, stated he had daily jogged, biked, or walked to his offices in
Downtown Minneapolis. He stated the sidewalk they had was nice, but it went nowhere. He
stated the roundabouts wcrc nice, but they did not have the room for one. He asked if the purpose
of a water system was to help the lake or a resident who had drainage problems. He stated if it
was to clean the lake, they needed to include everyone that emptied into the lake. If the purpose
was drainage problems, then the entire neighborhood should be assessed. Mayor Aplikowski
stated the purpose was to fix the road and if they could fix drainage also that was one of the goals.
Lisa Abraham, 3511 Siems Court, opposed the roundabouts. With respect to drainage and
curbs, she was in favor of curbs. She stated it was her driveway that had a lot of drainage issues.
She expressed concern about the road being brought down to 22 feet and asked parking
restrictions be put in place if this was done. With respect to the extra road, there was an easement
on both sides, with her house being on one side. She expressed concern if they closed off this that
would increase traffic for her and she believed this would affect her property values. She stated
she was in favor of the retaining walls and removing some of the trees, or else putting up a sign
that said 'Blind Driveway'. She asked if Siems Court elevation would be decreased. Mr. Brown
responded the elevation would be a little lower, but the general idea was to have the street act as a
drain and not go out into people's yards. He stated there would be some adjustments to the grade.
He indicated this would be looked at case-by-case.
Ms. Abraham stated if the elevation would be brought down in front of her house, she was in
favor of it
Jean Price, 3471 Siems Court, stated she was not interested in the roundabouts and sidewalks,
but she thought a roundabout would be nice on Snelling Avenue and Lake Johanna Boulevard.
She stated she was not in favor of the additional options of colored concrete or exposed aggregate,
but she had no opinion with respect to curb. She stated she was not in favor of signage if there
were parking restrictions put in place.
e
.
.
ARDEN HILLS REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
AUGUST 29,2005
6
.
Council member Larson asked for clarification on the reduction of the road. Mr. Brown stated
the baek-to-baek was comparable to the existing width, but there would be a loss of 2 drivable
feet
Councilmember Holden asked if roundabout were included in the price. Mr. Brown replied
they were not.
Dave Carlson, 3535 Siems Court, thanked the City Engineer for his work and stated he was
excited about this project. He appreciated that the residents were given the opportunity for input.
He stated the residents had a lot of stake in this neighborhood. lie stated if the City needed his
northern yard, they could have it He noted he got most of the drainage from Siems Court and the
drainage was eroding the lot hetween him and his neighhor and now he would now need to get
some fill. He expressed concern about tree loss on his lot and stated ifhe was to lose any trees, he
wanted to lose trees along the street and not along the lake. With respect to the driveway, he has
heen maintaining it and the retaining wall since he had moved in and put over $10,000 into the
driveway before he realized the City owned it lie stated if the retaining wall was not replaced
now, they would spend three fold in a few years. He indicated the retaining wall was falling down
and he would like to see it rehuilt, but he did not want to see the driveway extended. He stated he
wanted to see the driveway vacated and put in something more accessible and user friendly. With
respect to the roundahouts and sidewalks he was opposed to these and did not believe they were
. necessary. He stated he was also opposed to curb.
Diane Pearson, 1556 Arden Place, stated she was opposed to the roundabouts. She inquircd
about the wetlands and the ponds. She asked ifrain gardens were a part of this plan. Mr. Brown
stated he had met with the Beach Club and Rice Creek Watershed and rain gardens were
infiltration basins and in this neighborhood there were some areas conducive to rain gardens, but
noted they would need plumbing to drain them. He stated in his report they had a merging of two
ideas with infiltration basins along the wetland itself where there was natural vegetation. As a
general rule, they had to have the right type of topography and he did not believe the topography
was right for this project.
Ms. Pearson stated she was not in favor of curbs, but if there had to be curbs, she was not
opposed to surmountable curbs. She stated she was not in favor of sidewalks.
Steve Nelson, 3475 Siems Court, asked how they could allow buildings to be built in the high
water mark on Lake Johanna. He requested the Council look at this.
.
Mike Hagen, 1540 Arden Place, stated he was opposed to sidewalks and roundabouts. He asked
if there was any difference in drainage with the curb options. Mr. Brown stated a 6-inch curb
would get them another couple of inches of protection and the sunnountable and 4-inch curb were
the same protection. lie stated whether there were surmountable curbs or not, they would have
individual driveway aprons. He stated there was not a .'no curb option" because the drainage
issues would not be addressed with no curbs. He noted with sunnountable curbs, there was the
possibility of sod being pulled up in the winter by the plows.
ARDEN HILLS REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
AUGUST 29, 2005
7
.
Mike Hagen, stated he was in opposition to assessing the Beach Club. He asked if there were
going to be stonn sewers put in along Arden Place. Mr. Brown stated there would be curb and
gutter, which would be collcctcd in structures and put into treatment ponds. He noted it would
eventually get put into the lake underground.
Mayor Aplikowski closed the public hearing at 9:23 p.m.
Council member Rem left the meeting at 9:25 p.m.
6. NEW BUSINESS
A. Accept Refuse Hauler Task Force Final Report
Mr. Siddiqui stated in the fall of 2004, the City Council revised the purpose and scope of the
Assessment Policy Task Force and requested the group review and examine the impact garbage
trucks havc on the City's streets and to explore options that may reduce the wear and tear of the
streets.
The Task Force explorcd numcrous options by seeking input from the garbage haulers, studying
reports published by various consultants, and observing the process and outcome the City of .
Falcon Heights was going through as it studied organized collection.
The Asscssment Policy Task Force has completed their work and presented their report to the City
Council at their Work Session on August 8, 2005. The Council appeared to be satisfied with the
report and it is being presented at this meeting for the final approval.
He recommended the City Council accept the Assessment Task Force's Rcport on Refuse Hauling
and to jointly sign the Memorandum of Understanding between the City and the Refuse Haulers.
Bill Gillies, Task Force Member, stated he believed the City benefited with respect to the
garbage haulers in this process and he had noticed a difference in the way the garbage haulers
handled the garbage.
MOTION: Councilmember Holden moved and Councilmember Larson seconded a
motion to accept the Assessment Task Force Report on Refuse Hauling and
to jointly sign the Memorandum of Understanding between the City and the
Refuse Haulers. The motion carried unanimously (3-0).
B. Variance Extension for 3459 Siems Court, PC #03-14
Mr. lIeJlegers asked Council to consider a 6-month extension to the variance that was approved .
on August 25, 2003 and granted a I-year extension on September 13, 2004.
City of Arden Hills
2003 Street Reconstruction Program
Ingerson Neighborhood
Preliminarv Assessment Role
PID Owner ProDeffi'Address Cosl/FF Frontaqe Feet Assessment
343023410017 HOWARD A HASS ET AL 1138 INGERSON RD $51.00 100.0 $5.100.00
343023410006 JOSE A DIAZ 1143 INGERSON ROA[ $51.00 100.0 $5,100.00
343023410018 GARY W ANDERSON 1150 INGERSON ROAl $51.00 150.0 $7,650.00
343023410007 SUSAN C MENEGHEL 1155 INGERSON ROA[ $51.00 100.0 $5.100.00
343023410008 ROBERTA RUTH KINNE 1163 INGERSON ROA[ $51.00 100.0 $5.100.00
343023410019 KATHLEEN E STEDMAN 1164 INGERSON ROA[ $51.00 150.0 $7,650.00
343023410009 JEROME K WASLEY 1171 INGERSON ROA[ $51.00 101.1 $5,153.55
343023410020 MARY ANN FREY 1174 INGERSON ROA[ $51.00 130.1 $6,635.10
343023410010 CASIMIR E & JANET M SEMLAK 1181 INGERSON ROA[ $51.00 152.1 $7,757.10
343023410027 STEVEN W & MELANIE A FREIMUTH 1200 INGERSON ROA[ $51.00 157.2 $8,017.71
343023410011 CHARLES C TORREY 1201 INGERSON ROAI $51.00 190.1 $9,695.10
343023410012 WILLARD & CARL YN OLSON 1207 INGERSON ROAI $51.00 100,5 $5.125.50
343023410013 CRlSTINE P LEAVITT 1213 INGERSON ROAl $51.00 102.2 $5,214.24
343023410028 FRANCES F SWENSON 1216 INGERSON RD $51.00 109.8 $5.599.80
343023420012 DAVID J WILKEN 1225 INGERSON ROAI $51.00 98.6 $5.028.60
343023420026 DAVID C DUDYCHA 1226 INGERSON ROAI $51.00 74.6 $3,804.09
343023420013 J LESLiE REINDL 1233 INGERSON ROAl $51.00 100.5 $5,127.54
343023420014 ROBERT K COLE & 1253 INGERSON ROA( $51.00 100.1 $5,105.10
343023420015 DEWEY J & RUTH J WHITMER 1257 INGERSON ROA( $51.00 100.1 $5,105.10
3023420016 LOLAJ MURRAY 1261 INGERSON ROA( $51.00 100.1 $5,105.10
343023420030 JOHN G BULS 1270 INGERSON ROA( $51.00 183.5 $9,358.50
343023420017 HARRY L & A ALLISON CEDERHOLM 1271 INGERSON ROA[ $51.00 100.0 $5.100.00
343023420068 GLORIA B KENNEDY 1280 INGERSON ROA( $51.00 185.3 $9,450.30
343023420018 JAMES F cox 1287 INGERSON ROA[ $51.00 100.0 $5,100.00
343023420008 DOUGLAS B HARTFORD 1292 INGERSON RD $51. 00 90.0 $4,590.00
343023420009 MARK R SHEEHAN 1294 INGERSON ROA[ $51.00 112.5 $5.737,50
3430234-20019 STEVEN W BOIKE 1295 INGERSON ROA[ $51.00 100.0 $5,100.00
343023420007 JOHN T & JUDITH A KAUFMAN 1296 INGERSON RD $51.00 100.0 $5,100.00
343023420011 SHERRY LS TRUDEAU 1298 INGERSON ROA[ $51.00 100.0 $5,100.00
343023420010 MICHAEL K DOODY 1300 INGERSON ROA[ $51.00 120.0 $6.120.00
343023420020 EUGENE L VANMASSENHOVE & 1303 INGERSON RD $51.00 100.0 $5,100.00
343023420021 ERICH A LUCHT 1315 INGERSON ROA( $51.00 100.0 $5,100.00
343023420022 KATHER'NE R SANDERS 1319 INGERSON ROA[ $51.00 100.0 $5,100.00
UNKNOWN 1327 INGERSON ROA!: $51.00 75.0 $3,825.00
Ingerson Road Subtotal 4552.5 $232,179.54
Ingerson Court
3430234-20029 WILLIAM & CHYRREL KRIVIT 1252 INGERSON ROAI $47.00 217.3 $10,213.10
343023420027 WINTON R PETERSON 1232 INGERSON CT $47.00 154.4 $7,257.74
343023410029 ROBERT L WOODBURN ETAL 1220 INGERSON CT $47.00 160.0 $7,520.00
.. ~ LAKE ASSOCIATION INGERSON CT $47.00 156.5 $7.355.50
Ingerson Court Subtotal 688.2 $32.346.34
Hamline Avenue
3270 HAMLlNE AVE N
23420003
FLORAYNE E OLEN
283.3
$14.448.30
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I
I
~.
~~HILLS
.
April 8, 2003
Josephine Hills Association
Marjorie A. Alexander
3238 N. Hamline Avenue
Arden Hills, MN 55112
Dear Mrs. Alexander:
In your Assessment Objection Form from the 2003 PMP Assessment Hearing, you stated that:
. The Assessment Role overstates the front footage owned by the Association.
. The property cannot be developed.
. The assessment exceeds the benefit to the property.
Based on the plat information provided by the association, we agree that the frontage abutting
Ingerson Court should be reduced to 96 feet. Using the assessment rate of$47.00 at 96 feet, the .
assessment will change to $4,512.00.
Included is an exhibit showing that the lot can be developed for a single family home.
We believe the adjusted assessment amowlt is commensurate to the benefit of the property, as
Ingerson Court is the only access to the property.
Your objection has been reviewed by Arden Hills City Staff and recommended for change.
If you disagree with the recommendation, you will be given a chance to address the City Council
at the 2003 Pavement Management Program Assessment Hearing on Monday, April 14,2003.
For any other questions, please feel free to contact me at either of the following: E-mail:
tom.moore.(a!ci.arden-hills.nUl.us Fax: 651.634.5137, or at City Hall: 651.634.5133.
Sincerely,
Thomas J. Moore
Director of Operations and Maintenance
CC: Mayor and City Council
Greg Brown - City Engineer
.
.
I./)
~
'~-._----~._~'
-~.
30'
A
/
~ .1/
'1;)/
R>' i
J) /
L..'l
co
<<.)
- ^
::0':> ~
''V' //C
.." 'V
. 0
0~ 9J'
O~ ~'
~ (j
'tt '"
0<V "CP
# ~q,
# ~o/
Q CJ'
<?
.i.:~"
, "
.
168
68.:'7'
G\)
'J8IT
e
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
City of Arden Hills
Josephine Hills Association
March 31, 2003
Objections to assessments against the property owned by the
Josephine Hills Association.
.
On behalf of the Josephine Hills Association ("Association") I object to the $7,355.50
proposed assessment against the property owned by the Association for the following
reasons:
· The City's Assessment Roll is inaccurate and overstates the amount of footage owned
by the Association along the City's Ingerson Court right-of-way.
· The property owned by the Association cannot be developed and thus should be
exempt from the City's Assessment Roll;
· The proposed assessment for improvement to Ingerson Court exceeds any special
benefit to the property owned by the Association and thus, should be exempt from the
City's Assessment Roll; and
· The City's proposed assessment to the Association's property produces unfair and
undesirable results and thus, should be exempt from the City's Assessment Roll.
.
The Association requests that it be allowed to present Oral Objections to the City's
proposed assessments on the property owned by the Association at the March 3 I, 2003
Council meeting.
JOSEPHINE HILLS ASSOCIATION
~
rie A Alexander
President
3 51 Femwood Street
Arden Hills, MN 55112
.
.
.
.
Mayor and Council members.
On behalf of the Josephine Hills Association ("Association") I would like to identify and
discuss our objections to the City of Arden Hills' ("City") proposed assessment of
$7,355.50 to the property owned by the Association and discuss why the Association
believes the City should exempt this property trom the City's Assessment Roll
Before identifying the Association's objections to the proposed assessment, we request
claritlcation on the proposed footage rate. The Assessment Roll attached to the
November 12,2002 Feasibility Report identifies a rate 01'$47 per foot for property along
the City's right-of-way on Ingerson Court The line item on page 2 of the City's March
7, 2003 Notice of proposed assessments also identifies a rate of $47 per fool. However,
the next sentence in the Notice states the rate is $51 per fool. We assume that the $51 per
foot rate is a typographical error in the City's Notice. We request clarification from the
City and Council on this issue.
. The City's Assessment Roll is inaccurate and overstates the amount of footage owned
by the Association along the City's Ingerson COlllt right-of-way.
According to various maps of the City's right-of-way along Ingerson Court, there is 126'
along the east portion and 30' along the south portion for a total of 156' of right-ot~way
land, not 156.5' as stated in the City's Notice.
Further, documents of record, tllcd with the Register of Deeds, Ramsey County, State of
Minnesota, clearly show that the Association does not own the above amount of footage
along the City's Ingerson Court right-oj~way.
tn 1965,30' abulting the east portion of the City's right-of-way was sold to the then
owners of Lot 14, Block 4, Joscphine Hills.
In ]965,30' ofland abutting the south portion of the City's right-of-way was sold to the
then owners of Lot 16A, Block 4, Josephine Hills.
'tile total amount of footage the Association now owns is approximately 96' not 156.5' as
the City has identified in the Notice of Assessment
. The City's Assessment Policy adopted in November 1990 allows for the City to
delcte land from its Assessment Roll "ifin its opinion the land cannot be developed
and/or the improvement does not provide benefit" [NOTE: page 6 of the City's
Assessment policy] or if the assessment "produces unfair and undesirable results."
[NOTE page 3.J For the following reasons, we believe that the property owned by
"7'f
t 'M
t w" ~
2- I "
,2 B
the Association meets all of the City's criteria for exemption, and, thus, should he
exempt from the City's Assessment Roll.
.
}> As to the City's first criteria that the land cannot be developed, effective January
14,2002, the City adopted its Shoreland Management Ordinance. The Ordinance
identifies specific requirements that must be met in order to develop lakefront property.
· There must be a minimum of75' '''later frontage;
Although the Association's property abuts Lake Josephine, the Association does not have
75' feet of shoreline frontage.
. There must be a minimum 40' set back from the street;
· There must be a minimmn 50' structure setback from the ordinary high water
mark;
· There must be a minimum width of75' at the building line.
The Fernwood Channel, which is protected by the Shoreland Ordinance as well as DNR
and Rice Creek Watershed Ordinances, and thus would be subject to stringent
requirements, travels through the Association's property. Even ifthere were enough
developable area between Ingerson Court and the .Fernwood Channel to meet all of the
set back requirements of the City's zoning ordinance, the Association property clearly
cannot be developed because of the requirements of the Shoreland Management
Ordinance.
.
Thus, IUIder the City's Ordinance requirements, the property owned by the Association
cannot be developed now or in the future and therefore, should be deleted from the City's
Assessment Roll.
). As to the City's second criteria that the improvement does not provide a benefit,
Minnesota Courts have long held that in order to assess property, the property must
receive a special benefit from the improvement and that the assessment may not exceed
the special benefit The premise of this holding is that an assessment that exceeds the
special benefits to the property would be the taking or confiscating of property without
fair compensation which is a violation of the fourteenth amendment to the federal
constitution. [NOTE: Carlson-Lang, 240 NW2d at 520 (1976) citing In Ie Improvement
of Superior Street, 216 NW 2d at 320 (1927); DeSutter 489 NW2d at 239 (1992).} The
Minnesota Courts have also held that the value of a special benefit is determined by what
increase, if any, there has been to the market value of the property. The Minnesota Court
of Appeal and Minnesota Supreme Comt continue to hold that "[t]he.difference in
market value should be calculated by determining 'what a willing buyer would pay a
wming seller for the property before, and then after, the improvement has been
constructed.''' [NOTE: EHW, 503 NW 2d at 139 (1993); Joint lndep. School District,
256 NW 2d at 5]6 (1977).]
We would like to advise the COlUlci] that the Association's property is subject to an
easement of use by the heirs of Carl Ingerson. The Association does not have the legal
power to remove this easement from its property.
.
"
k
.
.
.
To determine whethcr the assessmcnt cxcecds any special benefits, one needs to look at
what, if any, special benefits the proposed Ingerson Court improvement affords the
Association members and/or whether the improvement increases the market value ofthc
Association's property.
A fun,,1lonaI roadway already exists and building a new roadway in itself does not
necessarily convey a special benefit. The Association members that typically use thc
property travel to the property by toot, not by vehicles. A new roadway \vill not provide
any new benefit to these members or if it does provide a benefIt, its valuc is negligible.
The current configuration and stmcturc of Ingerson Court provides thc necessary means
for members to access the Association's property.
Returning to what the Minnesota Courts have held that the market value should be
determined by what a ,villing buyer would pay a willing seller for the property before and
then after the construction of the improvement, one first has to determine: (I) how much
a willing buyer would pay for the vacant property if it already has a roadway that
provides access to the property and to the lake; (2) if the property is subject to an
easement for use held by others that cannot be removed by the Association and (3) the
property cannot be dcveloped due to the rcquiremenls of the City's Shorcland Ordinance
The critical determination is then how much a willing buyer would pay for the same
property with some roadway improvements that would (I) not provide bettcr land or lake
access; (2) would not cme the easement the property is subject to, and (3) duc to the
requiremcnts of the City's Shoreland Ordinance, would not make the property
developablc. We do not believe a buyer would be willing to pay more for the
Association property due to the proposed improvements to Ingerson Court
Because thc proposed improvements do not increase the market value of the
Association's property and the proposed assessment for improvement to Ingerson Court
cxceeds any special benefit to the property, thus, tailing to mcet the applicable legal
standards, thc City should delete the Association's property from its Assessment Roll.
? As to the City's third criteria that the proposed assessment produces unfair and
undesirable results and thus, should be removcd from the City's Assessment Roll; from a
review of the assessments assessed against homeowners in the roadway project at issue, it
appears that the assessments proposed to be lcvied against homeo,^,ners amount to Icss
than 3% of the market value of the a~sessed properties. However, in the case of thc
property owned by the Association, even assuming the Council agrees that the
assessment should only be for owncrship of 96 fect of property along the City's right-of-
way on Ingerson Court as opposed to 156.5 feet, the proposed assessment is 41 % of the
property value ba~ed upon the 2003 assessed valuation of the Association's property. If
the City maintains the $7,35550 assessment that would be 66.9% of the property value
based upon the 2003 assessed valuation ofthc Association's property Clearly, assessing
a small undeveloped, and undevelopable, picce of property 41 % of its property valuc,
J
and undevelopable, piece of property 4 I % of its property value, when homeowners in the
area are typically assessed less than 3% of the value of their properties, produces "unfair
and IUIdesirable results."
.
At the very minimum, the property owned by the Association should be assessed at a
ratio which is no more th.an the assessment to value ratio th.at exists for the developed
homeowner properties within the scope of this project. The City's Assessment Manual
states that a criteria of tairness should be applied. We believe that assessing the
Association property at a ratio that is more than 13 times greater than the ratio at which
other properties in the neighborhood are assessed falls short ofthe City's own standard.
In summary, the Association believes that the proposed assessment against the
Association is based upon inaccurate information about the property owned by the
Association. We further believe that pursuant to the City's Assessment Policy the
Association's property fulfills all of the City's criteria tor being exempt from the City's
Assessment Roll. Namely, that it cannot be developed; the improvement provides no
special benefit, and that the proposed assessment produces "lUIfair and IUldesirable
results." We, therefore, object to the City's proposed assessment and request that itbe
deleted from the City's Assessment RolL
.
.
4
.
.
.
~
~/HILLS
CITY OF ARDEN IDLLS
COUNTY OF RAMSEY - STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 03-40
A RESOl,UTION
Adopting the J<'inal Assessment Roll for
Karth Lake East and Ingerson Neighborhood Streets
2003 Pavement Management Plan
WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by law, the City Council of Arden
Hills, Minnesota met on March 31, 2003, April 14,2003, and Apnl 28, 2003, heard and passed upon all
objections to the proposed special assessment rolls for the improvement of tbe Karth Lake East and
Ingerson Neighborhood streets as hereafter provided.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Arden Hills, Minnesota:
The proposed special assessment rolls, as amended pursuant to City Council action, copies of
which are attached hereto and made a part hereof, are hereby acccpted and shall constitute the special
assessment rolls against the lands named therein, and each tract of land therein included is hereby found
to be benefited by the proposed lmprovement in the amount of the special assessment levied against it.
The special assessment shall be payable in equal annual installments extending over a penud of
ten (10) years for reconstruction projects and over a period of five (5) years for mill and overlay projects.
The first installment of such special assessments shall be payable on or bcfore first Monday in January
2004 and shall bear interest at the rate of 5.5 percent per annum from the date of the adoption of this
special assessment resolution. To each subscqucnt installment when due shall bc added mterest for one
year on all unpaid installments.
The owner of any property so assessed may, at any time prior to certification of the special
assessment to the Ramsey County Auditor, pay the wholc of the assessment on such property, with
interest accrued, to the City Accountant, except that no interest shall bc charged if the entire assessment is
paid within 30 days from the adoption of this rcsolution; and the property owner may, at any time
thereafter, pay to the City Accountant the entire amount of the special assessment remaining unpaid, with
interest accrued to December 31 of the year in which such payment is made. Such payment must be made
bcfore Novembcr 15 or interest will be charged through December 31 of thc next succeedmg year.
The Deputy Clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this special assessment to the
Ramsey County Auditor to be extended on thc property tax lists of the county. Sucb special assessments
shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as other municipal taxes.
ADOPTED by the City Council this 28th day of April, 2003.
ATTEST:
C~~j~rk
~ .
_. .i.t'
6f~y~R
.,
0
0
N
., ;;;
N <'
;; :; J ( .
C .
,
C 0 "
" !> !> ~
" G ..
U U u E
c .;
. .. '" "' ~
E ~ .. ~ G e
E 0 ~ ,g
0 " ;; " =
0 ~ J ~ ~
. ~
'" ~ ~ " ~
t E c c ~
G 0 ~ <; '0
;;; 0 0 0 z' ;;;
G . ,'<;>
E E 'E E
. . 'J<'ll G
U ~ '" W '"
. c c 'c
;; ~ .. .. ..
, ~ E E ~
U ~ . .
" " '"
.
~
.
E . . .
e E E E
G G G
U '" :(1) '"
. c c 'co
;; 'l; .. ..
, " E ~E E
U . . .;:j .
" ~ '" '"
c '0
.~ J
" ~
. c
i'i "
0 0
i 0 0 0 0 0 O'N
0 0 0 0 0 0 '<t:,~
.; 0 '" '" ,0 ,0 ~ 0
g g ~ ~ 0 0 ~m
n n~ 00
:: m ~ " " -.it:
................. ....~
~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~~
.; '" '" g 0 ,....:~
" ci 0 " " ~r
~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 00
" " " " " " qq
10 ~ ~ 10 ~ r
:: :: m
.....................~
~
~
. w w w wwwww
;; ~ ~ ~ >>>>>
u -1:<:(<(<:(~
" z z z zzz zz
r 0 0 000000
. z z z z zz zz
z z z z z ~~~
0 " " " " "
.;: 0 0 0 OOO{)(;)
n ;:; ~ G ~ . N N
N n 0 ~O ON
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~
'C
o
o
E
o
.c
~
w
=>
~
'" W
'" ~
~ &
o w
-x: 2: I-- ~ >-
~z21--~z~~
..:( ?:: ~ I--::::'Z-o..:
o O~O~r<(OZ
o a:a::m-,Oz2
3:: m UJ~Ul"" OC(l)
o W3: <:(UJ<d2~
~ 69Q.6~Q.'~
<o:<<(:nOWZ~
G ..... Z:! a:: (:) ~ rr
~ :g~g}i~~
j
- .
C ~
.-
E 0
.-'
~ ~
. .
. C
~ ~
<(,3
"iic
Co
iLz
~
<ooa><o~<,>...
0.....-0.................
00000000
0000000-0
.... ~~~~~~~
M ...,..............., M C':l
...... .......'" '" "'N
0000000"':>
.... t?......,..........!1
~ ~:;:; ~;;;1; M
.
.
.
E
e
~
g~gggggg~*~g~gggggggg~
~~~~~~~~~~;~~~~~t~~~~~~
m~~~~<o~~~~." <Om~<O<O<O<O<Ow~m~
.....--------7-............................................
oo~qqqqqq~~~~~qqqq~qq~~
.~~oooooo<o~o~~moooooomw
om~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~3~~~~~~~
<O~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
----------~------------
wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
~~~~~~~ococa~oc~~~~~~~~~~~
0000000000 000000000000
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
00000000000000000000000
~~~~~~~~~~8~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
U0uouuuuuo~uuuuuuuuouuu
g~~~~~~~~o~~~~g~~~~~~~~
-~~______~~_NNN_____~__
-----------------------
;=
J
"
'" w
~ ill ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~
~ g 0 ~
~ m ~ I
Z ~ , ~
~O ~ oz1 6 ~ ~
~J ~Zz >O~ ~ ~ r ~
~oo ~oo ~~ocz ~ N<<
oo~~ I~OOZW~~~w ~~~~ ~ r
W5~u ~~~OZI~.~J IWWw~~J ~
>0 ~~O~ZOO<<OO OW o~jromW~ ~
~~~~~:o~~~~' ~~~~~~OO~c~~
.~ ~~z ~m W~OW>ZWI~~O
~3~rW~z~,~~~~~~oo~~~~~zw~
rJWI~W~ r>~~~~J ~oow~zwWoc
J z~woc-Qu~w~z-~9~wZ~w~IW
~~ZOww~>e~m~zj >OC~IIoc~~m
jffi~~g~~~~~~~~~~~~~Q~g~~~
~;~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:*~~:~~
00000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000
__________~_N__________
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN
00000000000000000000000
~~~~~~nnn~ll""~nn~nnnn~n
vvvvvvv~v~ vvvvvvvvvvvv
"nnnnn~nnn nnnnnnnnnnnn
.
u
..
.
'4
;;;
OOOO_OOOOOOOO~OO_OOO
rloqq~oooooooo~n_~_~~
~cioomcici6ocicicici~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~6~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~----~~~~----------
c.
<'1qqq:ri
~:i::i::i~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~m~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
---~-----~~---------
I
~
=>
"'''
:'jW
,,'" Z
WlL g
WZ We J
Jz4:: :E~ 0 Z
z zwz~>- l-ZfuZI-~
a l- zo~ ~G~~~>-~~<<~~Z ~
~1- 200 o~OO.<<wI~ooweW~<<e 0
O~N~O~~~~;,wzl-w~<<,~o~w Z
<<S~IOOJ~INOW~W~~~~l-UJ W
zQ~umJ~oo~~~:E z~zw~u~~ o~
OOlLW lL 00 u~w z >WOW .,.
IJ) z...J~ ~wO::i' oc.~ ~ z::r UJ ~ ~ ~z ~ oc ~oc8'3
<<~QZJrI4~W~~WIO>-~~~jl-z2QIJ)
~~~~ffi~~~o~~g~~ffi~~~~~~~~~~
z~aJ~Z~~I'0w<<~.~UWu~ulLtiQ.
38~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000
_~~~~__~___~______r_~NNN
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
NNNNNN~NNNNN~NNNNNNN~NNN
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOQOOO
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
nnnn~~nn~~nnn~nn~~n~~~~~
.
:i:\
,
in ~! in
~ , .
.
" :c
~ ~f;j ,
D D
2 k "
.~
~ :j; u
" "
<L J,f! <L
15 15
~ ~
~ r ~
E ':! c
0 "
u u
;~~
(8
1tlt
\:iij.
'..
U;.
;1
M
o
o
N
ii5
,
J!fi
i?"o
:f2
$i'. . . .
c c c
H . . .
,'<11 ~ ~ ~
f:g ~ ~ ~
'0 i= i= i=
,.....
":e 2 2 2
u u ~
" " "
<L <L <L
;; ;; .2
~ ~ t
c c E
" " 0
u u u
f.~
:.i~~
f@
'.
iiJ
~
c
S!
;;;
~
c
.
E
E
o
g
'"
"
.
in
:g
;C
.i)
:
o
:if
:i
;
8';
''''~'
,'.G>
'E
!t!
o
.
b>
~
.
it
~,"
'V~
"
o
UE
Ow
,"w
~o
~w
H
-f,,>,
ifj
0",
'~">
It:;
.~
.
'"
o
~.
o
<>
.
"
o
u:
~
~
,-
u:
<i~
~;
r.
.~
..
:b
-ii
IE
i~
.
".
'$
fi
:c\
~y
Ie
'l:Zi
Th
r
'72
'S
;r
~-
'~
c
~
.
.
1::
,2
i1;;
~
r
;'-'
'f;
c
'"
~J'
~'"
-~..
!
c::.c
.~:e'
U:: '
~:I
r;;g~
rol,a
t. _.~~
~>~
'1".0","7
~~~;
.r;;.
'E:,
;'0
'S:c
!
c
S!
U
.
D
o
.
'"
III
~,
o~
o
ci
w
"'
u:
~
'"
l!,t
gggggQgggg~
goi-.icicid;ocicici.D~
gr;;r;;~~~~~~~~rol
.:.::i:.'::.~~~~~a~
,C,:;, ''\',
'ii, ,~~
~&~,gggg&ggg~~
~~~'~g~;~~g~Eg
"',co 0.... w _ 'I" CI;"" ....
o:t ~ <'I' <'I";..j ~ r-:." It:i *..;
z;;.....- ---.......................
I:: 000 <:>
~ ~ ;6:6:
:g ~~~:!:
.
~
.
0 0 ~
0 0 g ~
g g g ci
:i: ( '\
,
/
0 0 0
ci ci ci
0 0 0
" " "
iii ::: ;;
w
'}:~
o l-- r- ~ 0: o:,~, 0: q q 0 '"!
cioi".ggg:Nggg.o~
00 OO.............r............r-...
j
g.oC>C>oo~.ooooo
qC?:C?:C?:C?:po:o:C?:C?:C?:
....................._....-.---........r-
"''''''''OI)OI)U> 1n.......IO><r
__....__w".,---__
e..'
~q....:~OOOC><'Io~,q<o
~:g ,...:.- 0 ~ ~ 1J ~ 0 g ~ ~
N N r- ~ U> '" In.... <0;....::....
'>
q:oii
o,i\!Il'
~
~I~~~~ ~e
1Il ....-........ . ...
o ""lil'l"" on Of)"
0....--- -
ggg,g g g g ~g g.ggg ~8:
~~~.~&f~~~~~~~1
zwz;zzzzzz~~ I
w>wiiiwwwwwwW<( :g
><(> >>>>>>;;>:r ;~
<(Ul<(i$<(<(<(o:(<(o:(i%.U.:iii:
W~LUWI.UUlWWWWUJOWla'
5~5~555555~t>~'~
~~~~~~?t?i?i~~~~~$;
:Z::Z:Z::!!i,:rI:x:rI:I:,~<(:J:.9!
~;1j~~~:~~~gg~.::w:E,;,~
~~~:~~~::::::::;:;;:;;~~~)g}
~
000000""00000
0:(<(..(<(<(<( 0:(0<(..(<(<(
000000 00000
O::O::O::lrlr<< o::o::a::D::lr
ZZZZZZ ZZZZZ
OOOOOO,j!l;ooooo
(t)U)U)U)CI)fI) (/)U)(f)U)(/)
u:o::trO::lrlr o::a:a:O::lr
WlUWWWW WWWWW
GGGCI(!)c.91l10ClClClCl
~~~~~~2!~~~~~
l--N'<tIlla)-<:o-b"'II'lCl>l--N
<0- <I> '" '" "'''''':OO........N OIl
NNNC\lNN...fo)M.........N
.... ....................'n....................
00000
~~~~~~
u 0:::0::0:::0:: lr
~aaa~6
ffJ(tjffJV) (I)
t:: 0:::0::0::0:: lr
WWWW W
OClC}Cl Cl
~ ~~~~ ~
......... ....0
1I'l0000lPr- r-
~~~~ ~ .
w w w
z z z
:l :l :'j
'" '" '"
W W W
J ~ ~
~ J ~
i= i= i=
~ E ~
'U
0
D
1:
D
.Q
.c
E
"
z
c
0
l'
"
0>
E
"
-S
(;
-
!J
c
"
E ..
..
.. 0
" ..J
.. (;
.:{ (
'0 1:
D
.. 0
0 .
...
c
\<:(.
:d~
...J ,~.'
O;J:
:rQ';
lr,_
w..
O~
W
u
a;'"
~w
~
<i
<i
""m
...Jf?!
>-'"
'"
O::UlI
<i0
:rb:::
;hi w
;~ U)
:1 :.::
~ ::?
i:"" 0
~ ~i:~ ~!::
~ ~o U)>
o ~ :I: (f)Wtt:
a::: -cr: ~ ~ ~ o::::!: ~
o ::0:::<( q) wO...J
~z <(uJ;"'.~ ~~~
Ct.'-<(w:x;oOi:::!: <(~o::
0<(:X;X:1-~8 "'(1)0>-
)(rwOO~6~ro::-...r
OlD~m~U)-&>gw...JO
(J U)U)~ ...J.'H ...J...JZ ~ ""
u. :)lrz:>-:.:uw-cr:Q::X;::!:
f3C1;!;~z~~~Q~:J:3
,:E::l.....wrw.C1_I-...J-I
~g~~~~~~ffi~~~
.!it.
,~:
~3
.;z:1
w>-
z wz
o ;.JZ
I: ::; ~ jE~
,'" () o:::W ~Z
:.~ ~ ~~ '~,~
r;, ...J ..J Z Z Z(I)
Z .z > W>-O:::OW...J
ZOzaCl>-ZW..J~U)I-~
WWrJ:lO,slrlror~:.ca:~:z:
~5~~~:g~:~w~~~~
>w:I:<t::Z:...J",,::!o<>o~z:oo
<(wo::J~~ oU)u.~~-;o::
w~o.::!:ao~~ffi~.8o<(
~-<(cr::~mZ<(Iro::~;.JO::::;
...Jo::<(",w)-~l-l-rzWo<(
~g2~.~ri~gfi~~~~f;
IU.lrO'n<(+-,a)::O:::lL.'.;;:((tO
',01
":11
>!:S,
."c".,
~<~
Z;tt:'," -
0'3
l-rJ:ltl)".
0::0::0....
6~,~i
u~,3;Q
ZO::~'0
z"'"
~.t~
C):?;m~.
z~it:~
i1f..f:
~ ,'re;g~'
gg~
~:""':'~;
~ ~~,
0;0 '''-<.
~H
..,
o
o
-E
o
"
~
'" ..
w w
:>: "
~ >-
'i' D
~ Z
00' D
w%>-~
...JS~:r
80::<<(1)
x:0,5~0,5
I-"":!:~
"I "'>-,~
~ ~~:)~
~ ~~g(i
0:
<L
t;: "
.
0 " "
'"
u <5 '"
W
I '" '"
u
w ~ .. z
z => w ill
:'j r :>: ~
D 0 "'
W z r ~
~
~ <i '" 0
" >- u u
'" <i "'
;! :g :!
0
0 0 0
~ ;\ ~
~
~ ~
0 0 0
~ ~ ~
. . .
i1t
,...:ti
~-
0:0:
o
;(,
N~'
~~
-;1:;
;\,
rt
8
'M"
.:;
N
.~
'"
~1nU>0
.............<'1
0000
~ 0000
- N N..........
0.. ~~ ~ ~
<?<?<?...
NNNN
0000-
~~~~
<?<?M...
0;) <0 """"l--....po..........,..,
-.- 0- 0.... 0- -"--,"""C\I NoN.... N
gggggggggggg
NNNC\lC\lNNNNrolNN
~~~;;;;;\:~~~;;;1i;f;
oN.... N N N "';N N N C\I C\I N
0000000'00000
;t~~~~~'i~~~~;l
~~~~g~8:g~g~~
0008000000'80-
~~o C>~~~~~~~
;1i;1;i. ;i~~~~~"~
NN....NNNrol........NNN
0000000000000
~~~ ;;;t~~~~:a;{
.
.
.
'"
o
o
[CI
W
N
:;,c
en
0::
::>
~
<: CD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
'" ~ C'! 0 C'! 0 0 <X! 0
E N It) ~ 0 0 CO 0> CO
II) CO 0 0 0 0 It) CD 0
II) 0 ~ 0> ": t- O!. ~ ~
'" -
II) N ~ ~ ~ ~ N N N
II) <17 <17 <17 <17 <17 <17 <17 <17
<(
~I CO t- M M M C'! "! M
ci ~ t- M M CO CD ~
~ N M M M It) ~ ~
I It) C'! 0 0 0 0 ~ 0
N It) N 0 0 .,. 0> ~
N <D ~ 0 0 ..... M N
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
u. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
u. C'! 0 0 C'! 0 0 C'! 0
+>
II) ~ ~ ~ ..- ~ ~ ~ ~
0 I() It) It) It) It) It) It) It)
() <17 <17 <17 <17 <17 <17 <17 <17
'" W 0 0
'" > <( <(
'" a a
... w z a:: a:: a:: w w W
"0 > I- 0 Z Z Z
"0 <( en z z <( <( <(
<( z a a
z ll. a -I -I -I
f: a <( I- en en a:: a:: a::
a:: a::
E z -I -I W W W W W
Z z a:: -I -I -I
0 <( ~ <( CJ CJ -I -I -I
... () 0 () z Z I- i= i=
ll.
~ M N ~ ..... It) N 0
0 <D 0 t- co N ~ M
M M ~ N N M N ~
~ M ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
:2:
-I
a
J:
a::
w
0
W ll.
() ll.
Z I- en
a u. en
z I- en a :2: C>
w ~ a:: en 0 ::::i a:: a::
~ a w w ~ <( -I () () w
z a:: :2: > 0 0 <( J: Z en
w -I " >< () z
> en N 0 a:: <( a w I- en
<( w 0 z Z 06 () Z ~ W W
Z Z ~ a <( :c :2: I-
Z :l<:: Z a -I -I U. -I en
a () en >- a:: 0 a
... w I- -I a:: en J: ~
'" z a:: > -I a:: w w Z
<: Z I- a:: ~ w a:: :2: -I <( a:: a
w C>
~ <( <( I- <( a:: <( <( -I >- () ()
a () ll. en () w Z J: ..., i= a:: <( en
co N 0 ..... co ~
~ M ~
0 0 <D ~ ~ .,. It) ~
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
~I 0 M 0 0 0 0 0 0
M ~ ~ N N N ~ ~
~ M ~ ~ ~ ~ .,. ~
M N M M M M M M
N 0 N N N N N N
0 M 0 0 0 0 0 0
M ~ M M M M M M
~ M ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
M . M M M M M M
-.
o
a
a
:c
a::
a
en
:c
C)
w
z
z
a
en
a::
w
C>
z
a::
a
u.
w
-I
a
a::
J-
z
w
:2:
UJ
UJ
w
en
en
<(
I-
a
-I
a::
w
z
a::
a
()
c.
.
~
o
o
~
ro
N
"
0
0
~
<; j
'"
~
'"
,
z
10
ro
W
w
~
ro
~
~
="
0 ro
"""
C .
0-
E 0
.-'
0
ii:
c
w
uE
.;:
,.
-"
1I~
;;
.
~
u'
.
U::~
, c
.- 0
" .
<(~
OC~~~~~~<<~~OC~OC~~~~OC~~OCOCOCOCOCOCQOCOCOCOC
aaoaoooQocaoooaoaaaaaaaoaaocQooa
www~wwwwwwwwwwwwwwiliwwwwwwwwwwww
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
4JJ~JJJJJJJJJJjjJJ~JJJ~JJJJJJJJ
IIrrIrrrrrrrrrrrrrzrrrrrrrrrrrr
~~rrrr~~r~~~~~rrr~Errrrrrrrr~r~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~
c
g
"
"
c
E
E
o
o
o
'"
'"
0;
c
g
~
~
o
c
00000000000000
<'1000000'00000.0'"
oicicio oc:ici o cici<r:ici ci....
~-s--.t"......,...,.O..,.O..,...,...,...,.r-
00.........................................................
...........--..--,..:,..:........:...........................-
....--.......................-..............
"
o
.::
~
~
;:
o
u
"""'<0... "'';;Ott> 0""''''''''''''''''''
:;...G>(fI"''''~...~'''~a>G>:j.
00.000000000000
00.000000000000
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
........-----........-----
.
.
.
;,
1I
.
o
0""'...........,.1--(\1100.<'>..,""'...
g~~~E~~~~~~::S;:
z
o C>
'" z
:< z
~ z
'" 0
OC z G
OW 0 rI.l
;:::; -,z [I) z
W rj;i~:i z~
~<1 8 ~a:woU)oo
o~ I- ....l ::::c.x>.ocrn,
::C::!- w W~u.o~Z~~a1l
O::~ ~ i:~""a1l(f)..:(w...Jtt::
~<( ~ U)owocoz:!;;~~
-<<:<(zZ ~>-ffi~>-~~<(z
>.ruw~ zD::...1....l~o-t:iL:
a::~tr~~ i=~~g:i;'~~~lrl
w~!;(~cnc~~~!r:..,~~otI:t
~ CL::E06_::.;: 061-:!: "o!l<(W
<(06<>llWOff: ..,~.>-o..... I
-'~a::zc3::QO~:506w5cr
~~:x:~4!x:z~6~o~6~5
$:t~~5~6~~~~~~~~
~"'~~Q''''''-1:::r:Zc)a:I.....u,
""......,....-......N<'>I..-..-<"'IO..-...
..-...........-Ltl..........-oo...........--....o
00000000000000
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
......-................--......................................
....n............""''''''...............,....
NNN...............NNNN...."'....
00000000000000
................<")...........,<"'1..,..,...
N...............NNNNNNNNN
NNNN"'oNNNNNNNNN
,
)/
.
:a
~ ~~<
'" ,
;,
" 0
if ;;;
0
;; g
-' ~3:_
. 0
C ~
" -':C
U '"
~
:::
!'>
M
3t
",
,J;_~
~
~
'ij'--
~--
~
J(
),;:
;!il
;g
~
::2
-Ii
~
"
00000000000000000
oOO~O""-ON""O""NOO"''''O
cioo~~w~~~oo~~o,~~
-....-..,...~~....""....-....~....""O...N...
::::::;~~::::~::::::;
...._....~.... ----------
~;-)
1il
o ~
~
LtI....-onNll)..--"""'.......'<tonN....CO
...~-~:~~*::~~~~~;:~~
.....,-.-- -..--.......... .......-
ooooboooooooooooo
00000000000000000
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
----~---........_--_........-
%
g~~ob~~~~~~~~~~~~
..-....."''bNNN...N''''......NN'''N
..--..--...- ......................--....-.--..--.......--...--
iJ>
"';--
'k
;J;'
Sf
>- b
w z
z ~
~ ~-~
~ o!r:ffiQ a
~ 3wgg a ~ rZ
U~-1~lG ~ 00<( ~~
~j~w~~ ~ ~~~ IZ
:i;'WI:!;[jI 0 NZO<( m<(
..,~,~~s , Z~!r:~~ OI
<(0-);'< -1ZWI-Wzt? <(ot:
~~:!;I0mZ~o.~O>-oa::>-<(
~~crzO<<w<(cn<(otIa:1ocaW~O
~~0<(o<(-'~Z-I-J<(3> z
~zw~m~~I~~~~ ~GJ
--..,.'W..,...cnO<(n.<( :: ""
~ou>zcrcn~~a~~~am<>llJ
~~~~ffi~~wJ~~:::r:~~~~~
I<<Z~~~U>-wO>-~~~~W
~a~>~~~~~~~~~~w~~
~a~~~~~m~~I-OZOOO>
');
~~*~~~~:~~~;~~~~~
00000000000000000
00000000000000000
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"~~""~"~~~"""Mrt""nM
~NNN~NNNN"''''~NNNNN
0000000000000'0000'
MMM"'~M"'"M"'nnMMMM'"
""N"''''~NNNNNNNNNNN''''
NNN"'N"''''NNNNNNN'''NN
.
''0:'&'
ii
Si~t
." .',
1'$;*'
~;!U
~
i!l
,~.
oll'..
i~
.5>
,;;.
i:
?
'"
:;
5
o
;;
f4
~b
!
;Sl
.,
iQ
~:
~
:E
~
'"
'$
t~
""
~
(/'i;"',~
t:E:;t
!;~
,-.,
:iE'
~'Gl":
,"-'
.~
.E
:;;
'.E
..
~~
"
;g
'u
_:<<1
f')
,~
;s'.
.3
"
"
ooooooococo....-o"b;'
0<0000000"""'0
N cO ci cO ci cO";: ~ ~...:.... S
....""..,..,""<ONat....t-
COt-.............N <'l<"l....-.o
.....................................=..---..-~
---------""'....
"''''''''....-lfl "t-(I>'" N..--
..,m...O...O'OO""....~
...-.... .... .........0.0.,;..--
..... .......--.....
(
00000000000
00'000000000
~~~~~~~~~~~
--.............-....-""''''''''''''''-
"
o:::o:::o:::o:::o:::o:::cr:a::a::crn-:
UUUUOUOODOO
I--I-I-I-I-I-I-~I--I--'"
~:<:<:<:<~:<:<:<:<:<
~~~~~~~~~~~
WWWWWWWWWWUJ
J....IJJJ...J....I....I....I-I.J
o..CLQ.Q.Q.D..Q.Q..Q..~Q..
'''0,,"0,,",0(1)0,,",0'''
~~E2~~~~~~~
~
,.
N
o
~
J
m
"
,.
o >- I- Z l: 1j'
~ ~ ~ I-fh ~jg
ffi~a ~z~~ ;:[i
~~~ D..OO~ ~'
~mz <"'-' zw~
~ I ~ Z cHu ~ :in~d~':
~<(IZ~'OO::: ....IWi'<
<JI-O<o:lZQ~~WI\;i:i::
.JU<(~ ~a::a:wClo"m
!!iiiw::.::J::::!<tm<(....I~(I)gJi
o ~ U <>II ~ ~ CI <>II:i;' ~ ~ Z:,'
1-.., "" W ll. 0 061- ",,:X:C1 ~:i';-'
<(3:~wll.a::Wm.c(....JW;~;
~).Q:!;tii~~~9~t!?'_
~~~~:i:~~ffi~g~tii~~'
ll.ClCI-.I-a::,OJa::O,,1II;
;tf;.
t-t- co... "" "" 0....-..... MN-rf'ol
...-N...............""NNNN~n_
ggggggggggg~;8
......................--.......--......-- ......... b"~-
;;:;;;;;;;;;;;::;;;;;;:n:;;~
NNNNNC'oCNN"'NN,''N
ggi:"~ggggg~g)g
~~~~~~~~~~~:Lf~
:Z'\
~
.~
:B'
r
~
z
IO
00
~.~
~~
<t.s;
WQ
~<<
<l!l;i:(
all,
>-.~
~:i;
~~
wW
~'"
~~
00
;:.~
"'-ilo'l
NN
00
MM
NN
NN
.
.
~
o
o
~
"'
N
"
.
ro
W
m
~
ro
-'
~
~t
o ro
""""
" ~
m_
~.3
~ "
m m
~ c
~ "
<<,3
jij c
c 0
ii:z
c~~1
{di
,c j!
!~
:~
"ff}::~
,2
u
o
o
-E
o
.D
~
~
..
z
>".
i?~ ,i;
>~. 'c
H
....:::t:w
... ~ =!=,z
~~g~
olfJ.:Ecc:
~~w
0:.<(-'
~b~
.0 :::Jo
ID~~
H~9<6
!'Sri'"
~~g
Z:E<t
>'<Z
o~g
<<
~ Ow
ll.I W....I (I)
....I <(~>- ~ w
:;; <(On:: fI'J .....
~ uo:a~::: <t
J ~~~I~ ~
Z ::~C)In:: c(
<(~ ~06~~0UJ ~
~~ u?;~U~~ !Q
.....JU ;:;J=06zaU~
~otI~~6ffig05<r/Jffiu
....,.:3wc(Uv.:<t>~UOll
~.JmNOUJu...JZOll'
wO::I06:50<(;JLUa:Z
a:<(Z~IJ...<<~(]a:w~
~G6~<t~;;!~~~~
<(I""Z:;:'::::EI-~~WUJ
..,.~....-
......
Q~~~
0.."<""""'--
"""
oN>f\ol N
000
"" "
.NNN
~ ~~
0....""<"/.....10000<'>...>-
. "'.........""...""""""V>
000000000000
~~~~:=~:=:=;.'e;.'
..................,..............................
....."..."".....,...,..,...,...,""
NNNNNNNNNNN
00000000000
................n..,...,..,.......
NN....""""....NN.......""
.......,NNNNNNNNN
...
0.0000
<0"1"...
N~.o""-:.a:
"'.,....<OU>ll>
......c....
........................
----...
~"':";"':f'!
....<>>""CON
~~;:~~
00000
OQOOO
EEEEE
a::a:ct'a::a:
uuouu
wwwww
-.JJ...J...I...I
mmmmm
'lOH'l'l
<0. on....,.
H~H
iIZ~I
:J~~...Jg
WO')O~:i::
~~@gUJ
cnuw::!<m
w~~~<(~
...JI~I-!!L<
~U<o!~.JolJ
-ad...J 06...J
~Ld<r/J~u::
wa:ffi~1I)
~~lu~~
O::OD...I-a:
"..,., oN 0.....
NO..... ...........
00000
00000
;!;!;!;!:!
01')01')01').......
NNN.....N
00000
................0')
NNNN<'4
oNoNN......
"-.
(
~
~
ci
~
~
'"
~
~
c.
."
o
o
"
:;
.a
"
'"
-,;
Z
"
0<
..
-'
"
"
..
><
~
~
..
c
"
E
..
..
"
..
..
<(
'0
"
:>
..
>
..
o
I-
..
o
-'
:;
c
:;
CJ
.
.
'"
<:0
<:0
N
,
.
e
::)
<:> <:> <:> <0 co <0
C <0 <0 I() ~ <0 ....
., M ~ I() '" ~ '"
E <0 M <0 <:> <:> '"
'" "l. ~ .... ~ M
U) '" '" '" '"
U) ~ '"
., '" '"
U)
U)
<(
SIJ <:> ~ I() I() I() ....
'" .... <:> co M '"
N M ~ I() M M
j m OJ I() ~ '" '"
I() M .... It! ~ ~
<0 ~ '" I() <:> OJ
~ .... .... <:> '"
~ ~
u.. <:> <:> a a <:> a
u.. a a a a <:> a
- N ~ ~ '" N N
-
U) ~ I() I() ~ ~ ~
0 '" '" '" '" '" '"
0
U) 0::
U) Q 0::
.,
'- W Q
'0 ::.:: I-
'0 <( 0:: 0:: 0:: 0::
<( ..J Q Z Q Q Q
f: I W <( W W w
<n
I- ..J <( ..J ..J ..J
~ 0:: lO W lO lO lO
0 <( ::'!: ..J ::'!: ::'!: ::'!:
'- ::.:: <( a. <( <( <(
a.
a I() N I() M ....
OJ ~ N .... ~ N
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ .... ~ ~ ~ ~
>-
W
Z
w Q
I Z C>
0 w 0:: Z
..J C> 0 :J
:J u.. <n
~ <( u..
::::i z
0 I w
0:: w 0 u.. z
'- <( ..J a.
., ::'!: ..J :J ::.:: 0
c ::::i <( <n 0 <n
;: O/! ..J I w 0::
0 ..J W <(
w z a.
> w w <( ::'!: O/! 0:: w
<n ..J 0:: w <( I W a.
0:: 0:: 0 lO > a. w <(
Q u..
<( 0:: w 0:: O/! >- I-
W Z
W ..J 0 Q Q <( ~ Z 0::
::.:: Z
<( $: I- O/! I- >- 0:: :J w O/!
..J 0:: Z 0:: Z 0:: Q I ..., W
I :J <( Z <( 0 W Vl O/! ::'!:
Vl Vl
l- I <( <( <( C> ..J C> >- 0
0:: I- W >- W w lO Z 0 0::
~ 0:: ..J 0:: ..J 0:: ::'!: <( 0:: W
<( a. lO a. C> <( l- I- ...,
co M
I() ~
'" a
.... N '" '" <:> <:>
M M ~ M <:> ~
a a a a ~ ~
~I <:> a a a ~ M
N .... ~ ~ M N
~ ~ ~ ~ N <:>
M M M M a M
N '" N '" M N
<:> a a <:> '" N
M M M M '"
N N '" N
N N '" '"
"-~-~
( )
Q
o
o
I
0::
o
10
I
C>
w
z
w
::.::
<(
..J
I
I-
0::
~
0::
o
u..
W
..J
o
0::
I-
Z
w
::'!:
Vl
Vl
W
Vl
Vl
<(
I-
o
..J
0::
W
Z
0::
o
o
o
.
ARDEN HILLS REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
APRlL 14,2003
13
.
Mayor Aplikowski stated staff had reviewed the objection from Lowell J,
Anderson and Kathleen Welte, 3162 North Hamline Avenue and recommended
change,
MOTION: Councilmember Rem moved and Councilmember Grant
seconded a motion to uphold staffs recommendation for
change. The motion carried unanimously (5-0).
Mayor Aplikowski stated staff had reviewed the objection from Steven Zilmer,
3363 N. Dunlap Street and recommended denial.
Council decided to discuss this later in the meeting.
Mayor Aplikowski stated staff had reviewed the objection of William Krivit,
1252 Ingerson Road and recommended denial.
William Krivit, 1252 Ine:erson Road, stated staff had answered two of his .
questions, but he asked the legality of property he owned that might have been
changed. He stated they were still working on the legality of the lot lines and he
was going to call them tomorrow. He stated he would withdraw his objection.
Linda Swanson, Lake Iosephine Association, read from a prepared statement
regarding the objection by the Association to the assessment.
Marjorie Alexander. 3251 Fernwood Street, stated she lived adjacent to the
Josephine Association property, which she stated was considered total wetland by
the Rice Creek Watershed. She stated when they built their home, they needed
special permission from Rice Creek Watershed because of the wetland status, and
they needed many variances from the City. She stated at this point, it would not be
possible to build a home on that property.
Councilmember Larson stated the reason for the 41 percent assessment on the
value of the property was because it was undeveloped and there were also other
lots in the City that had this issue. He asked the City Attorney regarding the
casement that crossed the property and the covenant on it.
Mr. Filla replied if the property was buildable before the improvement project
was constructed, it was buildable after. If the property was impacted by a large
.
.
.
.
ARDEN HILLS REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
APRiL 14,2003
14
use easement before, it was impacted after. The use has not changed as a result of
this project. What they needed to figure out was if this project improved the
market value of the property and if it could be developed. A benefit did not nccd
to support a dwelling. If the market value did not increase due to the project, they
could not assess it.
CounciImembcr Grant stated the question before the Council was what a buyer
would bc willing to pay a willing seller before the improvement and then after the
road improvements, what would that be. He stated he did not personally believe a
home would be built on that property and he was not sure if a road improvement
would add to the value of the propcliy. He stated he did not even know if a buyer
would purchase the property.
MOTION: Councilmember Grant moved and Councilmember Rem
seconded a motion to remove the Lake Josephine Association
property from the assessment roll.
Councilmembcr Larson stated he would not support this motion because he did
not think it was the right motion to make given what the City Attorney said
regarding whether there was a benefit before and after. He stated if the Council
stated there was no benefit to this property, then he found it difficult to find there
was any benefit to any property in the City with a road improvement. He stated
they could discuss an adjustment, but not a removal from the assessment roll.
Councilmember Rem stated her reason for seconding the motion was partly
because of the development ability issue of the property. She stated she was not
convinced that an assessment of this size was appropriate for this property. She
stated she was open to negotiating the amount of the assessment, but she believed
the amount of the assessment was much higher than she could support.
Councilmember Graut stated he was not sure they could find a willing buyer for
the property and he found it difficult to say there was a benefit to the property.
Mr. Parrish replied in the assessment policy, they could negotiate a lesser
assessment.
Doug Hartford stated the City had permitted houses to be built on lots that it
perhaps should not have.
ARDEN HILLS REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
APRIL 14,2003
15
.
Mr. Hartford stated the Shoreline Ordinance did not say "shall", it said "may"
with substandard lots and according to the City, and this was a substandard lot
He stated the assessment policy addressed substandard lots and gave criteria for
exception. He asked the Council for this exception.
Ms. Swanson stated she felt the Association property had met the criteria set out
in the assessment policy for a removal from the assessment rolL
Phillipa Lindquist, 911 In!!erson Road, stated this was not a sophisticated piece
ofland. She noted this piece ofland is very rustic, a nature area. There is no road
and Ingerson Road was a half a block away. She stated the benefit was only what
people wanted to pull from it. She stated she did not believe there was much
monetary value in the property.
William Krivit, 1252 In!!erson Court, stated he did not understand why the road .
improvement would make any difference for the use of the land.
Councilmember Holden asked if taking the property off the assessment roll
would that be a permanent thing for the future.
Mr. Parrish replied they could defer the assessment off the roll and if it were to
come back at a later date for development, the assessment could be applied at that
time.
Councilmember Holden asked how the street assessments on the other properties
increase their market value.
Mr. Filla stated Cities were able to assess street improvements because they were
needed by the residents and if they were not maintained, that would affect the
market value. There was also an aesthetic value of a street attached to a home.
Mayor Aplikowski stated if the road was in disrepair, it did detract from the value
of a home,
.
.
.
.
--mOnginal Message-----
From: Tom Frantz [mailt():vanfr"n@comcastnet]
Sent: Thursday, February 16. 2006 10:52 PM
To: Tom Moore
Subject: PMP
Hi Tom,
We sent this e-mail to all the council members and Beverly Aplikowski. If you have thoughts or
comment e-mail me or call me or communicate with Bill Henry. Thanks.
TO: Arden Hills City Council (Aplikowski, Grant, Holden, Larson. Pellegrin)
FR: Executive Committee, Arden Hills Island Beach Club (Frantz, McGuire, Battles, Henry) ,
Dear Council- we are writing to express the concerns of the Arden Hills Island Beach Club
regarding assessments for the Ridgewood Neighborhood Pavement Management Program
(PMP) 2006 project. It is our understanding that funding for the project includes the option of
assessing the Beach Club for 13 units of property. We believe there is a discrepancy in this
assessment for the following reasons:
+ The wetland parcel has not been legally subdivided into the proposed 12 residential lots.
+ The PMP envisions using this wetland parcel for pretreatment of runoff water before it enters
Lake Johanna. The benefit of this use, therefore is for all residents surrounding Lake Johanna.
+ We find it inconsistent for the city to both, use the asset of the Beach Club and assess the Club
for that use.
+ Collection of that large a fee (12 X $6500 =$78,000) is beyond the scope of the Beach Club.
+ Assessing (50 members, estimated) at the level of $1560 would put the membership into
jeopardy, since many would withdraw membership and effectively leave the Club with a budget
deficit.
If the Council is convinced that the Beach Club should be assessed 12 units of the cost for the
PMP. we feel that the City is best equipped to collect the additional assessment from the
members.
.
We are most interested in supporting the PMP as outlined in the feasibility plan ~ we believe it is
desperately needed and that it holds important promise for the quality of Lake Johanna. In the
context of that plan. we have been enthusiastic about the City's use of our wetland property to
manage storm water runoff, and about the prospect of the City excavating under our access road
to the island for drainage from the wetland to the lake. We are positively disposed to discussions
with the City about how our property can best be used in the PMP. However, we are opposed to
excessive assessment of the Beach Club for the reasons noted.
We are available and willing to discuss this and other issues with you. If you have comments or
questions, please call Tom Frantz at 631-1253.
.
Thank you.
.
.
.
.
~
~~HILLS
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
March 15,2006
AGENDA ITEM: 2C
Mayor and City Council . . J
Michelle Wolfe, City Administrator jJJJJ
City Commissions, Committees, and Task Forces
Last summer, Council indicated a desire to review the structure and procedures for the various
City commissions, committees, and task forces. At this time there is no consistent process for
how any of these groups operate, how they are formed, how they appoint members, etc. Mayor
Aplikowski and I began a process of reviewing past practice and examples from other
communities to try and develop some guidelines for how the City operates its committees,
commissions, and task forces. We then discussed these ideas at the June 2005 Work Session.
Attached is a document the Mayor and I put together in June 2005. We have made a few minor
revisions. The document attempts to identify existing committees/commissions and task forces,
provide some discussion points, and describe different types of committees. A procedure for the
formation of task forces is included, as is a short process description for the formation and
operation of Council Committees. There is a description of the current appointment process for
standing committees, and a proposal for changing that process. Finally, there is a discussion
regarding work plans and annual meeting/evaluation with standing committees.
This is basically a listing of ideas to initiate discussion. City Council's input is requested at this
stage, to ensure we have consensus moving in the same direction. Comments and direction
received during this discussion will be incorporated into a more formal report and outline for
discussion and action at a future meeting.
Attachments
MW
lIMetro-inet.uslardenhillslAdminICommilteesIGuidelines and Procedures- General\3-15-06 Memo to Council RE
Procedures. doc
.
.
.
EXISTING COMMISSIONS, COMMITTEES, AND TASK FORCES
Planning Commission (City Ordinance, State Statute)
Parks, Trails, and Recreation Committee
Communications Committee
Economic Development Commission (City Ordinance)
Karth Lake Improvement District Board (City Ordinance)
Arden Hills Library Task Force
EDA (City Ordinance, State Statute)
- Mayor and City Councit makc up the membership of the FDA)
SOME FORMER COMMISSIONS, COMMITTEES, AND TASK FORCES
Assessment Policy Task Force (Refuse Hauling)
Maintenance Facility Task Force
Water Quality Committee
DISCUSSION POINTS
· How many standing committees do we nccd?
· Purpose of committees should be clarilled
COMMITTEES
Therc are three types of Committees:
Special (Limitcd, i.e. Task Forces)
Standing (On-going; there are currently five of these)
Council Committees (made up of Council members and possibly staff)
PROCEDURE FOR FORMING A TASK FORCE
. A policy (versus an operational issue) needs to be reviewed or developed.
· A work plan should be developed that includes the purpose of the task forcc,
method of recruitment for members, timeline for completion. (Good sample is the
one prepared for the Assessment Policy Task Force dated May 2003).
. A work session discussion is required prior to action being taken to create a task
force.
. Once the assigned task is completed, and recommcndation acted upon, the task
force should be thanked and then disbanded.
. If the task force completes its work, but there is a desire to assign a new task, the
same process should be followed as when creating a new task force (work plan,
work session discussion.)
\\Metro-inet.us\ardcnhills\Admin\Committees\Guidelines and Procedures- General\2006
Procedures.doc
. Official meeting notes are the responsibility of staff.
. Recommended size is 5 - 9 people. There should be an odd number of members.
. Approval of the work plan, purpose, and size should be done by Council
Resolution.
. Interested residents should complete an application, with an option of including a
letter of interest.
. The task force members, Chair, and Council Liaison shall be appointed by the
Mayor and ratified by the City CounciL
. Attempts shalI be made to have a balance of interests and expertisc represented on
a task force, as welI as balanced geographic represcntation.
. The City Administrator will assign a staff liaison to an approved task force.
. The City Council Liaison will bc responsible for reporting back to the City
Council and updating them on the progress of the task force.
. There will not be an interview process for task force membcrs.
.
COUNCIL COMMITTEES
Council Committees shall be formed to address a defined project, not a policy. A
timeline must be determined. The committee will makc recommendations back to the
full City Council. Members will be appointed by the Mayor with approval of the City
Council.
.
STANDING COMMITTEES
. The existing standing committees are as folIows:
o Planning Commission-Created via City Ordinance. Powers outlined in
State Statute and City Code.
o Economic Development Authority- Created via City Ordinance. Powers
outlined in State Statute and City Code.
o Economic Development Commission-Created via City Ordinance.
o Parks, Trails and Recreation Committee
o Communications Committee
o Karth Lake Improvement District Board
. Currently, members of the Planning Commission and PTRC are asked annually in
October or November, if they wish to serve anothcr year. Appointments are made
every January for one-year terms.
. Ordinances outline a plan for three-year rotating terms on the EDC and indicate
that the members of the City Council will make up the membership of the EDA
The bylaws for the Karth Lake District Board also calI for three-year rotating
tcrms.
.
\\Metro-inet.us\ardenhilIs\Admin\Committees\Guidelines and Proccdures- General\2006
Procedures.doc
PROPOSED NEW APPOINTMENT PROCESS FOR STANDING
. COMMITTEES:
· Members shall be appointed by the Mayor with approval of the City CounciL
· Vacancies should be advertised (press reI case, city newsletter, WEB Page,
neighborhood meetings, etc.)
· Those interested in serving on a standing committee shall fill out a City
application form. As an option they may include a letter of interest.
. For the Planning Commission, interviews will be conducted. A Council
Committee will be formcd to review applications and make rccommendations for
interview. The interviews will be conducted by the Mayor or designee, the
Council Liaison, the Planning Commission Chair, and Staff Liaison.
· For the other standing committees (except the EDA), a Council Committee will
review applications, essentially functioning as a nominating committee. They
could choose to conduct phone interviews or other follow-up, but fi.mnal
interviews are not required. For a broad-based committee, there should be
emphasis on having representation of a variety of skills, aptitudes, geographic
locations, etc. The Council Committee will then make recommendations back to
the Mayor and City CounciL
. Consider making appointments to the Planning Commission and PTRC for three-
year rotating terms.
. The Chair of each committee shall be appointed by thc Mayor.
.
APPOINTMENT POLICY (PROPOSED) FOR STANDNG COMMITTEES
It will be the policy of the City Council to:
.
I. Offer appointment to the best qualified citizens for our committees, commissions,
and task forces.
2. Offer eligible members an opportunity to request re-appointment to the committee
or commission they are serving on for a second term. (Task Forces have a limited
term. )
3. Advertise all vacancies to committees, commissions, and task forces. (This ad
should include a brief description of the committee, time and days of meetings,
how often meetings are held, the number of vacancies and any special
requirements. )
4. To encourage wider public participation on committces and commissions, most
appointments will not be for morc than two consecutive terms or six (6) years.
Members who have completed their terms are eligible to apply for appointment to
a vacancy on another Committee or a task force. Task force appointments are for
the designated length of the work plan only.
5. City residency is required unless exempted by State Statutes or City Ordinance.
6. Provide training and encouragement for active participation in all committee
business through the employment of high quality staff or consultants to support
them and to facilitate open communication.
\ \Metro-inet. us\ardenhills\Admin\Committees\Guidelines and Procedures- General\2006
Procedures. doc
7. Keep all applications active during the year for appointment to vacancies should
they occur. The Council reserves the right to appoint any qualified candidates
even though they did not apply as a result of an advertisement.
8. There is no implied guarantee of appointment or re-appointment to any committee
or task force. The sole responsibility for appointment to any City committee lies
with the Mayor as the recommending authority and the City Council as the
confirming authority.
.
WORK PLANS AND ANNUAL MEETINGS WITH STANDING COMMITTEES
AND COMMISSIONS
. For those groups that do not have a City Council-approvcd formal structure, one
should be developed and approved by Ordinance or Resolution. This should
address items such as appointment process, term limits, and size of the committee.
. A work plan for each group should be developed and approved by the City
CounciL
. Recommended size should be discussed. There should be an odd number or
members. A suggested minimwn is five, but the maximum could be higher.
. Interested residents should completc an application, with an option or including a
letter if interest.
. Committee members, Chair, and Council Liaison shall be appointed by the Mayor
and ratified by the City CounciL
. Attempts shall be made to have a balance of interests represented on a committee,
geographic representation, etc.
. The City Administrator will assign a staff liaison to committees and commissions.
. The City Council Liaison will be responsible for rcporting back to the City
Council and updating them on the progress of the committee/commission.
. Each year there shall be an annual meeting with the committees and commissions,
to be conducted as a Council Work Session or Committee Swnmit. This meeting
will provide the opportunity to evaluate progress during the preceding year and
being thc planning process for the next year.
.
.
\\Metro-inet.us\ardenhills\Admin\Committees\Guidelines and Procedures- General\2006
Procedures.doc
.
.
.
~
"1'\~HILLS
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
March 15,2006
Agenda Item: 2.D
TO: Honorable Mayor, City Council, and
City Administrator
FROM: Murtuza Siddiqui, Chief Financial Officer/Treasurer 'VV\ So
SUBJECT: City Hall- Security System Upgrade
BACKGROUND:
Last summer, the City staff started to address a number security issues at the City Hall. There
were two items that were briefly discussed at one of the budgeting sessions. These items
included the installation of security cameras and the installation of two swipe card readers to the
doors that are currently operated with keys on a regular daily basis. The 2006 Budget included
$7,500 for these two items.
DISCUSSION:
A number of security concerns surfaced after the discovery of fraud at the City HaiL One of the
concerns was how to safeguard the expensive equipment we have at the City Hall as well as to
provide safety for the employees, Council Members, and any visitors to the City HalL There are
two ways to safeguard the City Hall. One is to install security cameras so that all activities
within the camera range are recorded. The other is to install swipe card readers to the existing
two doors that are regularly accessed by staff through the use of keys. One door is by the
receptionist and the other is by the front main entrance door.
Since the discovery of fraud, staff has strengthened a number of internal controls. In addition to
segregation of duties, locks to the building were changed and access to the building was limited
to only those individuals who had access cards. Previously, all staff was provided with keys that
opened all exterior as well as interior doors. There are still two doors on the interior side that
require access by key only. Installation of swipe card readers would make the environment
keyless and limit access only to authorized individuals. During the budgeting process, staff had
received a verbal estimate of $3,000 for the two card readers. This amount was included in the
budget. We now have a written bid that includes all parts and labor for $6,000 from Pro-Tee
Design. Pro-Tech originally installed the card readers and connected them to the security
system. Staff has inquired with another contractor who had dealt with the City for a number of
projects to determine the reasonableness ofthe bid. We have been informed that the bid
submitted is within reason. In addition, staff also inquired if another brand of card reader can be
Memo
Security System Upgrade
2
installed and integrated with the existing system. We were informed that it would be more costly
to integrate another vendor's system into the existing system.
.
The next security item is the installation of the security cameras. The proposal includes five
cameras. Two are proposed to be installed on the front of the building to monitor people coming
in and leaving the building, as well as to monitor any other activity in the parking lot. The other
three are proposed to be installed inside. One camera would cover the lobby area, including the
front counter. It is not always possible to detect every person that walks into the building from
the front door who does not necessarily end up at the front counter. This camera wi1l monitor and
capture any activity. Another camera is proposed to be installed in the Community Room
(downstairs). Often meetings are held in this room, some are during the day and some are during
the evening hours, which are often used by outsiders for classes. The fifth camera is proposed
to be installed upstairs to monitor the area as well as to secure the downstairs area to determine if
unauthorized people/visitors uses the stairways to go downstairs in the area that is restricted to
staff and the CounciL All activities captured on the cameras are recorded and can be retained
from a few days and up to a month. A monitor wi1l be installed by the reception area that wi1l
display all areas that are under the camera survei1lance. The proposed system has future
expansion capability. It has the capability to add three additional cameras in the future.
The 2006 Budget has a line item for this equipment in the amount of $4,500. The current bid is
estimated to be under $4,000 from DS production. The City has also received a bid from Pro-
Tec, estimated at $14,000 for a unit with five cameras.
.
The total amount for these two items is estimated to be $10,000. The amount budgeted is
$7,500. All these expenses would be considered eligible to be funded out ofthe Cable Fund as it
protects the expensive cable equipment.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff is presenting this information for discussion purposes and recommends its implementation.
.
.
.
.
~
~~HILLS
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
March 15, 2006
AGENDA ITEM: 2E
Mayor and City Council
Michelle Wolfe, City Administrator ~
1-35W Corridor Coalition - Membership Discussion
Council last discussed our possible membership in the 1-35W Corridor Coalition at the January
work session. I have attached for easy reference the background material from that meeting, as
well as the applicable minutes. Therc is not any new information available. In January, Council
had concluded that further discussion was needed at a future work session.
Attachments
MW
IIMetro-inet.uslardenhillslAdminICity AdministratorlMemo\2006\3-15-06 Memo RE 1-35W Corridor Coa/ition.doe
.
.
~
~ILLS
t:HF rn v
" "', '
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
January 18, 2006
AGENDA ITEM 2.B
TO:
Mayor and City Council
Michelle Wolfe, City Administrator ~
1-35W Corridor Coalition
FROM:
SUBJECT:
During discussions regarding the 2006 budget, Council discussed the possibility of re-joining thc
1-35W Corridor Coalition. It was notcd that the Coalition spent 2005 redefining its purpose and
scope of work. A result of that effort is reduced dues. The cost for Arden Hills to join the
Coalition in 2006 is $5,340. (In comparison, our 2004 membership fces would havc been
$11,594 if we had joined, including the fees for GIS and Housing Resource Center membership.
Arden I-lills was a member of the Coalition through the end of2003.)
The Coalition is scheduled to meet tonight (Wednesday, January 18) for a regular board meeting.
A copy of the agenda, contact list, and action plan arc attached for your review. 1 havc also
included a copy of the draft November Board meeting minutes.
As previously conveycd to you, the Coalition Board dcveloped Amendmcnt No.2 to thc Joint
Powers Agreemcnt (also attached) which narrows the focus of the organization. The statcd goal
is as follows:
"To work cooperatively with MnDOT, the Metropolitan Council, Ramsey and Anoka Counties, and other
agencies in planning for transportation improvement, transit needs, and other infrastructure improvements
in the 1-35W Corridor."
Thc City Council last discussed possible membership in thc Coalition at the August work
session. At that time, the consensus was to includc the membership fees in the proposed budget,
but formal action regarding the decision to join would come back at a future Coucnil meeting,
once the final budget was completed.
Staff requests that Council discuss the possibility of joining the I-35W Corridor Coalition. If
therc is conscnsus to proceed, staff will place an item on a future City Council meeting agenda.
The requested action at that time would be approval of Amendment NO.2 of the North Metro I-
35W Corridor Coalition Joint Powers Agrcement.
. \\Mctro-inctus\ardcnhillslAdmin\City Administrator\Mcmo\2006\1-18-06 Memo RE ]-35W Corridor Coalition. doc
.
NORTH METRO I-35W CORRIDOR COALITION
1000 Westgate Drive, Suite 252
St. Paul, MN 55114
AGENDA
January 18, 2006, 4:30 PM
Blaine City Hall
I. Welcome/Introductions
Pres. Dick Swanson, VP Steve Larson
2. 1-35W funding Status in Washington Ken Butler/Jon Olson
3. 2006 Work Plan Approval Bob Benke
4. MnlDOT Update- District Engineer Appointment Chris Roy
5. November 16 Minutes Approval Joseph Strauss
6. October Financials J oscp h S lrauss .
7. 2006 Membership Status Joseph Strauss
8. Adjourn
.
C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTJNGS\MJCHELLE.\VOLFE\LOCAL SETTINGS\TE,\lPORARY INTERNET
FILES\OLK43\AGENDA 1.18.06.DOC
NORTH METRO 1-35W CORRIDOR COALITION
BOARD OF DIRECTORS CONTACT INFORMATION
.
ARDEN HILLS
Mayor Beverly Aplikowski
W) 651-633-1264
CH) 651-634-5120
1245 West Hwy 96
Arden Hills, MN 55112
Aplikowski@aol.com
LEXINGTON
Mayor Don Valenta
CH) 763-784-2792
4175 Lovell Rd. Sle.140
Lexington, MN 55014
lexinqtonmn@comcast.net
Michelle Wolfe, City Administrator
W) 651-634-5127
1245 West Highway 96
Arden Hills, MN 55112-5794
michelle. wolfe@ci.arden-hills.mn.us
Mike Delmont, City Administrator
CH) 763-784-2792
4175 Lovell Rd. Ste.140
Lexington, MN 55014
lexinQtonmn@comcastnet
BLAINE
Council member Dick Swanson
W) 763-784-6700
Cell) 763-370-2557
H) (763) 784-9429
10801 Town Square Drive
Blaine, MN 55449
dswanson@ci.blaine.mn.us
MOUNDS VIEW
Mayor Rob Marty
CH) 763-717-4000
H) 763-780-8876
2401 Highway 10
Mounds View, MN 55112
Rob.marty@ci.mounds-view.mn.us
.
Ron Wood, City Manager
W) 763-785-6121
10801 Town Square Drive
Blaine, MN 55449
rwood@ci.blaine.mn.us
Kurt Ulrich, City Administrator
CH) 763-717-4001
2401 Highway 10
Mounds View, MN 55112
kurt. ulrich@ci.mounds-view.mn.us
Councilmember Wes Hovland (Alt)
0) 612-331-1000
H) 763-786-5011
8650 Van Buren St. N.E.
Blaine, MN 55434
whovla nd@ci.blaine.mn.us
NEW BRIGHTON
Mayor Steve Larson
Cell) 651-208-7680
2150 Erin Court
New Brighton, MN 55112
stevenlarson 1@comcast.net
CIRCLE PINES
Mayor Dave Bartholomay
Cell) 612-868-7203
71 W. Golden Lake Road
Circle Pines, MN 55014
d bartholomaY@ci.circle-pines.mn.us
Matt Fulton, City Manager
CH) 651-638-2041
Cell) (651) 775-5529
803 Old Highway 8 NW
New Brighton, MN 55112
matt. fulton@newbriQhtonmn.qov
James Keinath, City Administrator
W) 763) 784-5898
200 Civic Heights Circle
Circle Pines, MN 55014
i keina th@ei.circle-pines.mn.us
Couneilmember Mary Burg (Alt)
H) 651-636-2315
224 Heritage Lane
New Brighton, MN 55112
Mary. bu rQ@newbriqhtonmn.gQ\I
.
Couneilmember Dan Greensweig
H) 763-783-8734
334 Sherwood Court
Circle Pines, MN 55014
dq reensweiQ@ci.circle-pines.mn.us
ANOKA COUNTY
Commissioner Margaret Langfeld
Board Chair
CO) 763-323-5700
H) 763-767-3159
12002 Vermillion SL Unit A
Blaine, MN 55449
marqaret.lanqfeld@eo.anoka.mn.us
Jon Olson, P.E., Division Manager
CO) 763-323-5789
Cell) (612) 850-4106
Anoka County Government Center
2100 3rd Ave. FI7
Anoka, MN 55303-2264
ion .olso n@co.anoka.mn.us
MnlDOT
Chris Roy, P.E., Area Manager
W) 651-582-1481
Cell) 651-271-9636
Waters Edge Building
1500 W. County Road B-2
Roseville, MN 55113
chris. roy@dot.state.mn.us
Kate Garwood (Alt.)
Multimodal Transportation Manager
CO) 763-862-4230
Highway Department
1440 Bunker Lake Blvd.
Andover, MN 55304
kate. qarwood@co.anoka.mn.us
INVITATION LIST
Mayor Tom Ryan
CH) 763-784-6700
Cell) 763 -238-9190
10801 Town Square Drive
Blaine, MN 55449
Trvan@ci.blaine.mn.us
RAMSEY COUNTY
Commissioner Jan Parker
CO) 651-266-8356
Cell) 651-247-8866
220 Court House
15 West Kellogg Blvd.
St Paul, MN 55102
Jan. Parker@co.ramseY.mn.us
Commissioner Rhonda Siva rajah
CO) 763-323-5746
H) 651-483-5150
6404 Deerwood Lane
lino Lakes, MN 55014
Rhonda. siva raia h@co.anoka.mn.us
Patrick Boylan
Metro Council Sector Representative
W) 651-602-1438
Metropolitan Council
Mears Park Centre
230 E. 5th St.
St. Paul, MN 55101
Patrick. bovlanlalmetc. state. mn. us
Ken Haider, P.E., Public Works Direclor
CO) 651-266-7104
Ramsey County Public Works
1425 Paul Kirkwold Drive
Arden Hills, MN 55112
Ken.haiderlalco. ramsey. mn .us
Commissioner Tony Bennett (Alt.)
CO) 651-266-8350
220 Court House
15 West Kellogg Blvd
St. Paul. MN 55102
T onv. bennetllalco.ramsey. mn. uS
Victoria Dupre
Metro Council Sector Representative
W) 651-602-1621
Metropolitan Council
Mears Park Centre
230 E. 5th St.
St. Paul, MN 55101
Victoria. d u ore lalmetc. state. m n. us
EX-OFFICIO
Metropolitan Council
Dist. 9 Council Member Natalie Steffen
H) 763-753-4298
7007 164th Ave. NW
Ramsey, MN 55303
natalie.~teffen@metc.state.mn. us
Greg Coughlin, P.E.,
MnlDOT Area Engineer
(651) 582-1305
(651) 634-2162
1500 W. County Rd B-2
Roseville, MN 55113
qreq.couqhlin@dot.state.mn.us
Dist. 10 Councilmember Kris Sanda
MC) 763-757-1962
Metropolitan Council
230 E. 5th St.
St. Paul, MN 55101
kris.~anda@metc.state.mn.us
Tim Mayasich, Sr. Transportation Planner
W) 651-266-7105
Ramsey County Public Works
1425 Paul Kirkwold Drive
Arden Hills, MN 5511
Timothy. Mayasich@co.ramsey.mn.us
.
.
.
2
.
.
.
NORTH METRO 1-35W ACTION PLAN SUMMARY
OVERVIEW:
Prior work of the Coalition and others has identified the area on 1-35W between 1-
694 in New Brighton and Lake Drive in Lino lakes as a key freeway segment in
the northern suburbs needing reconstruction. This work has been most recently
reinforced by the findings incorporated in Mn/DOT's 1-35 Corridor Management
Plan. The Plan included input from city, county and township officials throughout
the area and as far north as Hinckley. Current Mn/DOT plans and the
Metropolitan Council's 2030 Transportation Policy Plan do not foresee any
expansion of 1-35W until sometime after 2030. While problems are
acknowledged, improvements are deferred due to lack of adequate funding and
greater emphasis on other priorities. Unless we act, together, this prognosis will
not change. But it must be changed.
This segment of 1-35W is at the heart of the freeway system that serves the
fastest growing and redevelopment areas of northern Ramsey County and
southern Anoka County. Redevelopment of the NW Quadrant in New Brighton,
the TCMP Redevelopment in Arden Hills and the Medtronic Campus
development in Mounds View are adding additional needs for capacity on top of
the already visible daily problems we encounter. This growth is in addition to
construction of thousands of new homes and the Pheasant Ridge site
development in Blaine.
Lack of specific plans for expansion of 1-35W makes planning for access from
and to the regional system problematic for these developments. In addition,
marketing efforts will be hampered. It is highly likely that transportation and other
infrastructure investments will either be wasted or less efficient until Mn/DOT
determines the nature and timing of improvements on l-35W.
The segment of 1-35W north of 1-694 is a critical segment from a State and
National perspective as well. It includes the joint segment of two Inter Regional
Corridors, TH 10 & 1-35W, as they join the high priority metro freeway ring. The
merging and weaving of traffic from the two corridors creates the need for
another "Unweave the Weave" design similar to the 1-694/1-35E project further
east. Failure to address the congestion and safety problems created by the
current inadequate design will have severe impacts on commerce, tourism and
personal mobility on a large scale
Waiting until after 2030 for new capacity on 1-35W and for remodeling of the
supporting local streets and arterials is not an option for our cities, our
businesses and our citizens. Accordingly, the Coalition offers the following plan
for securing the necessary planning and construction funds on an accelerated
time table. 'The Plan" will be implemented recognizing that laws, policies and
plans exist to provide a framework and process that ensures that appropriate
issues are considered and affected agencies and members of the public have an
opportunity to participate in the decision making process.
.
"The Plan" anticipates a three stage strategy:
. Stage I involves securing funding for and accomplishing a Scoping Study
to identify and evaluate alternative design concepts for the expansion of 1-
35W with results to be incorporated in updated Comprehensive Plans to
be submitted to the Metropolitan Council in 2008. .
o Estimated Cost: $500,000 - $750,000 (Less if Mn/DOT Metro
Internally resourced)
o Estimated Timeframe: Target Completion 2007-08
. Secure Funding 3-12 Months
. Select Consultant 4 Months (Less if MnlDOT internal
resourced)
. Conduct Scoping Study 12-18 Months
. Study Report Review/Approval 3 Months
. Stage II will involve advocating for and securing funding for a Tier I
Environmental Assessment of the short list of feasible designs, leading to
local, state and federal approvals of the design layout and associated
environmental documents.
o Estimated Cost: $1,000,000 - $2,000,000
o Estimated Timeframe: Target Completion 2010-2011
. Secure Funding 12 Months
. Select/Approve Consultant 4 Months
. Conduct Tier I Assessment 24 Months
. Report Review/ Approval 9 Months
.
. Stage III will involve advocating for and securing funding in the Mn/DOT
construction program for the construction of the selected design at the
earliest possible opportunity. Stage III activity will overlap Stage II activity.
o Estimated Cost:
. 1-694-Anoka/Ramsey Co. Line $338 Million
. Anoka/Ramsey Co. Line- CR 14 $270 Million
o Estimated Timeframe: Target Start- Follow 1-694 Rebuild
(currently post 2014 due to constrained funding)
. Initial focus on individual interchanges
. Include in Metro Council's 2030 TPP Update
. Include in MnlDOTs STIP Update
. Include in MnlDOT Metro's TSP Updates
. CR 96 scheduled for 2015-2023 @ $20Million
In short, this effort will require a commitment of time, energy, financing and
political pressure that must be sustained over a long period of time.
.
Data Sources: ^
2003 FSA Photo W
New Brighton GIS N
1 0.5 IJ 1 Miles
- -
.
.
.
OVERVIEW
.
The North Metro 1-35W Corridor Coalition was established in 1996 in order to provide
member cities and counties a venue for collaboration on transportation and economic
development issues. Subsequently, several studies were conducted to determine
opportunities to build out or redevelop available spaces in the corridor, the impacts on
the corridor from that development, and the needs for infrastructure investments to
mitigate impacts. The Coalition is now concentrating on solutions to problems identified
that require investments in the regional transportation system.
CURRENT ISSUES
The recently adopted Metropolitan Council's 2030 Trans
provide for capacity improvements on 1-35W by includi
category of planned projects. That means that onl s
individual interchange reconstructions can be
category. Projects in the Management catego
none are included in the Draft Mn/DOT Metr
incorporates the TPP project schedule.
. n Policy Plan does not
'dor in the "Expansion"
on 1-35W such as
"Management"
culative and
Plan that
Anoka and Ramsey Counties
out knowing what the long
"Innovative Financing"
or. Mn/DOT completed
rridor are included in the list
y to accelerate construction
project proposal specific to the
.
"""'>:A'"
f the free\!iiay system that serves the fastest
amsey County and southern Anoka
Quadra t in New Brighton, the TCMP
e edtronic Campus development in Mounds View
n top of the already visible and daily problems we
to rapid housing growth and the potential Pheasant
Lack of specific for pansion of 1-35W makes planning for access from and to the
regional system p tic for these developments. Also, lack of near term relief will
affect the marketabi of these vital projects It is highly likely that transportation and
other infrastructure I vestments will either be wasted or less efficient until Mn/DOT
determines the nature and timing of improvements on 1-35W.
The segment of 1-35W north of 1-694 is a critical segment from a State and National
perspective as well. It includes the joint segment of two Inter Regional Corridors, TH 10
& 1-35W, as they join the high priority metro freeway ring. The merging and weaving of
traffic from the two corridors creates the need for another "Unweave the Weave' design
similar to the 1-694/1-35E project further east. Failure to address the congestion and
safety problems created by the current inadequate design will have severe impacts on
commerce, tourism and personal mObility on a large scale
.
2
.
Waiting until after 2030 for new capacity on 1-35W and for remodeling of the supporting
local streets and arterials is not an option for our cities, our businesses and our citizens.
Accordingly, the Coalition offers the following plan for securing the necessary planning
and construction funds on an accelerated time table. ''The Plan" will be implemented
recognizing that laws, policies and plans exist to provide a framework and process that
ensures that appropriate issues are considered and affected agencies and members of
the public have an opportunity to participate in the decision making process.
WORK PLAN
.
THE PROBLEMS:
1. FUNDING: Mn/DOT has identified a $24 Billion stat
gap for the 2008-2030 Planning horizon. Of that
accounts for $21 Billion. Seventy six percent 7
meet performance standards, including 1-35
revenue streams.
2. PROCESS: Scarcity of funding require
managed via a rigorous evaluation prbc
and policies specify steps that must be foil
long range plans face extreme difficulty in ob
development and constructio
he membership and resources available
it other potential city members in 2006.
ector partners by March 31, 2006
communities and businesses will participate in creating
STRATEGY:
1. Assemble Contact Strategy for each Public agency
a. Identify recommended message and channel preferred,
b. Prepare specific information requested
c. Identify and brief Contact Team/Person
d. Implement plans
.
2. Assemble Contact Strategy for potential Community Partners (x10)
a. Prepare list of desired businesses from each area city,
3
b. Prepare specific information packet for candidate companies
c. Identify and brief Contact Team!Person
d. Implement plans.
TASK 2: Streamline Coalition Administrative Functions
a. Update Official Documents
i. Joint Powers Agreement
Ii. Bylaws
b. Review! Update Support Service Agreements
c. Review! Update Operating Policies
d. Benefits:
I. Operating costs are minimized
ii. Members are assured of efficient fund use,
iii. Resources are adequate to meet goals.
.
b.
c.
d.
e.
.
i.
ts of the Coalition are known and
ber policy leaders,
resentatives understand and are
d requests for action,
nity CI understand and support the effort to
ents in Coalition area road and transit services.
ii.
a.
b.
c.Ben
i. A a communities will be able to determine local access opportunities
for development/redevelopment programs,
ii. Early identification of project limits! rights of way needed
iii. Interim investments can be staged to meet current and future system
operating needs.
IV. Developers and merchants will be able to assess market opportunities
and make private investment decisions.
v. Current and future residents will be able to assess mobility and
accessibility factors that support their quality of life goals.
.
4
.
d. EXPLANATION: Construction projects on the interstate highway system
must have federal government approvals predicated on meeting process
requirements. The first major step is a "Scoping Study" that includes the
definition and evaluation of all possible solutions to the identified
problems so that a fair and valid assessment of impacts can be made.
The proposed study will build on results of earlier Coalition work that
identified the 1-35WITH 10 segment between 1-694 & 95th Street as
needing significant expansion to meet current and future traffic flow
demands as well as ongoing development efforts by member
organizations.
Strateqv
Priority 1: Convince Mn/DOT to conduct the
resources.
The freeway expansion needed based on work
problems providing access to and from local
outcome of the Scoping Study will be a sh
competing design and access conflicts.
Scoping Study will cost $500,000 or .
needed to do the major share of t
internal resources available to
e, would create
pment projects. The
viable solutions to
s suggest that the
ervices are
ess if done by
1Public/private match.
.
eeds of all member cities and
olve ts in a collaborative process.
ess needs for access to the regional road system
egree feasible, consistent with,
f return on private and public investments are maximized,
ess time and cost are minimized,
timate goals of the Coalition members receive broad community
and political support.
STRATEGY
1: Coalition Board assumes role of the Solutions Task Force
i. Continue Technical staff work with Mn/DOT and Metropolitan
Council staff to identify and evaluate alternatives.
ii. Coalition Board will assess options and recommend preferred
alternatives.
.
2: Foster exchange of information between development teams from individual
community projects.
5
TASK 3: Secure funding for and complete a Tier I Environmental Impact Statement and
gain approval of the preferred design choice.
a. Secure funding by June 30,2008
b. Approval of EIS by December 31,2010
c. Benefits:
i. Incorporates Public Involvement Process
ii. Impacts identified and mitigated
iii. Design details finalized/confirmed
.
STRATEGY:
1. Work with Congressional Delegation to secure pro'
2. Coordinate efforts with Mn/DOT and Metro Cou
requirements are met.
3. Maintain awareness of Legislative Delegatio
critical decision points.
TASK 2:
Ion Policy Plan (TPP).
nsportation System Plan
.
c.
g and fundfljLg of project development actions is
Pro
1-3
PP P
ding",. ocation with legislative and congressional
mbers.
. . other organizations in advocating for increased highway
f~rvice funding.
\;Ji:i,,>
. s and busi~~lises have a better understanding of
'Wbe made.
'11 be efficient and involve less cost and energy.
rridor improvements through the Metro Council TAC,
STRATEGY:
1. Establis a technical task force including city and county that can coordinate
preparation and submittal of required documents to meet process timelines.
2. Maintain relationships with Metro Council and MnlDOT policy leaders.
3. Maintain public information program to keep citizens and business leaders
aware of needs and opportunities.
U:\1-35W\2006-2007 ACTION PLAN\Dec.19 draft. doc
.
6
.
.
.
NORTH METRO 1-35W CORRIDOR COALITION
DRAFT BOARD MEETING MINUTES
NOVEMBER 16, 2005
The meeting was called to order at 3:40pm by Vice President Steve Larson.
Those in attendance included:
Mike Delmont, Lexington Administrator
Don Valenta, Lexington Mayor
Chris Roy, MnlDOT Area Manager
Kate Garwood, Anoka County Transportation Planner
Jon Olson, Anoka County Division Manager
Kurt Ulrich, Mounds View Administrator
Ron Wood, Blaine Manager
Dick Swanson, Blaine Council Member
Margaret Langfeld, Anoka County Board Chair
Michelle Wolfe, Arden Hills Administrator
Bev Aplikowski, Arden Hills Mayor
Karen Barton, Arden Hills Community Development Director
Joseph Strauss, VP/Administrator
Steve Larson, New Brighton Mayor
Jan Parker, Ramsey County Commissioner
Matt Fulton, New Brighton Manager
Rep. Char Samuelson
Bob Benke, Community Resource Partnerships, Inc.
Note: Sen. Don Betsold and Rep. Connie Bernardy expressed regrets that they
could not attend due to schedule conflicts.
October 19 Minutes: Following discussion, Fulton moved, seconded by Swanson
to approve the minutes as corrected to clarify the intended board membership in
the joint powers agreement amendment #2. The motion was adopted.
OcIober Financials: Strauss presented the October, 2005 year to date financial
report. He noted that a bill for accounting services had been received that
exceeded the amount anticipated due to an oversight in the budgeting process.
He noted that he would work with the vendor to arrange for payment in 2006.
Strauss also noted that the anticipated year end cash balance was due in large
part to the carry over of a payment by Coon Rapids for Housing Resource Center
fees. A motion by Wood, seconded by Fulton to accept the report was approved.
2006 Membership Status: Members reported on the status of discussion with
their Councils to approve membership participation in 2006.
Officer Election: Ulrich moved and Larson seconded the nomination of Dick
Swanson to serve as Coalition President in 2006. Following a call for further
nominations, a motion by Ulrich, seconded by Aplikowski to close nominations
was approved. Swanson was elected by unanimous vote.
I
Fulton moved and Ulrich seconded the nomination of Steve Larson to serve as
Coalition Vice President. Following a call for further nominations, a motion by
Wood, seconded by Aplikowski to close the nominations was approved. Larson
was elected by unanimous vote.
.
Wood moved and Ulrich seconded the nomination of Matt Fulton to serve as
Coalition SecretarylTreasurer. Following a call for further nominations, a motion
by _' seconded by _ to close nominations was approved. Fulton was elected
by unanimous vote.
Ulrich moved and Fulton seconded the nomination of Joseph Strauss to serve as
Coalition Vice President! Administrator. A motion by Aplikowski, seconded by
Wood to close the nominations was approved. Strauss was elected by
unanimous vote.
Joint Powers Aqreement: Members reviewed the draft Joint Powers Agreement
Amendment #2. Strauss noted that the use of a 'delete all' amendment to the
existing JPA enabled the Coalition to incorporate the desired changes without
triggering the need to process state and federal filing requirements.
Ulrich suggested the addition of the term 'other cities' be included in Article II,
Organizational Goals.
Following discussion, Benke was asked to change Article V: Board of Directors,
to provide that each city member would have two voting board representatives
and one alternate director who would be eligible to vote in the absence of a
Director. The alternate city director shall be an elected official.
.
County Board representation was determined to be a County Commissioner and
one county staff person designated by the County along with an alternate
director. The counties alternate director may be either an elected official or
appointed staff person.
Following completion of the review, Benke was asked to prepare a final draft JPA
Amendment and to provide each member agency a copy for consideration and
adoption. Discussion of Coalition By-Law changes needed to complete the
update of Coalition organization documents will be held at the January Board
meeting.
Administrative Services Contract: Benke noted that the Board had approved the
proposed restructuring of administrative services but that specific authorization to
approve the contract was needed. A motion by Ulrich, seconded by Aplikowski to
authorize the president to enter into an agreement for administrative services
with Community Resource Partnerships, Inc. was approved.
.
2
.
.
.
1-35W Fundinq Status: Benke reported Anoka County's Washington
representative was working with Sen. Norm Coleman's office to secure approval
of our request for $500,000 for a Scoping Study for 1-35W improvements.
Congress is expected to return to DC after the Thanksgiving holiday break to
consider passage of the 2006 Transportation appropriations bill that would be the
funding source. Outcomes will not be known until that action is completed. If
approved it may be necessary to provide the required matching funds from local
sources.
Blaine and Anoka County members requested that the Primary Study Area map
be changed to correctly identify the proposed Pheasant Ridge Development
area.
Benke also noted that work will be needed in the upcoming legislative session as
well as with the administrative process to gain inclusion of the proposed
improvements in the official Metro Council and Mn/DOT plans so that we will be
eligible for funds in the future.
Mn/DOT Report: Area Manager Chris Roy updated the Board on October travel
time data for 1-35W. The data presented show that the 1-694 interchange is a
significant bottleneck. As noted earlier, Mn/DOT Metro District is working on
design plans for reconstructing 1-694 but construction is not scheduled until after
2014 due to the shortage of funds.
2006-2007 Draft Action Plan: Benke provided a brief overview of the Draft 2006-
2007 Action Plan. The Board was asked to consider the Draft, to submit
questions and concerns based on their review, and to be prepared to approve
the Plan at the January meeting.
Next Meetinq: The Board agreed to meet at 4:30 pm on January 18, 2006 at
Blaine City Hall to accommodate the scheduled visit of Ken Butler, Capital
Connections, to report on efforts to secure federal funding.
Adiourn: A motion by Fulton, seconded by Aplikowski to adjourn the meeting was
approved at 5:00 pm.
Prepared by Bob Benke
Approved on
U:\1-35W1BOARDlMINUTES\2005\ 11.16.05.doc
,
.J
.
AMENDMENT NO.2
NORTH METRO 1-35W CORRIDOR COALITION
JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT
The parties to this Amendment NO. 2 are governmental units of the State of Minnesota.
This agreement is made and entered into pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, 1994, Section 471.59.
WHEREAS, the governmental units currently in good standing as members of the North Metro 1-
35W Corridor Coalition (Coalition), hereby agree to amend the original Joint Powers Agreement
that initially established the Coalition, and
WHEREAS, the Coalition has determined that it will focus its efforts and direct its resources on
transportation system improvement needs in the Corridor; and
WHEREAS, the Coalition Board and its member communities do hereby invite all interested cities,
counties, townships and both business organizations and individual businesses to join in this .
effort.
WHEREAS, this Amendment NO. 2 shall operate to delete all original Joint Powers Agreement
language and substitute therefore the following Joint Powers Agreement language and all current
members must consent to this action by executing this Amendment NO.2, which language shall
thereafter be controlling in the operation of the Coalition from the date of its adoption.
NOW THEREFORE, on the basis of the premises and the mutual covenants hereinafter set forth,
the parties hereto agree as follows:
ARTICLE I: PURPOSE
The purpose of this Amendment to the original Joint Powers Agreement is to target the
organization's focus on finding solutions to transportation and transit problems that have been
identified as critical to member communities through a process of collaboration, pursuant to
Minnesota Statutes, 1994, Section 471.59.
.
1
.
.
.
ARTICLE II: ORGANIZATIONAL GOAL
The goal of the joint powers organization created by this Amendment to the original Joint
Powers Agreement is to work cooperatively with other cities, Mn/DOT, the Metropolitan Council,
Ramsey and Anoka Counties and other agencies in planning for transportation improvement,
transit needs, and other infrastructure improvements to the 1-35W Corridor.
ARTICLE III: DEFINITIONS
Section 1. For purposes of this agreement the terms defined in this Article have the
meanings given them.
Section 2. "Amendment" means this Amendment NO.2.
Section 3. "Board" means the Board of Directors created by Article V.
Section 4. "Director" means a director or alternate director appointed under Article of this
agreement.
Section 5. "Governing body" means the City Council or other governing body of a
member.
Section 6. "Governmental unit" means a home rule city, a statutory city, township, or
county.
Section 7. "Member" means a governmental unit that is a party to this agreement and is in
compliance with and in good standing under this agreement.
Section 8. The "North Metro 1-35W Corridor Coalition" (Coalition) means the organization
established by this agreement.
Section 9. "Agreement" means the original Joint Powers Agreement as amended by
Amendment No.2.
ARTICLE IV: MEMBERSHIP
Section 1. Any governmental unit bordering on or in close proximity to the 1-35W Corridor,
described generally as beginning at the Mississippi River and 1-35W and proceeding to Forest
lake along the 1-35W Corridor, is eligible to be a member of the North Metro 1-35W Corridor
Coalition.
2
Section 2. A governmental unit other than members in good standing desiring to be a .
member of the North Metro 1-35W Corridor Coalition may apply to do so by delivering a resolution
of its governing body authorizing execution of this Amended Joint Powers Agreement, and an
executed copy of this Amended Agreement, to the President or Secretary-Treasurer of the North
Metro 1-35W Corridor Coalition. The board may approve or disapprove the admission of a
governmental unit. Approval must be by unanimous vote of the Board. The board may impose
reasonable conditions on the admission of members and establish procedures for the removal of
a member for cause.
ARTICLE V: BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Section 1. The governing body of the North Metro 1-35W Corridor Coalition is its Board of
Directors. A member shall have two (2) director positions and one (1) alternate director.
a) Unless otherwise specified by resolution of the governing body, the directors of a city
member shall be the mayor and the chief administrative officer of the city. Each
director has one vote. The alternate director shall be an elected official of the member
city, and may attend meetings of the board and may vote in the absence of a director.
b) Unless otherwise specified by resolution of the governing county board, the directors
of a county shall be a county board member and a county staff person designated by .
the county board. Each director has one vote. The alternate director may be either
elected or non-elected representatives of the county, and may attend meetings of the
board and may vote in the absence of a director.
Section 2. Directors and alternate directors serve until their respective successors are
appointed and qualified.
Section 3. A director may be removed from the board at any time, with or without cause,
by resolution of the governing body making the appointment. The resolution removing the director
must be filed with the Coalition's Secretary-Treasurer.
Section 4. A vacancy on the board is filled in the same manner that the appointment of a
director is made.
Section 5. Directors may vote by proxy.
Section 6. A director may not vote if the board determines that the member represented
by the director is not in compliance with this agreement or if the director has been removed from
the board.
.
3
.
.
.
ARTICLE VI: MEETINGS
Section 1. The board of directors shall meet at least one each year (annual meeting) to
act on behalf of the Coalition. At its annual meeting the board shall elect its officers, and adopt
such by-laws and other procedures governing the conduct of its meetings and its business, as it
deems appropriate.
Section 2. The board may provide for a schedule of regular meetings. Regular meetings
must be held as provided by the by-laws of the organization.
Section 3. A special meeting of the board may be called by the President or by the
Secretary-Treasurer upon written request of such number of directors as specified by the by-laws.
Notice of a special meeting must be mailed to directors no fewer than five days prior to the
special meeting. Business at special meetings is limited to matters contained in the notice of the
special meeting.
ARTICLE VII: OFFICERS AND COMMITTEES
Section 1. The officers of the board are a President, Secretary-Treasurer, Vice President -
Administrator elected for a term of one year by the directors at the organization meeting and at
the annual meeting. The board may designate directors to act as officers in the absence of any
officer.
Section 2. The President presides at meetings of the board. The Secretary-Treasurer is
responsible for records of proceedings of the board, the funds and financial records of the board,
and such other matters as may be delegated to the Secretary-Treasurer by the board. The Vice
President - Administrator shall be responsible for day-to-day operations of the Coalition.
Section 3. The President, Secretary-Treasurer and/or Vice President - Administrator may
sign vouchers or orders disbursing funds of the North Metro 1-35W Corridor Coalition.
Disbursement will be made in the method prescribed by law for statutory cities. Two signatures
shall be required for all disbursements in excess of $20,000.00.
Section 4. The board may in its by-laws provide for and define the duties of such other
officers as it determines necessary from time to time.
Section 5. The board may in its by-laws provide for such committees as it determines
necessary from time to time. A by-law providing for an executive committee and defining the
4
powers and duties of an executive committee may be adopted only by a favorable vote of all .
members of the board.
ARTICLE VIII: POWERS AND DUTIES
Section 1. The board may take such actions, as it deems necessary and convenient to
accomplish the general purposes of this agreement.
Section 2. The board may:
(a) Enter into contracts to carry out its powers and duties.
(b) Employ and/or hire such persons as it deems necessary on a part-time, full-
time or consultant basis.
(c) Purchase and hold personal property and accounts.
(d) Contract for space, commodities or services.
(e) accept gifts, apply for and use grants or loans of money or other property from
the state, the United States of America, and from other governmental and non-
governmental units and may enter into agreements in connection therewith and
hold, use and dispose of such money or property in accordance with the terms
of the gift, grant, loan or agreement relating thereto. .
(f) Purchase liability insurance to insure against liability of the organization and its
constituent members.
ARTICLE IX: FINANCIAL MATTERS
Section 1. The fiscal year of the North Metro 1-35W Corridor Coalition is the calendar
year.
Section 2. The Board shall adopt an annual membership fee schedule and operating
budget prior to November 1 of the preceding year. The board will give an opportunity to each
member to comment or object to the proposed membership fee schedule and operating budget
before adoption. Notice of the adopted membership fee schedule and operating budget must be
mailed promptly thereafter to the chief administrative officer of each member. The membership
fee schedule and operating budget for any year is deemed approved by each member unless,
prior to November 30th of the preceding year a member gives written notice to the Secretary-
Treasurer that the member is withdrawing at the end of the year as provided in the Agreement.
Section 3. Operational costs shall be shared according to the following formula:
.
5
.
.
.
Each member's share of the annual budget will be based 50% on the members population
compared to the aggregate population of all members and 50% on the members assessed
valuation compared to the aggregate assessed valuation of all members. This membership fee
formula may be waived and or modified to accommodate members who seek to become full
voting members and commit to an alternative financial commitment, such as, in-kind contributions
that are acceptable to the board of directors.
Section 4. Membership fee billings to Coalition members are due and payable no later
then 30 days after mailing. In the event of a dispute as to the amount of a billing a member must
nevertheless make payment as billed to preserve membership status. The member may make
payment subject to its right to dispute the bill and exercise any remedies available to it. Failure to
pay a billing within 60 days results in suspension of voting privileges of the member director(s).
Failure to pay a billing within 120 days is grounds for termination of membership, but North Metro
1-35W Corridor Coalition's rights to the billing are not affected by termination of membership.
ARTICLE X: VICE PRESIDENT - ADMINISTRATOR
Section 1. The North Metro 1-35W Corridor Coalition may appoint a Vice President -
Administrator. The Vice President - Administrator may be engaged as a full-time, part-time
employee or on a consulting basis.
Section 2. The Vice President - Administrator, if appointed, has only those powers and
duties delegated by the board. The Vice President - Administrator reports to and is responsible to
the board and shall work closely with Coalition Officers on a day-to-day basis.
ARTICLE XI: WITHDRAWAL
Section 1. A member may withdraw from the Coalition no later than October 30th in any
year. The notice shall be accompanied by a certified copy of a resolution adopted by the
governing body of that member authorizing its withdrawal from membership. The withdrawal is
effective at the end of the calendar year in which notice is given.
Section 2. The withdrawal of a member does not affect that member's obligation to pay
fees, charges or contractual charges incurred prior to withdrawal.
6
ARTICLE XII: DISSOLUTION
Section 1. The Coalition may be dissolved by a two-thirds vote of its members in good
standing. Dissolution is mandatory when the Secretary-Treasurer has received certified copies of
resolutions adopted by the governing bodies of the required number of members requesting
dissolution of the Coalition.
Section 2. In the event of dissolution, the board must determine the measures necessary
to perfect the dissolution and must provide for the taking of such measures as promptly as
circumstances permit, subject to the provisions of this agreement and law.
Section 3. In the event of dissolution, following the payment of all outstanding obligations,
assets of the Coalition will be distributed among the then existing members in direct proportion to
their cumulative annual membership contributions. If those obligations exceed the assets of the
Coalition, the net deficit of the Coalition will be charged to and paid by the then existing members
in direct proportion to the operational cost formula set forth in Article VIII herein. Further,
members who have been permitted to join the Coalition by way of in-kind or other membership fee
consideration shall not participate in the distribution of Coalition assets.
.
ARTICLE XIII: EFFECTIVE DATE: DURATION .
Section 1. This Agreement shall become effective upon filing with the City or County Clerk of the
City or County of , a copy of resolutions authorizing its execution, and an
executed copy hereof of all of the current members in good standing as of the date of this
Amendment. In the event fewer than all of said initial members approve and execute this
Agreement, this Agreement may become effective upon filing with said City Clerk, a copy of
resolutions of all cities desiring to become members of the organization consenting to the creation
of the Coalition as contemplated by this Amendment notwithstanding the failure to participate by
specified members.
ARTICLE XIV: PERODIC EVALUATION
The Coalition will periodically evaluate its success against stated goals and its annual workplan to
determine whether the Coalition should continue as a operating entity.
7
.
.
.
.
ARTICLE XV: AMENDMENT PURPOSE
The stated purpose of this Amendment NO.2 is to delete in its entirety the language of the original
Joint Powers Agreement and substitute therefore the language contained in this Amendment No.
2, with the specific understanding that the language of the revised Joint Powers Agreement shall
be controlling effective upon the execution of the current Coalition members and any other city,
county or governmental organization qualified and approved to participate under its terms.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned governmental unit has caused this Amendment to be
executed by its duly authorized officers and delivered on its behalf.
Governmental Unit:
By:
And:
Its:
Its:
Received and filed by the City or County of
this _day of
,2005.
U:\1-35W\CORPORAT\JPA AMEND.2 11.05.doc
8
Page j ofj
Michelle Wolfe
From: Bob Benke [Bob@StraussMgmt.coml
Sent: Friday, August 19, 200510:50 AM
To: James Keinath (E-mail); Jan Wiessner (E-mail); jstrauss@StraussMgmt.com; Keith Perlich (E-mail);
Kurt Ulrich; Matt Fulton (E-mail); Robert Therres (E-mail); Ron Wood (E-mail): Steve Larson (E-
mail); Tom Ryan (E-mail)
Cc: chris.roy@dot.state.mn.us; David_Grant; Gregg t.arson (E-mail); Mark Maloney (E-mail); Mary Burg
(E-mail); Sandy Martin (E-mail); Sherry Gunn (MV); Wes Hovland (E-mail); Beth Neuendorf (E-
mail); Bev Aplikowski (E-mail); BiILHuepenbecker@coleman.senate.gov; bnelson@ci.spring-Iake-
park.mn.us; Gordon Heitke; Grant Fernelius (E-mail); jkeely@ci.blaine.mn.us; Jill Oesterreich; Jim
Ericson; Jim Tolaas (E-mail); jon.olson@co.anoka.mn.us; Joseph Strauss (E-mail); Kate Garwood
(E-mail); kelly.scanlan@mail.house.gov; Ken Haider (E-mail); Les Proper (E-mail): Marc Goess (E-
mail): mark.matuska@mail.house.gov; mattfulton@newbrightonmn.gov; Michelle Wolfe; Mike
Delmont; Terry Schwerm (E-mail); Tim Mayasich (E-mail); vswing@rlk-kuusisto.com; Bjorn
Skogquist (E-mail); csorensen@ci.coon-rapids.mn.us; Jerry Splinter (E-mail); Jim Dickinson (E-
mail); Jim Norman (E-mail); John Ellenbecker (E-mail); Michael Williams (E-mail); Mike Gamache
(E-mail): Patrick Klaers (E-mail); Stephanie Klinzing (E-mail); Tim Cruikshank (E-mail); Tim Howe
(E-mail)
Subject: TSP Comments
Attached for your information is a copy of the comm_e_nts made on behalf of the Nor:ttLMeJro
May()[s Association on the Draft Mn/DOT Metro Transportation SY$t?m Plan for 2008-2030.
~-,_.,,"- .. ._. -. .- . . ..- --
InCluded in the comments are our reactions to the stark absence of planned investments on 1-
35W. Please let me know if you have any comments or questions on the document.
Bob Benke, Principal
Community Resource Partnerships, Inc.
8525 Edinbrook Crossing, Suite #5
Brooklyn Park, MN 55443
phone: 763.493.5373
cell: 612.669.0274
1/18/2006
.
.
.
.
.
.
NORTH METRO MAYORS
ASSOCIATION
August 17, 2005
Mr. Paul Czech, Principle Planner
Mn/DOT Metro Division
1500 West County Road B-2
Roseville, MN 55113
Subject: Transportation System Plan Comments
Dear Mr. Czech:
Following are comments on behalf of the member cities in the North Metro
Mayors Association on the Draft Transportation System Plan in response to
Patrick Hughes' invitation dated June 30, 2005. The NMMA is a Joint Powers
Organization that includes 21 member Cities. The NMMA was formed eighteen
years ago to give the members a more effective means of advocating for the
interests of the northern suburbs. One of our principle areas of advocacy is
transportation policy and financing. Accordingly we have maintained a close
working relationship with businesses, legislators and MnlDOT over the years.
Because of our interest and involvement in transportation funding debates, we
are acutely aware of MnIDOT's shortage of funds needed to meet the needs of
the State and our communities. We understand that the Metro District TSP
contains only a small part of the many projects that should be implemented due
to a variety of choices that have been made in the past. We are on record in
support of substantially increased funding for transportation in Minnesota. We
believe that the economic vitality of our State and our communities is being
adversely affected by the absence of key transportation investments.
We have concerns about funding schedules for many highways in our area such
as TH 65, the Northwest River Crossing @ RamseylDayion et.cetera. However,
we will focus our comments on three major investment needs:
. Completion ofTH 610
. Expansion of l-35W north of TH 36, and,
. Upgrading of the TH 10 Corridor between TH 610 and St. Cloud
TH 610
The draft TSP lists TH 610 completion in the 2015-2023 era (Policy 6, p 70,
et.a!.). Recent experience tells us that there is a high probability that this
schedule is very optimistic. We recommend that this project be advanced to the
2008-2014 timeframe. We believe that every effort should be made by MnlDOT
to finish this project by 2010 using a portion of the new Federal transportation
funds that will be coming to the State.
Our reasons for making this recommendation include the following:
. Every other project in the draft TSP represents the improvement of an
existing roadway. People have access to those roadways 24/7. TH 610 is
the last segment of new roadway to be added to the freeway system.
Without it, traffic that could and should be on TH 610 is forced onto our
other arterials and local streets. Completing TH 610 would substantially
address performance and mobility targets contained in Policy 5 & Policy
6. It is time to finish what has been started and complete the system.
.
. The economic vitality of our area has been gathering momentum but is
being constrained by the absence of the last segment of TH 610. Growth,
while desired, will increase the congestion, economic and safety problems
we experience every day. We are in the fastest growing corridor in the
State. Our businesses report difficulty in recruiting workers due to traffic
issues. Their costs of doing business and moving their products to market
are being increased, affecting their competitiveness.
. Completion of TH 610 at an early date will provide alternative routes for
travelers that will be impacted when 1-94 & 1-494 are expanded on the
northwest corner of the Metro freeway ring. Providing a high speed
bypass route for through traffic, both people and goods, will have a
positive impact on our economy as well as reduce driver frustration and
safety problems.
.
1-35W North
We note that the draft TSP identifies l-35W north of TH 36 as in need of
expansion to meet current and future traffic demands. We note also that the draft
TSP does not include l-35W north expansion at any time in the 2008-2030
program. We recommend that the draft TSP be revised to advance the
expansion so that it follows closely on the completion of the 1-694 expansion east
of 1-35W. Our reasons are as follows:
. Congestion problems on 1-35W spill over onto 1-694 due to design and
capacity faults. It is highly likely that this impact will continue after 1-694 is
rebuilt, thus reducing the return on that investment as well as causing
credibility problems with the people using the new road. At a minimum, we
need to see a specific analysis of the interaction of 1-35W & 1-694 if 1-35W
is not improved until after 2030.
. The segment of 1-35W north of 1-694 is a critical segment. It includes the
joint segment of two I nter Regional Corridors, TH 10 & 1-35W, as they join
the high priority metro freeway ring. Failure to address the congestion and
.
2
.
.
.
safety problems created by the current inadequate design will have severe
impacts on commerce, tourism and personal mobility on a large scale. The
recently completed Inter Regional Corridor Management Plan for 1-35
between 1-649 and Hinckley reinforced the need for reconstruction of this
segment.
. The segment of 1-35W north of 1-694 is in the direct heart of major city
economic development and redevelopment projects. Lack of specific plans
for expansion of 1-35W makes it exlremely difficult to plan for access to
and though these developments. It is highly likely Ihat transportation and
other infrastructure investments will either be wasted or less efficient until
Mn/DOT determines the nature and timing of improvements on 1-35W. The
funding for planning, design and construction should be specifically
included in the TSP to facilitate local, regional and private sector
decisions. We recommend that expansion of 1-35W in the TH 10 to 1-694
segment be programmed for early in the 2015-2023 timeframe.
Failure to address design and capacity problems on 1-35W north will slow
progress on three specific projects in contradiction of the State and
Federal direction and guidelines outlined on pages 18-20 of the draft TSP:
o Reuse of the Twin Cities Army Ammunition Plant (TCAAP) in Arden
Hills will result in 2200 housing units, 3.2 million square feet of
commercial, office and retail space, with an estimated ultimate
market value of $875 million where today the tax base is zero
dollars.
o Redevelopment of the Northwest Quadrant @ 1-35W & 1-694 in
New Brighton, the last remaining undeveloped system interchange
area in the metro area, will result in 750 homes and 750,000 plus
square feet of office, retail and commercial space with an ultimate
market value of $300 million where today the base is $13 million.
o Medtronic's new corporate campus in Mounds View will add 1.5
million square feet of office and scientific space offering 2000 jobs
and an estimated market value greater than $120 million where
today we have a tax base of zero dollars.
In addition to these redevelopment projects, new development continues at a
hectic pace in Blaine and our other northern communities. Blaine anticipates
adding 1,000 new homes each year for 10 years. Negotiations continue on a
daily basis with Viking officials on development of a major new site whether or
not a stadium is included. All of this growth will be negatively impacted by and
put added burdens on 1-35W. Waiting until after 2030 for new capacity is not an
option for our cities, our businesses and our citizens.
3
TH 10
Mn/DOT has completed an Inter Regional Corridor Management Plan for TH 10
from west of 1-35W to St. Cloud and points north. The plan recommends that TH
10 be rebuilt to freeway design standards from Anoka west. Expansion needs are
recognized in the draft TSP (p 83-84) but they are not funded. Corridor area
cities and counties are continuing to address current and anticipated problems on
a piecemeal basis with Mn/DOT Metro and District 3 staff. Interim solutions at
local problem sites are being developed. Cities are reserving rights of way and
implementing recommended zoning management policies. However, the
uncertainty of the ultimate design and timing of expansion of TH 10 creates
numerous decision issues. In many cases, private property owners and business
people are left in limbo, uncertain if they should reinvest or relocate. The TSP
should:
. Be updated to reflect the recently authorized planning and improvement
funds contained in the SAFETEA-LU act approved recently by Congress.
.
· Incorporate additional funds for accomplishing the Corridor Management
Plan vision on a more timely schedule.
GENERAL COMMENTS
. In addition to the specific corridor related concerns noted above, we would
recommend reconsideration of the stated policy to give priority to
outstanding commitments from the previous plan (page 6). While we
recognize that continuity and confidence in scheduling projects are highly
desirable qualities of a transportation investment plan, we also believe that
it is unwise to make that an unbreakable contract. The rapid growth of our
Metro region results in new problems every day. We believe that new
needs should be considered in context and in contrast to existing needs.
Forcing major new problems of today to wait until 2031 for funding is
irrational and unacceptable policy.
.
· The Draft TSP does not clearly identify or present the technical factors
and analysis results that Mn/DOT uses to select projects for funding.
Reference was made to the 2004 report "Metro Freeway Method". We
assume that some measure of congestion is included along with Average
Daily Traffic. To what extent is consideration given to 'bang for the buck'?
Was consideration given to funding several smaller projects versus 'mega'
projects with high ADT? Were these trade off decisions made entirely
internally to Mn/DOT or were they based on Metro Council plans &
policies?
. A key assumption is that transit ridership will double between now and
2030 consistent with the Metro Council's TPP (p 21). Was an analysis
done to determine the consequences of this goal not being met due to
lack of performance or adequate service funding?
.
4
.
.
.
. Mn/DOT, and the Legislature, should note that the current funding strategy
in the TSP based on the constrained budget is imposing an increased
higher cost to all participants in the programming process:
o Project advocates are being forced to spend more time and money
organizing and advocating for their specific needs as more and
more needs are unfunded and competition heats up each year in
the 'earmarking' process.
o Failure to adequately fund the State's transportation investment
needs leaves local officials, citizens and business owners uncertain
as to how best to 'make do' and make interim investments without
knowing what the ultimate system will look like and when,
o Failure to adequately expand the state system is shifting cost,
safety and congestion problems onto county and city road systems.
· Completion of IRC Corridor Management Plans has been a good step. It is
now clear where problems exist and will exist in the future. It is critical that
additional steps be taken in key corridors and problem locations to fund
and conduct Scoping and Tier I EIS studies to clarify and reach consensus
on solutions (p 78). Mn/DOT should provide additional resources to
complete these studies so that local and private business decisions can
be made in a timely and efficient manner. This is essential to enable cities
and counties to plan and build the necessary arterial and local street
infrastructure needed to support principal arterial operations.
. Allocation of available funds on a statewide basis should be revisited in
context of Mn/DOTs recent analysis that showed that a $23.9 Billion
funding gap exists in considering needs to meet performance standards.
Of this amount, $20.6 Billion is needed in the Metro District. According to
that analysis, comparing available versus needed funds shows that 23.7%
of Metro needs would be met and 73.0% of Greater Minnesota needs
would be satisfied. We suggest that allocations be considered on an equal
share of needs basis. On that basis, 38.1 % of statewide needs would be
met and forecasted funds for the Metro area would increase from $6.4 to
$10.3 Billion with a corresponding shift from Greater Minnesota.
In closing, we again acknowledge that the draft TSP represents a constrained
effort compared to actual needs for the State of Minnesota. We will continue our
dialog with our legislative delegation and the Governor to encourage them to
adopt a significant increase in transportation funding, Until that occurs, we would
appreciate your consideration of these recommendations. Please call me if you
have any questions. Please also let me know if you have a response to our
comments that we should share with our member city officials.
5
Thank you for your consideration of these comments.
Sincerely,
.
Robert J. Benke, P.E.
Director, Research & Advocacy Services
North Metro Mayors Association
.
.
(,
.
.
.
City Council Work Session Meeting
January 23, 2006
5
1-35W Corridor Coalition Discussion
City Administrator Wolfe noted that during the 2006 budget discussion, City Council discussed
the possibility of re-joining the 1-35W Corridor Coalition. It was noted that the Coalition spent
2005 redefining its purpose and scope of work. As a result of that effort, the fees have been
reduced for member cities in 2006. The proposed cost for the City of Arden Hills to join the
coalition in 2006 is $5,340.00. If there is a conscnsus amongst the City Councilmember's, this
item will be placed on a future City Council meeting agenda for formal action.
Councilmember Holden asked how long the 1-35W Corridor Coalition has been in existence.
Mayor Aplikowski noted that the organization has been in existence for approximately ten years.
City Administrator Wolfe stated the 1-35W Corridor Coalition has also been involved with the
creation of a GIS database, Housing Resource Centcr, and transportation studies for the
comlllunitics within the corridor.
Mayor Aplikowski said that originally thc 1-35W Task Force was created to share technology
and discuss different development opportunitics amongst the neighboring communities.
Eventually the group turned into a lobbying organization for the 1-35W members. The focus of
the group has expanded somewhat to include the Cities of Blaine, Circle Pines, and Lexington.
She is concerned that the City will not be a part of the rcgional transportation discussion if they
are not membcrs of the 1-35W coalition. It is important that we be involved in regional
transportation discussions affecting the City of Arden Hills.
Councilmember Larson stated that we live in a much larger community then Ardcn Hills, and the
issues regarding the 1-35W COlTidor Coalition affect a number of different communities and it is
important that the City has a seat at the table to discuss these issues and represent the needs of
the community.
Councilmember Grant said that the TCAAP property will determine whether or not the City is a
major player at these meetings.
Mayor Aplikowski disagreed with Councilmember's Grant statement and said that the City is
currently an important player due to its location. The City must have a place at this table to
express its concerns regarding 35W.
Councilmember Larson requested that this itcm not be brought to a City Council meeting for
further action until there is a consensus amongst the group.
Mayor Aplikiowski requested a ten minute recess. (7:10 PM)
~Fee Schedule: False Alarm Fees
The meeting was called to order at 7:20 PM.