Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-05-24 Packet CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA WEDNESDAY, MAY 24, 2000 6:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER Vl Roll Call PUBLIC HEARING (S) II. APPEARANCES /AWARDS 4a 4 Milo Bennett — Centennial Fire District 2001 Budget 4 1-' M J Bald Eagle Water Ski Club — Ramp Request 7'S'''/ 5 +reef • 51a1' S,9K CFO L1.4 ti c iv. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES May 10, 2000 Meeting Minutes W. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS v The City of Centerville May 11, 2000 through May 24, 2000 Centennial Fire District Expense CzAlev k) il (emu a C Pc4, =F L 1 I. SET AGENDA' Au 'it. / P F ITIONS AND COMPLAINTS ))((��,_j), 1 -\ °'- r Maik 54 Pc4 :4i0» AA- (T- "'k"v> cit. 5 4 / ki 3 1I1. UNFINISHED BUSINESS / 'r�4� Weight Restrictions o4- Lift Statio # 2 Bid OPtni�� / F J # i 9 ° 4 t / ti 1 #rod; 1 , &,. Fw.d 997, /95 L .,,».b7.. .� g� IX. NE BUSINESS 5 o ,,.r µ , e { 1, 3/ 4,//5 0 491 . ')i/A. • sue: �:/ 40t %. ./ Trio Inn Liquor Violation / V. Anoka County Highway Improvement Plan oad Re- Construction — Heritage Street and LaMotte Drive ` Park and Ride Site Request / Livable Communities Act — Demonstration Grant Cable Operator Resignation and Receptionist Position Ordinance # 4 - Wk,1. er S A( . City Administrator Evaluation 5 X. CONSENT AGENDA COMMITTEE REPORTS II. ADMINISTRAT • R PORT iJ / 0 ..2,2 Jo.• • -I m � i 6'0• v XIII. ADJOURNMENT C; v‘Q MEMO DATE : May 18, 2000 TO : Honorable Mayor and Council FROM : Jim March RE : Centennial Fire District 2001 Budget Centennial Fire District Chief Milo Bennett will be in attendance to answer questions and present the proposed 2001 Centennial Fire District budget. Included in your packet is a copy of the proposed budget. The Fire District Steering Committee has reviewed the proposed budget and is recommending its approval. Centennial Fire District 7741 Lake Drive Lino Lakes, MN 55014 (651) 784 -7472 AGENDA ITEM Date: May 3, 2000 Staff Originator: Fire Chief Milo Bennett Topic: Centennial Fire District 2001 Budget Background: Attached is the proposed 2001 Budget for the Centennial Fire District. The budget has been presented to the Fire District Steering Committee and they have recommended that it be brought forth to the City Councils. The budget contains a 4.21% increase over the 2000 budget. Options: 1. Approve the budget as presented. 2. Reject the budget and return it to the Fire District Steering Committee. Recommendation: Approve the 2001 Centennial Fire District budget as presented. Centennial Fire District 2001 Budget The 2001 proposed budget for the Centennial Fire District is attached. Most of the accounts have been left at the same level as 2000. The accounts that have changes are: Utilities: This account has been increasing steadily over the years. This increase represents our history. Medical Supplies: Again our history has indicated that we need to increase this account. Salaried Positions: Some of the positions were rearranged and one Assistant Fire Marshal was added. Secretary: For the past several years, we have operated with a part-time secretary. The workload in the office has increased significantly during this time. It is time to change from a part-time secretary to a full -time position. This will allow us the time to keep up to date with all parts of our business. The salary submitted was based on the Lino Lakes wage scale for a "Secretary C" category. District Chief: This is in anticipation of an annual review and wage adjustment. Steering Committee: This account is being eliminated. With a full -time secretary, this account will not be needed. Payroll Taxes & Benefits: Changes in salaries will change this account. Contingency: A new account was added which contains funds for unplanned events or conditions. The total change in this budget is a 4.21% increase over the 2000 budget. CENTENNIAL FIRE DISTRICT BUDGET 05/03/2000 Account 2000 2001 Change % Change Logistic Supplies 1,000 1,000 0 0.00% Fire Calls 36,000 36,000 0 0.00% Rescue Calls 35,000 35,000 0 0.00% Training Calls 21,000 21,000 0 0.00% Maintenance Drills 10,000 10,000 0 0.00% Inspection Wages 20,000 20,000 0 0.00% Fire Prevention Wages 5,000 5,000 0 0.00% Vehicle Maintenance 20,000 20,000 0 0.00% Fuel and Lube 5,500 5,500 0 0.00% Other Maintenance 10,000 10,000 0 0.00% Uniforms 2,000 2,000 0 0.00% Equipment 30,000 30,000 0 0.00% Insurance 25,000 25,000 0 0.00% Medical Physicals 3000 3,000 0 0.00% Accounting Services 3,200 3,200 0 0.00% Legals 2,000 2,000 0 0.00% I Office Supplies and Printing 6,000 6,000 0 0.00% Community Service 3,000 3,000 0 0.00% Dues and Memberships 2,000 2,000 0 0.00% Subscriptions 500 500 0 0.00% Travel and Conferences /School: 14,000 14,000 0 0.00% Cleaning Supplies and Services 6,000 6,000 0 0.00% Telephone 7,000 7,000 0 0.00% Utilities 21,000 22,000 1,000 4.76% Medical Supplies 1,500 2,000 500 33.33% Breathing Air 2,500 2,500 0 0.00% Salaried Positions 15,500 16,000 500 3.23% Part Time Secretary 18,000 30,000 12,000 66.67% District Chief 56,700 59,000 2,300 4.06% Steering Committee Secretary 250 0 (250) - 100.00% Payroll Taxes and Benefits 16,700 19,000 2,300 13.77% Contingency 5,000 5,000 Total 399,350 422,700 23,350 5.85% Relief Association 21,000 21,500 500 2.38% Common Area Charges 24,438 23,534 (904) -3.70% Total 444,788 467,734 22,946 5.16% Capital Equipment 100,000 100,000 0 0.00% Total Budget 544,788 567,734 22,946 4.21% CentennialX/Centennial Budget 2001 MEMO DATE : May 18, 2000 TO : Honorable Mayor and Council FROM : Jim March RE : Floating ski jump on Centerville Lake Included in your packet is a letter from Dean Havel from the Bald Eagle Water Ski Club. They are requesting City permission to install a floating ski jump in front of the Waterworks Beach Club. I know that they have made this request for the last four years. The City has to approve the request as part of the permit process from the Anoka County Water Patrol. I am not aware of any past problems from this organization. We have had an occasional complaint from people that wish to fish by the culvert between Centerville and Peltier Lake. The culvert is now plugged, so I do not think that the area is quite as popular of a fishing spot. I was fishing on Centerville Lake the evening of May 16 when this group was practicing. There were approximately fifteen boats on the lake and I did not witness any major conflicts with the anglers. In the past, we have asked that the club try to contain their practicing in the area near the Waterworks. If this request is approved, I will forward a letter to the Anoka County Water Patrol. 4 9020 Nashua Ave NE Otsego Mn 55330 Centerville city council May 16, 2000 1880 Main street Centerville, Mn Dear Centerville city council: Subject: Water ski jump Once again the Bald Eagle Ski Club would like to place a water ski jump in front of the Waterworks Beach Club. We have begun the process of obtaining a permit from the Anoka County Water Patrol. Our next step Is to obtain a letter of permission from the city of Centerville. If possible I would like to appear before the council at the MAY 24,2000 city council meeting, to answer any questions and address any concerns you may have, prior to your approval. I have enclosed a diagram of the jumps location, that will be submitted to the Anoka county water patrol. Thank you for your consideration. Regards, Dean D Havel Bald Eagle Water ski club Enclosure (1) ■ �. �,,.. es4 1 'M A � f;'v"•l.f l3 t �f r o tj . ,.. TEMPORARY STRUCTURE LOCATION DIAGRAM Prepare a detailed drawing of the area in which you propose to place your temporary structure. Your drawing should encompass the shoreline and lake areas in front of your lot and the two adjacent lots. Be sure to include lot lines, docks, and any existing temporary structures in front of all three lots. Note any land marks that will assist our inspector in locating your site from a boat. You must also indicate the length of the shoreline between your lot lines (lake frontage) and the distance from shore to the proposed location for your structure. Indicate north with an arrow through the box in the upper right hand corner of the drawing. ( N ) '(' \ »S ( J2° l CT `I I `l C ic L L wik�s W° J 5 FUk N` kcYk L ,_ ) cvD..S.., 5\ L,alc D ` C 10a $k �` l'� h SvwR 9 lirr - INFOLIcpprOVCCF CITY OF CENTERVILLE CITY COUNCIL MEETING • May 10, 2000 6:00 p.m. Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the City of Centerville held their regularly scheduled meeting on May 10, 2000, at City Hall, 1880 Main Street. PRESENT: Mayor Tom Wilharber Council Member Dick Travis Council Member Terry Sweeney Council Member Linda Broussard Vickers Council Member Mari Nelson ABSENT: None STAFF: City Attorney, James Hoeft City Engineer, Tom Peterson CALL TO ORDER Mayor Wilharber called the May 10, 2000 City Council meeting to order at 6:05 p.m. II. PUBLIC HEARING (S) Ordinance #4 Mayor Wilharber stated the Planning and Zoning Commission has been working on this Ordinance along with Council Member Broussard Vickers. Council Member Broussard Vickers suggested having this item heard by the public and then discussed later in the meeting amongst the Council Members. The public hearing was opened at 6:09 p.m. Ray Devine, Planning and Zoning Member, stated there are still several definitions lacking within this Ordinance. Mr. Devine stated the grand- fathering within this Ordinance would also need greater clarification. He suggested that all concerns be placed in writing and brought back to the Planning Commission for further discussion. Council Member Broussard Vickers indicated a memo from each Council Member addressing changes may be a more efficient way of reviewing this Ordinance. Motion by Council Member Broussard Vickers, seconded by Council Member Nelson to table the public hearing and discussion of Ordinance #4 until the May 24. 2000 City Council Meeting. All in favor. Motion carried unanimously. 1 Hunter's Crossing — Special Assessments City Engineer, Tom Peterson, reviewed the Hunter's Crossing Improvements and Special Assessments with the Council. He stated this hearing allows the City to address any issues residents may have with proposed assessments. Mr. Peterson stated this project is a little more costly than other projects due to the fact that the City is not able to open up the County Road, but would have to `jack under" the roadway. Mr. Peterson stated the total cost for the project is $189,000 for twelve inch sewer and water lines. Mr. Peterson explained Mr. Carlson, the developer, would be paying roughly 53% of the assessment value and residents would be responsible for the remaining 47 %. Mr. Peterson explained the sanitary sewer and water cost were based on a square footage of front yards per each residential lot. He asked for comments and questions from the Council and residents. The public hearing was opened at 6:14 p.m. Ken Vanderbeek, 6892 Centerville Road, stated he has 2.7 acres and over half is low land, which could not be developed. He stated his assessment is almost $30,000 and the connection was not even to his house. Mr. Vanderbeek stated he was not in favor of this assessment because it does not offer his property an increased value of $30,000. He added that he is disappointed with the fact the outlet road will point straight at his house. Ben Henrich, 6945 Centerville Road, asked why there were no assessments down the east side of Centerville Road. Mr. Peterson stated Center Street would be assessed at the time the water hook ups were connected. Mr. Henrich asked why the fee for the proposed assessments was higher than those proposed in past years. Mr. Peterson stated the watermain costs within the Parkview Development was not assessed to those along Centerville Road, adding only the fees for service to the houses were assessed. Larry Woiak, 6925 Centerville Road, stated nine property owners would be paying for the majority of the service for a new development and he disagreed with the proposed assessments. Council Member Broussard Vickers asked why the pipelines were not on the same side of the street. Mr. Peterson stated there is more room on the east side of the street and there is very little room for the sewer line, let alone adding water pipelines. Council Member Broussard Vickers asked if costs would be reduced if the pipelines were on the same side of the street. Mr. Peterson stated the services side of the fees may be reduced slightly. 2 Mayor Wilharber asked if both pipelines could then be placed on the east side of the roadway. Mr. Peterson stated this was addressed but the pipes would have to be ten feet apart and that the ditch on the east side is deeper which could be a problem for sewer lines. Mayor Wilharber asked why a fire hydrant was needed at Center Street. Council Member Sweeney stated this was the most logical placement for the hydrant and would allow for Centerville Road to stay open at the time of an emergency. He added that there would be a greater need for the hydrant at this comer with the density of the area neighborhoods. Motion by Council Member Broussard Vickers, seconded by Council Member Sweeney to close the Hunter's Crossing Special Assessment public hearing. All in favor. Motion carried unanimously. Mayor Wilharber indicated that Mr. Henrich submitted a letter of complaint to the City for the proposed assessments. III. APPEARANCES /AWARDS IV. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES April 26, 2000 Council Meeting Minutes Motion by Council Member Nelson, seconded by Council Member Travis to approve the April 26, 2000 Council Meeting Minutes as submitted. All in favor. Motion carried unanimously. V. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS The City of Centerville April 27 through May 10, 2000 Motion by Council Member Nelson, seconded by Council Member Sweeney to approve the expenditures for the City from April 27, 2000 through May 10, 2000. (Broussard Vickers abstained). Motion carried. VI. SET AGENDA The following items were added to the agenda under New Business: • Ordinance #4 Discussion • Hunter's Crossing Discussion • WB Miller — Overweight Permit • Anoka County Youth Services Discussion • Jim March's Performance Review at the Next Meeting • County Bank Discussion Motion by Council Member Nelson, seconded by Council Member Sweeney to approve the agenda with the noted additions. All in favor. Motion carried unanimously. 3 VII. PETITIONS AND COMPLAINTS Stop Sign Request — 73 Street Mayor Wilharber noted Elizabeth Larson (1882 - 73` d Street) submitted a petition to the City for a stop sign in her neighborhood due to the rising amount of high- speed traffic on her street. He explained this item was tabled at the April 12, 2000 and April 26, 2000 meeting to allow the Police Department to gather additional information for this area. The Council asked that this item be placed on the next meeting agenda for action once the Police Department reports back to the Council. Motion by Council Member Broussard Vickers, seconded by Council Member Sweeney to table this item until the May 24, 2000 City Council Meeting. All in favor. Motion carried unanimously. Borowicz Request for Approval of Satellite Enclosure at Acorn Creek Park Mayor Wilharber read through the request for a satellite enclosure at Acorn Creek Park. He explained Craig Borowicz (1861 Revoir Street) was interested in enclosing two sides of the satellite located in Acorn Creek Park. Council Member Nelson noted she was in favor of the request. Council Member Travis asked if a location has been determined for the satellite. Paul Palzer, Public Works Director, suggested this be left up to the Park and Recreation Commission. He explained placement of the satellite is important to allow for handicap access from the park and trail system. Aimee Fairbrother (1844 Revoir Street) explained that Mr. Borowicz was delayed and unable to attend the meeting but would follow any and all Council suggestions. Mayor Wilharber concurred with Mr. Palzer's suggestions. Council Member Travis suggested this fence be two sided and if a third side was added, the Parks and Recreation Committee may provide funding for the extra section. Motion by Council Member Broussard Vickers, seconded by Council Member Sweeney to approve the fence subject to the polling of Parks and Recreation Committee members with their suggestions. All in favor. Motion carried unanimously. VIII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS — None. 4 DC NEW BUSINESS Overweight Permit — Municipal Builders, Inc. Mayor Wilharber stated Municipal Builders, Inc. was requesting an overweight permit to allow for nine tons per axle from Main Street to LaMotte Drive until October I, 2000. Mayor Wilharber asked how many loads would be hauled on this roadway. Chris Sluiter stated there would be approximately 60 loads of concrete and steel hauled to rebuild Lift Station L -4. Mayor Wilharber asked what type of damage could be expected from this hauling. Mr. Peterson stated the road is currently patched and this regeneration would continue through the overweight hauling. Scott Denz, Metropolitan Council Project Manager for Lift Station L -4, stated he was present to address any questions the Council may have. Mr. Peterson asked if a forcemain was on this site at this time. Mr. Denz stated there was a forcemain on the work site with a twenty (20) foot easement. Mr. Peterson asked if Municipal Builders had considered driving the loads cross - country over the twenty (20) foot easement versus existing roadways. Mr. Denz stated he would like to see the loads brought in on the existing roadways and the City would be compensated for any and all damages caused by the hauling trucks. Council Member Travis asked that this roadway be monitored to keep the compensation accounted for. Council Member Broussard Vickers asked when this project would begin. Mr. Denz stated this project would begin no sooner than June 1, 2000. Mayor Wilharber asked what route would be taken. Mr. Sluiter stated he would respect whichever route the Council approved. Mayor Wilharber stated the best route would be down Centerville Road to Heritage Street. Council Member Broussard Vickers asked if there would be a limitation to the patching allowed on LaMotte Drive. Mr. Denz stated he is not interested in replacing the entire roadway for the City but would be responsible for filling any and all potholes that were caused during the truck hauling period. Council Member Broussard Vickers asked that the permit be approved for the first portion of hauling. The Council Members concurred. Council Member Travis stated he would like to see the developer held accountable for pothole damages to the roadways through a bond of $15,000 for repair. Motion by Council Member Sweeney, seconded by Council Member Broussard Vickers to approve the Overweight Permit for Municipal Builders, Inc. from Main Street to 6990 LaMotte Drive until October 1, 2000 5 with a $15,000 bond to be held by the City for damaged roadway repair. All in favor. Motion carried unanimously. Ordinance #4 Council Member Broussard Vickers asked if any Council Members have received feedback from the public at this time. e Council Member Broussard Vickers asked that the Council Members draw.their comments together and set a date for an additional meeting to review the Ordinance in greater detail. She stated there may be a need for attention to the definitions within the Ordinance. Council Member Nelson asked if comments and suggestions should be brought to the Planning Commission or to staff. Council Member Broussard Vickers asked that all comments be brought to staff. She noted all changes within Ordinance #4 were brought about based on complaints to the City. Hunter's Crossing — Discussion - Special Assessments Council Member Broussard Vickers asked how the City was responsible for assessing sanitary sewer and water services. Mr. Hoeft stated the linear assessment is not effective for this development and the pro rata approach may serve the residents more effectively. He stated he had no problem with the methodology used for the proposed assessments but if the dollar amount exceeds the benefit to the property, it would need to be reviewed. Mr. Hoeft explained that if the assessments were not collected in whole from property owners the City would be responsible for the difference. Council Member Nelson asked who would be responsible for appraising the benefit to each property. Mr. Hoeft stated residents could have an appraiser look at the lot to determine the benefit to the property and the City would retain an appraiser to do the same. Mr. Vanderbeke asked how a portion of an assessment could be deferred until a lot was subdivided. Mr. Hoeft explained that if a resident requested a deferred assessment, the Council could set a date for expiration. He stated the deferred portion would continue to gain interest but would lessen the financial strain of the present assessment. Council Member Broussard Vickers inquired regarding the cost to connect to the City sewer and water. Mr. Peterson stated the fee to connect would be roughly $2,000 to $2,500 with additional funding needed to cap any wells on site. Council Member Broussard Vickers asked if one stub would serve a lot that would be subdivided into several lots. Mr. Peterson stated additional stubs would need to be added in the future if the lot were to be subdivided. Council Member Broussard Vickers asked if the residents had to hook up to City water and sewer. Mr. Hoeft stated that all wells and septic sites become a pre - 6 existing, non - conforming use, once stubs are to a lot and a resident would have to hook up within one year to sanitary sewer. He noted water would not have to be hooked up until the well system fails. Council Member Travis asked why the developer was not responsible for 53% of the total project cost. Mr. Peterson stated the developer should not have to be responsible for trunk fees along the park or for the $35,000 fee to extend City trunk sewer. Council Member Travis questioned who would be responsible for future extensions to the water and sewer to the south. Mr. Peterson stated future developers and properties to the south would be responsible for these fees. Council Member Broussard Vickers stated Mr. Vanderbeek's property is a concern at this time due to the proportion of value added versus the amount of his assessment. She explained this lot could only be subdivided into two lots and this lot could only sell for roughly $40,000 which would only cover the cost of his assessment to one lot. Council Member Nelson asked who would be responsible for paying an assessment if a petition was approved by a Judge in court. Mr. Peterson noted the City would be responsible for paying the assessment through the general fund. Mr. Carlson stated he would schedule a meeting with Mr. Vanderbeek to discuss the current assessment and if the fee could be negotiated. Mr. Vanderbeek asked if the water line could be brought down the entire east side of the roadway. Mr. Peterson stated this could be possible to allow for a better stub location on the Vanderbeke property. Mayor Wilharber asked if both pipelines could be placed on the west side of the roadway. Mr. Peterson stated the west side of the roadway is extremely tight and the directional jackings were more expensive than the directional borings for service stubs. Motion by Council Member Sweeney, seconded by Council Member Nelson to accept the Preliminary Report and Authorize the Plans and Specifications for Hunter's Crossing. All in favor. Motion carried unanimously. Mayor Wilharber indicated that Mr. Vanderbeek presented the Council with a written statement to contest the assessment for his property. Overweight Permit — WB Miller Mayor Wilharber read through the permit request and stated the overweight permit request was needed for LaMotte Drive. Council Member Broussard Vickers asked which roadways would be traveled for this construction. Council Member Sweeney stated this permit would be hauling from Heritage Street and LaMotte Drive to LaMotte Park. He explained the 7 hauling would benefit the City by providing a trail to the City through grant funding. Council Member Sweeney stated a bond could be requested for this permit, as well, to hold them accountable for the trucks hauling on City roadways. Council Member Nelson stated this project would require 30 loads on LaMotte Drive along with the previous request and it would be difficult for the City to determine which hauling company was damaging the roadway. She indicated she would like to see this item tabled until further information could be gained from the applicant. Council Member Broussard Vickers stated this applicant does have an alternative route and encouraged that route to be used. Motion by Council Member Nelson, seconded by Council Member Broussard Vickers to deny the Overweight Permit for WB Miller from Main Street to LaMotte Drive and suggest they use the alternative route previously used or reduce the weight limit. All in favor. Motion carried unanimously. Council Member Travis asked that road weight restrictions be placed on a future agenda for further Council discussion. The Council concurred with this suggestion. Anoka County Youth Services Council Member Nelson brought the Quad Press article to the attention of the Council. She noted a committee is being brought together to assess the needs of youth in Anoka County. Council Member Nelson asked that staff follow this committee and update the Council at a future meeting. Mayor Wilharber explained this was an important issue which would eliminate future problems. Council Member Broussard Vickers suggested staff draft a letter to Anoka County Commissioner Langfeld to request a copy of all board minutes and updates. Council Member Nelson stated this was a good suggestion. Motion by Council Member Broussard Vickers, seconded by Council Member Travis to direct staff to write a letter to Anoka County Commissioner Langfeld requesting a copy of all minutes and updates of the Youth Services Committee. All in favor. Motion carried unanimously. Jim March's Review Mayor Wilharber stated a review of Jim March's performance would be completed at the May 24, 2000 meeting through an Executive Session after the regular City Council meeting adjourned. County Bank Discussion 8 Mayor Wilharber noted the County Bank will be before the Planning and Zoning Commission in the near future to request permission to place a temporary trailer on the site while construction is being completed. He explained the bank was also interested in a monument sign that could be viewed when entering the City. Mayor Wilharber indicated he would like to see the City place funding in this bank as a gesture of "good faith" to show support for the local bank. Council Member Nelson was also in favor of this gesture. Motion by Council Member Nelson, seconded by Council Member Travis to advise staff to review funds that could be available for the purpose of putting them into County Bank as a "good faith" gesture. All in favor. Motion carried unanimously. X. CONSENT AGENDA Successful Completion of Training Period for Public Works Employee — Tedd Peterson Motion by Council Member Sweeney, seconded by Council Member Nelson to appoint Tedd Peterson as a permanent, regular employee as of May 10, 2000. All in favor. Motion carried unanimously. XI. COMMITTEE REPORTS • Mayor Wilharber stated the Police Commission is looking for a new officer and was back - grounding them at this time. He stated an offer would be made shortly. Mayor Wilharber stated the Corporal position would be put forth to the Committee next week. He indicated the Centennial Lakes budgeting information was presented to the City for start up costs, etc. Mayor Wilharber stated a National Guard representative has been contacted, troops and a tank -type piece of machinery would be on display at Fete des Lacs. XII. ADMINISTRATORS REPORT There was nothing new at this time. XIII. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Council Member Sweeney, seconded by Council Member Nelson to ad'ourn the Ma 10 2000 Council Meetin • at 8:36 1.m. All in favor. Motion carried unanimously. Transcribed by: Heidi Guenther, Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 9 MEMO DATE : May 19, 2000 TO : Honorable Mayor and Council FROM : Jim March RE : City Administrator Evaluation I completed four years of service with the City of Centerville on May 20, 2000. It has been a great four years and I have enjoyed my job immensely. Mayor Wilharber asked me to provide the normal list of accomplishments from the last year and to place this item on the agenda. I do not feel that I can take credit for any accomplishment of the organization. It takes everyone working together as a team to make continual progress toward our goals. I have included the list of goals and objectives that were created during the beginning of 1999. I believe that we have accomplished more significant projects and community goals in this last year than in any other previous year. I give credit to a committed staff and dedicated Council for the accomplishments of the last year. I have also seen how much more productive a Council can be when the Council exists to work towards the betterment of the community and stays away from the in- fighting and politics that can often exist. Some of the notable events from the last year are as follows: • Water Interconnect is built and operational • A purchase agreement was accepted for a new public works facility • Center -Villa approved • Trail paved and connected to the Rice Creek Chain of Lakes Regional Park • Tri-City Police Department has been formed • Preliminary approval for Hunter's Crossing • $45,000 grant received for new equipment at Acorn Creek Park • Royal Oaks Industrial Park subdivision approved • Deer Pass approved • Apple Tree Center opened with the following new businesses : Jumpin' Java, Why USA, Centerville Dental, Laurie's Dance Studio, Hair Update and Tanning and Apple Academy • Sager's Liquor and Wise Guys Pizza opened • New signs were made for three parks • New public works employee was hired • Computers were networked • County Bank purchased land in the City for future building • Goetz Landscape built a new building • LaMotte Store purchased for rehabilitation • R +K Cafe and Insurance Agency opened downtown • Cooperative Trail Linkage Grant awarded in the amount of $7900 • Buechler Estates developed • Fete des Lacs revitalized, raised over $10,000 in private donations so far • Ballfields and soccer fields ready at LaMotte Park • Survived Y2K • Created first Community Skating Night • Created first Community Wide Bon -fire • Ordinance #4 nearly complete • MEMO DATE : January 22, 1999 TO : Honorable Mayor and Council FROM : Jim March RE : Goals and Objectives Compilation *********************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** City Water/Interconnect = 44 Economic Development = 33 Public Works Facility = 29 Park Development = 22 Police Stability = 21 City and Resident Communication = 20 Council, Staff, Committee Communication = 19 Grant Submittals = 17 Computer Networking = 13 Youth = 10 New Watertower = 9 21st Avenue = 8 Ordinance Review = 8 Downtown Revitalization/Design Team = 7 Y2K = 5 Contracts = 3 Environment = 3 Cedar Street Park = 3 * Note - On Theresa Brenner's goals list, communication had two components, so I split the points equally between the two communication categories (City- Resident, City - Staff - Committees). ** Cedar Street Park and Park Development (maybe could be combined ?) * `" * Design Team Vision, Downtown Revitalization were grouped together Centennial Fire District 7741 Lake Drive Lino Lakes, MN 55014 (651) 784 -7472 - Office (651) 784 -2427 - Fax May 3, 2000 TO: City Council City of Centerville City Council City of Circle Pines City Council City of Lino Lakes FROM: Milo Bennett SUBJECT: Ratification of expenditures and approval for payment of April expenses. Your approval of April expenses as listed on the attached copy of the check register, checks #12176 — 12191, in the amount of $54,328.75 is hereby requested. Centennial Fire District Page 1 of 1 Check Register DATE CHECK# NAME ACCOUNT AMOUNT 05/03/2000 12176 Airtouch Cellular 45500 -FF Cell Phone Expense 201.7 05/03/2000 12177 Arthur Mohler 40100- Logistical Expense 14.65 05/03/2000 12178 Capital Communications 42110 -Other Maintenance 80.40 05/03/2000 12179 Centennial Firefighters Relief Association 43010 - Relief Association 11,460.00 05/03/2000 12180 Circle Pines Utilities 42250 - Utilities Station 1 413.20 05/03/2000 12181 City of Lino Lakes 41000 - Payroll Ex. & Common Area 39,537.77 05/03/2000 12182 Connexus Energy 42250 - Utilites Stationl 312.61 05/03/2000 12183 Emergency Apparatus Maintenance 42000 - Vehicle Maintenance 1,149.71 05/03/2000 12184 Frattallone's Hardware 42110 -Other Maintenance 99.67 05/03/2000 12185 Hugo Feed Mill & Elevator 42000- Vehicle Maintenance 13.30 05/03/2000 12186 Milo Bennett 40100 - Logistical Expense 406.46 05/03/2000 12187 Minnesota State Fire Chief Association 42200 -Dues and Memberships 350.00 05/03/2000 12188 North Suburban Regional Mutual Aid Assoc. 42200 -Dues and Memberships 150.00 05/03/2000 12189 Oxygen Service Company, Inc. 42270- Breathing Air 113.50 05/03/2000 12190 Red Rooster Auto Stores 42110 -Other Maintenance 13.89 05/03/2000 12191 Tom Thumb 42100 -Fuel and Lube 11.89 Total $54,328.75 Centennial Fire District 7741 Lake Drive Lino Lakes, MN 55014 (651) 784 -7472 - Office (651) 784 -2427 - Fax May 17, 2000 TO: City Council City of Centerville City Council City of Circle Pines City Council City of Lino Lakes FROM: Milo Bennett SUBJECT: Ratification of expenditures and approval for payment of May expenses. Your approval of May expenses, as listed on the attached copy of the check register, checks #12192 — 12211, in the amount of $5,313.90 is hereby requested. Centennial Fire District Page 1 of 1 I. Check Register DATE CHECK# NAME ACCOUNT AMOUNT 05/17/2000 12192 Avanti Petroleum, Inc. 42100 -Fuel and Lube $51.75 05/17/2000 12193 Best Buy 42180 - Office Supplies 244.90 05/17/2000 12194 Dirt Busters 42110 -Other Maintenance 21100 05/17/2000 12195 Earl F. Anderson, Inc. 42130- Equipment Expense 338.99 05/17/2000 12196 Emergency Apparatus Maintenance 42000 - Vehicle Maintenance 1,366.00 05/17/2000 12197 IKON Office Solutions 42110 -Other Maintenance 135.40 05/17/2000 12198 Kent Strege 42220 - Travel, Conference, School 100.00 05/17/2000 12199 Milo Bennett 42130- Equipment Expense 234.73 05/17/2000 12200 Northern States Power 42254 - Utilites /Station 2 Electric 471.29 05/17/2000 12201 Pagenet 42240 - Telephone 57.75 05/17/2000 12202 Pedro Companies 42130 - Equipment Expense 25.68 05/17/2000 12203 Pehl, HinschbergerAssociates, LTD. 42160- Accounting Services 50.00 05/17/2000 12204 Reliant Energy Minnegasco 42253- Utilites /Station 2 Gas 292.01 05/17/2000 12205 Rolltex Computers 42180 - Office Supplies 26.57 05/17/2000 12206 U.S. West 42240- Telephone 555.20 05/17/2000 12207 W.S. Darley & Company 42130 - Equipment Expense 379.81 05/17/2000 12208 Amoco Oil Company 42100 -Fuel and Lube 484.45 05/17/2000 12209 Metro Fire 42130- Equipment Expense 79.36 05/17/2000 12210 Milo Bennett 42000 - Vehicle Maintenance 10101 05/17/2000 12211 Twin City Garage Door Company 42110 -Other Maintenance 104.00 Total $5,313.90 MEMO DATE : May 19, 2000 TO : Honorable Mayor and Council FROM : Jim March RE : Weight Restrictions This item is placed on the agenda per request from the last meeting. I am assuming that Council would like to discuss establishing some criteria for issuing overweight pernilts. MEMO DATE : May 19, 2000 TO : Honorable Mayor and Council FROM : Jim March RE : Lift Station #2 Bid Results The bid opening for the renovation of lift station #2 is scheduled for next week Tuesday. Mr. Peterson will be prepared to present the bid results at the Council meeting. MEMO DATE : May 19, 2000 TO : Honorable Mayor and Council FROM : Jim March RE : Road Reconstruction - Heritage Street and LaMotte Drive Included in your packet is a copy of a letter that was received from City Engineer Tom Peterson in regards to some various options for the above - mentioned streets. These two streets are in the worst condition of any of the streets in the community. It may be best to try to patch these streets and then reconstruct the streets in 2002 in conjunction with Lino Lakes when they plan to pave the section of LaMotte Drive within their corporate boundaries. r 7•VW Iv, ,e. V' . nv.Jl 1 RG•I•rroo, RONM. AMlrIIK and Ai•aelata•, In4 11 an ANMRMtIre /kelen /EpMI Oppertunity Bonestroo Enpleylr and Rmpleyu OWMd PflnpIPRMI Otto G. e0nnln•e. P.C. • Mervin L Serw4 F. • Glenn P.. COck. PE. • • Rosene Mart G. Schunicnr. P.6 • Jerry A. Bowman. PL. A nderltk 6t ardor Centufaata: Revert W. RORne, PE • Joseph C. ANIerIlk, P.C. • Richard Turner, PC • �. ♦ Swan M. Eb•elln, CAA, �so"ates ASISCIIN Princlpa&L Mowlwd A. Wald. PE • KNt$ A. Gordan. PG • RObalt R PrNJerIP PF. Richard W Pont, P.E. • David 0 LplkaM PE. • Rahn C. dussct, A. I.A.. M.et A. Hagen. FF K M Engin eers & Architects MkON1 T R$olnann, RE. . ted KFIald, PE. • •meth P Aarson, P.E. • NUPE R. POI S. RE. • 9 Gavid A. Itonlltrad, MBA. • Sidney P. WtJlamean, PE, 1.3. • Agnes M. Raw, MAt • AP n FIr k 4 runldl, PE Of flew St, Pak. St. CJOVO. RocnereP antl WIMP: MN • Milwaukee. WI %%Oilr: W W W.boMItTM1rarn May 17, 2W0 • Mr. Jim March City of Centerville 1880 Main Street Centerville, MN 55038 Re: Heritage Street and LaMotte Drive Road Reconstruction Our File No. 616 -Gen Dear Jim, We were asked to inspect Heritage Street from Centerville Road to LaMotte Drive, and LaMotte Drive from Heritage Street to the City Limits. The bituminous pavement has deteriorated and street repair is necessary for safety reasons. The total length of 22 -foot wide street is 1770 feet from Centerville Road to the west City Limits. Heritage Street has shallow grass ditches on both sides. while LaMotte Drive has bituminous curbs. Drainage is handled by shallow corrugated metal culverts that cross under the roads and drain in a ditch westward to Centerville Lake. Since no water service is available in this area, it is recommended that a 6 -inch diameter main be extended from the northwest comer of Chauncey Barett Gardens along Heritage Street and LaMotte Drive. The Met Council lift station project, which is currently under construction, will extend watermain from within LaMotte Park to the north line of the MCES property. The proposed street project would connect to this pipe to complete the watermain loop. There are several options the City has for repair of the streets: Option 1. Overlay the existing pavement with a 2 -inch thick layer of bituminous. This is a temporary fix (1 to 2 years) and basically gives the City a minimum cost. Total Construction Cost $20,000.00 Option 2, Reclaim the pavement (grind up and use as aggregate base). install 6 -inch diameter watct• main. pave a 3 -inch thick bituminous mat — 22 feet wide, and construct bituminous curbs on LaMotte Drive, Approximate pavement life: 5 years. Total Construction Cost $ 2335 West Highway 36 • Si. Paul, MN Set13 • 651.636-1600 • Fax: 651-636 -1311 WEI • • Mr. Jim March May 17, 2000 City of Cenrerville Page 2 Option 3. Reconstruct street to 28 feet wide with concrete curb and gutter, geotextile fabric, and subgrade, draintilc, aggregate base. bituminous surfacing, concrete storm sewer pipe, catch basin structures, 6 -inch water main and appurtenances. Approximate pavement life: 15-20 years. 'Total Construction Cost $220,000.00 There are 12 residential properties that have frontage on Heritage Street and LaMotte Drive (total 1350 feet). The Church has 900 feet and Public Works 240 feet of frontage, as shown on the attached map. The south 400 feet of street has the MCES Lift Station and LaMette Park on the east and vacant property on the west. The City of Lino Lakes was contacted regarding reconstruct of LaMotte Drive and additional streets in the neighborhood to the west. Lino Lakes has this area scheduled for street reconstruction in 2002. We would be pleased to prepare a Feasibility Report for the work described. The study would include total reconstruct and utilities listed in Option 3. We propose to do this study at a not -to- exceed cost of $7,000.00. Please let us know if you want us to proceed with scheduling this work. Please call this office with questions at 651 - 604 -4868. Yours very truly, BONESTROO, ROSFNE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC, lizerriaen 7 Thomas W. Peterson, P.E. TWP /crw MEMO DATE : May 18, 2000 TO : Honorable Mayor and Council FROM : Jim March RE : Trio Inn Liquor Violation Included in your packet is a copy of the Circle Pines/Lexington /Centerville Police Department incident report on an alleged liquor violation that occurred at the Trio Inn. I have informed City Attorney Jim Hoeft in regards to this violation. I have advised Mr. Hoeft to be prepared to discuss the consequences of this violation and the options that the City may have in issuing any type of civil penalty. Mr. Hoeft indicated to me that he would not advocate a license suspension for this type of offense. Mr. Hoeft also mentioned that it might be desirable to wait to see what type of action is taken on the criminal end of this matter, prior to making a decision on the civil issue. I am only aware of one other liquor violation that has occurred at the Trio Inn in the last four years. This was on off -sale liquor violation in November of 1997. At that time, a hearing was held and a civil penalty was issued in the amount of $900. Minnesota Statute 340A.415 authorizes the authority issuing or approving any retail license or permit under the liquor control statute to either suspend for up to 60 days or revoke the license or permit or impose a civil fine not to exceed $2,000 for a liquor violation on a finding that the license or permit holder has failed to comply with an applicable statute, rule or ordinance relating to alcoholic beverages. This suspension or revocation cannot take effect until the license holder has been afforded an opportunity for a hearing. I will be in contact with Mr. Montain to inform him that this item is on the Council agenda. No formal action is required to be taken on this item at the meeting. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. i CF.v7;.evii C'i / /.ct!/ ■ TYPE OFfNCIDENr: Alcohol Sale CIRCLE PINES /LEXINGTON /CENTERVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT JcF 0 C ASE NUMBER 200 Civic Heights Circle, Circle Pines, MN 55014 Plane ( 612 ) 7 8 4 -2501 Fax ( -0082 ORI MIJ0020300 P ®7 ® 00- 0 9 1 2 92 .:•. �:: - - - -- 2222:;.:. :2222::- ;:::.: _ :i >:::<�::r..::: iz�.izx�u:<::;: _:•;:<;:: ::;; .::::. ::::::. �::::... -- O M " A .r �' 2222.. - - e - 2222.. 2222 ....:::. . ......:::' 2222 .. 2.2.2.2 ... .2.2. . .......... ...... .........:. ?ii }:........... - 2222 . . :: :•: -. : -.. :. :i-i:ii::��': . nx . i???::: v. : .............................. ........ : _2222. .. ;.. .......... " " ................... � ,c�. •. q -" 2222 2222... .... . ......... ................ v . i}`: :: :: - �::::::: : ::::::. .:::..... ................ "....... "2 ".. :::::. ::::::- :: ::::::._ :: -: :::2222. . ......................... ............... 222. 2222..._ .......... ........... .. ..... 2 -.: .:..:.if 2222. (( ............................... 2222. 22 .......... 2:2 : -:. -.:.:. _.:::::. ..... I REPOr.iING OFFiCE^n( ....... ...... 2 :...::. - - -- : . 2222 .. 222 .. Ptlrn. Scott D. Parts #106 DATE REPORT ASSIGNED ARRIVED CLEARED EARLIEST DATE/TIME OCCURRED 05/0 4 2000 1 2128 1 2128 1 2133 05-04-00 2128 LATEST DATETTIME OCCURRED LOCATION OF OFFENSE /INCIDENT 105 -04 -00 2128 7082 Centerville Road I APT I GRID I VALUE STOLEN VALVE DAMAGED I VALUE RECOVERED i NJ REPORTING PARTY'S NAME 6 I Circle Pines- Lexington Police Department I DATE OF BIRTH I SIX RACE HOME PHONE ADDRESS t ?PT Cm ( ) 200 CIVIC Heigh Cr STATE ZIP WORK PHONE Circle Pines NARRAnvE 1 MN 55014 (612) 784 -2501 See report I 1 I I PERSONS IDENTIFIED IN REPORT I r: -WE CODES A-ADULT ARRESTED, &WARN. C- COMPLAINANT, ODRIVER, F- FAMILY /PARENT HNVOLVED,}JUVENILE ARRESTED, ASIAN 0 .DWNcR, P- PtSSENGER, R- REPORTED BY, S.SVSPECT, T -TIC RACE CADES A- ASIAN I KETED, V- VICTIM, W- WITNESS, KTRANSPORT, Z E9LACK, LINOIAN, M. MENTIONED, 4J OE NAME WARRANT DATE OF BIRTH O - OTHER, W -WHNE A W I Invst. Pruitt *109 I SEX I RACE I MGT WGT I HAIR I EYES - ncRESs 200 Civic Heights Cr. 1 ern I Circle Pines 1 Mil ZIP ALIAS I HOME PHOr�E N I 55014 WORK PHONE OTHER PHONE NJ 1 CODE NAME - (612) 784-2501 A A Donald Robert Cisewski DATE OF BIRTH SEX RACE HOT T WGT HAIR I EYES ADDRESS 11/21/1953 i M I W I I APT 60 Marcy Street CR STATE ZIP ALI AS HOME PHONE Lino Lakes { MN 55014 WORK PHONE OTHER PHONE A+J I I CODE NAME (651) 784 -6440 ( ) ( 651) 4 2 6 - 2956 `v `cc DATE OF BIRTH I SIX I RACE HGT 1 WGT HAIR I EYES 1 APT CRY STATE LP :JAS I HOME PHONE WORK PHONE OTHER PHONE CaJE 1 NAME ( ) - ( ) - DATE OF BIRTH I SIX / RACE HST ( WGT ) HAIR I EYES SS I APT CT' AS STATE ZW fill .. ---T-, HOME PHONe" WORK PHONE 1 OTHER PHONE ENTRY I EIJ'PY2 I ENTRY ENTRY4 I SUPER SOR : : - - - _ -(- ) COPY TO RELATED CASE NUMBERS: rte.. - CIRCLE PINES - LEXINGTON POLICE DEPARTMENT SUPPLEMENTAL POLICE REPORT 00- 091292 05 -04 -00 On the above date Circle Pines - Lexington Police Department was conducting an alcohol compliance check on all businesses in the Circle Pines - Lexington and Centerville area that sell or serve alcoholic beverages. The operation outline was to send an underage person into each business in an attempt to purchase alcoholic beverages to insure each business was complying with state and local laws regarding the sale of alcohol. An undercover officer was used to witness either a compliant or non - compliant check of each business. A person identified as an 18- year -old by a Minnesota driver's license was used to conduct these compliance checks. This person was photographed just prior to this operation to depict this person's youthful appearance. All personal items were removed from this person such as an ID card, money Etc. All money used in this operation was photocopied showing serial numbers and the denomination of the bill used. 2128 hours On the above date and time Investigator Pruitt of the Circle Pines - Lexington Police Department entered the Trio Inn in the City of Centerville. This Officer was parked north of the above location. The under age buyer then entered the Trio Inn with a five dollar bill #I48384306A. The Buyer sat at the bar and ordered a Bud Light beer. The male bartender gave the buyer a Bud Light Beer and charged her two dollars and fifty cents ($2.50). The buyer then received two dollars and fifty cents change. The buyer then went into the bathroom leaving the beer that had been placed on the bar. Investigator Pruitt then approached the bar and removed the beer. He then went into the men's bathroom and collected a sample of the beer into a BCA fluid container. He also maintained possession of the bottle of beer. The buyer and officer Pruitt then left the bar together. I then was advised that a buy had occurred at the Trio Inn. I met with both the buyer and Officer Pruitt in the parking lot of the Centerville Elementary School. I collected the beer bottle and the fluid container as evidence. I was also given a full description of the bartender. This description was listed on the buyer's report. 2218 hours I returned to the Trio Inn, while Officer Pruitt and the buyer remained parked in an unmarked vehicle at the front of the business. Once entering the bar I noted that bartender matched the description of the person selling the alcohol to the underage buyer based on the full description giv n by Officer Pruitt and the underage buyer. I informed the bartender why I wasthe and asked to speak with him on the front steps of the bar. The bartender refused to leave the bar at this point. I asked Officer Pruitt to come into the bar and identify the seller. The Bartender was advised that an alcohol compliance check had been done at the Trio Inn where an 18- year -old buyer was used. I did further advise that a sale had been made to this person and an officer had witnessed this sale and collected evidence. The bartender denied making any sale to a minor and stated that a male patron at the end of the bar was the only person in the bar all night. He advised that officer Pruitt was never in the Trio Inn and a female person was never sold alcohol. Officer Pruitt came to the back door of the bar and opened the door. Officer Pruitt advised me that the Bartender I was speaking with was in fact the employee who made the sale. Officer Pruitt also identified a male customer at the end of the bar as the only other person in the bar at the time of the sale. I informed the Bartender of this fact. The Bartender again denied any sale or seeing either Officer Pruitt oche , buyer in the Trio Inn. I then asked the Bartender to open the cash register. Once doing so I checked the five - dollar bills and did not locate the bill used in the sale. I noted that a group of persons were in the bar at this time, all of which had alcoholic beverages. I feel that the bill used to buy the alcohol was given to a customer as change prior to my follow -up contact with the Bartender. The Bartender was then identified as Donald Robert Cisewski 11- 21 -53. I issued the above person a #104 for charging him with sale of alcohol to a person under the age of 21 years. I also identified the male customer in the bar and identified by Officer Pruitt. This male was identified as Se of gab S Centerville MN 651- 426 -4747. All evidence was secured. Ptlm. Scott D. Parks #106 Circle Pines - Lexington Police Department 2 MEMO DATE : May 18, 2000 TO : Honorable Mayor and Council FROM : Jim March RE : Anoka County 2001 —2006 Five Year Highway Improvement Plan Included in your packet is a copy of the approved 2001 -2006 Five -Year Highway Improvement Plan for Anoka County. The cover letter that was submitted with the plan defines the various plan components. In reviewing the plan, the closest project to the proximity of Centerville is an overlay to Birch Street from Centerville Road to Hodgson Road. This project is scheduled for this year. Main Street is identified for improvement in the year 2010. The project is identified at a cost of $6,772,785. At this time it does not appear that they have funding identified for future projects. This item is on the agenda for discussion purposes. COUNTY OF ANOKA Public Services Division HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT 1440 BUNKER LAKE BLVD. N.W., ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 (612) 862 -4200 FAX (612) 862 -4201 . _ From the desk of JON G. OLSON, PE COUNTY ENGINEER (763) 862 -4213 MEMORANDUM April 25, 2000 TO: City Managers, City Clerks, Township Boards, Public Works Directors, City Engineers, County Engineers FROM- Jon G. Olson, PE County Engineer RE: 2001 - 2006 Five -Year Highway Improvement Plan Please find enclosed a copy of the 2001 -2006 Five -Year Highway Improvement Plan for Anoka County. The County Board approved this plan on April 25, 2000, which also shows the 2000 component of the highway budget for informational purposes. Some of the work included in the 2000 component of the Plan is already underway and we anticipate that construction will take place on all of the major projects contained in the 2000 plan during this construction season. The Plan also includes a detailed listing for improvements to the Anoka County highway system scheduled for the years 2001 -2006. This document is to be used only as a planning document and is not a commitment on the part of Anoka County to fund any project in the year shown. In the Anoka County budget cycle, no project is funded until the County Board approves the budget in December of the preceding year. For example, the 2000 component of this Plan was approved in December of 1999 and the 2001 component in this Plan will not be approved until December 2000. The 5 -Year Highway Improvement Plan however, does give direction as to which projects should be pursued through the environmental, design, and right -of -way process so that they can be constructed in the years budgeted. In approving this Plan the County Board made it clear that the Plan was approved subject to the availability of human resources as well as financial resources to implement the components of the Plan. Again, this year, the Plan has a significant maintenance component and includes approximately 2 million dollars on an annual basis for overlays, cold in -place recycling and crack sealing. The anticipated maintenance projects for 2000 -2001 are shown on Pages 8, 9 and 10 of the document. Pages 11 -17 shows projects, which will probably not be improved during the next 20 years. This list is reviewed annually because development pressures change as do the needs of the transportation system. These roadways have been assigned a project year of 2049 and are intended to be roadways which will be maintained in or near their current cross section for the next 20 years. They are assigned the year 2049 only for sorting purposes and that designation has no other significance. Affirmative Action / Equal Opportunity Employer 2001 - 2006 Five -Year Highway Improvement Plan April 25, 2000 Page Two The second part of the document begins on Page 19 and extends through Page 37. This part of the document highlights reconstruction projects that the County Board anticipates pursuing during the next five years. Projects in the first three or four years of this Plan are already being worked on, however, projects included in later years of the Plan are included so that we can apply for Federal funding. At the bottom of each annual project listing, a summary of finances is included for the projects listed in that year. In addition, in the far right -hand column of each list, anticipated participation by local units of government are listed. I want to caution the local units of government that the numbers included in this column are extremely rough estimates of participation expected. Actual local participation will be determined at the time the project is ready for bids. Again, this year the Plan includes a bond sale in 2001. While the prospects for selling these bonds appears to be encouraging I would caution the reader that the County Board has not taken action authorizing the sale of these bonds and I do not expect that they will until at least December of 2000. A decision not to sell these bonds will significantly impact the ability of us to deliver the projects listed in 2001 and beyond. In the later years of the Plan, many of the projects shown will require additional funding from other sources such as local units of government, Mn/DOT or Federal funds. Anoka County will continue to attempt to maximize the use of outside funds for these projects, as the opportunity becomes available through the region wide solicitation and other methods. You may note that 2001 and 2002 include approximately 42 million dollars in projects which we intend to construct using only 16.5 million county dollars which consists of our County State Aid funds and the levy designated for construction. The balance of the funds shown in these two years is either Federal, State or Municipal funds, which are shown on the individual tables as indicated above. Part 3 of the document begins on Page 39 and highlights other projects. Two lists are contained in this section. The first list is a list with the year designation 2010. This is intended to be a list of projects that other units of government have requested or that the county has made a commitment to Metropolitan Council for their construction. This list contains approximately 68 million dollars in projects and it does not appear as though funds will be available to get to any of them prior to 2007. Keep in mind that projects listed in later years of the Plan will likely shift depending on funding. The second list contained in Part 3 is a list of other projects that have been identified for either capacity or safety reasons. This list contains 111 million dollars in projects and comprises the list of other projects that we will be working to fund in the next 20 years. Adding the two lists together, one arrives at a figure of 180 million dollars spread over a 15 -year period or approximately 12 million dollars per year. This is beyond Anoka County's ability to fund and outside funds will become necessary for all of these projects to be implemented. It must be pointed out as indicated in the introductory letter found on Pages 1 -3 that the bond sales of 1999 and the requested bond sales for 2001 will result in a large payment for these bonds over the following ten years. These payments will reduce the amount of funds available for the years 2002 and beyond, however, the Plan anticipates that increases in our State Aid allotment will compensate for the amount of the payment and the Plan has anticipated that our State Aid allotment available for 2001 - 2006 Five -Year Highway Improvement Plan April 25, 2000 Page Three reconstruction projects will remain at approximately 3 million dollars a year through the life of the Plan. If you have questions regarding this document, please feel free to contact me or my staff at 862- 4400. xc: Anoka County Commissioners Enclosure: 5 -Year Highway Improvement Plan COUNTY OF ANOKA Public Services Division HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT 1440 BUNKER LAKE BLVD. N.W., ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 (612) 862-4200 FAX (612) 862 -4201 From the desk of JON G. OLSON, PE COUNTY ENGINEER (612) 862-4213 MEMORANDUM April 25, 2000 TO: Anoka County Board of Commissioners FROM: Jon G. Olson, PE County Engineer RE: Proposed 2001 - 2006 Five -Year Plan It is again my pleasure to present to you, the proposed 2001 -2006 Five -Year Highway Improvement Plan for Anoka County. The theme of this plan is similar to plans of the past several years with a continued emphasis on preservation of the existing Anoka County Highway System combined with a more aggressive program of major improvement projects. This aggressive approach is possible due to a significant amount of funding from outside sources. Anoka County has made a strong financial commitment to the preservation and management types of projects over the past couple of years. All years of the Five -Year Plan contain nearly $2 million dollars annually for preservation efforts, which include bridge maintenance, crack filling, overlays and cold in -place recycling projects. These projects are highlighted in part one of the Five Year Plan. Part one also includes a listing of road segments that are in a "Preserve" mode. These preserve type projects are shown with a construction year of 2049. Further information is shown on Page 7. Another important aspect of preservation has been implemented during 1998 with the implementation of a Pavement Management System. The output from this system was instrumental in choosing the crack sealing and overlay segments of the preservation component of our budget for 1998 and we feel that this system will be an even greater influence on the selection of projects in the preservation area in the years to come. The second part of the Five -Year Plan is entitled, "Reconstruction Projects 2000- 2006 ". The first three years of this plan are relatively balanced financially, however, the years 2004 and 2005 include many projects for which federal and/or state funds are being applied for. These projects are identified in those years so that the County may continue pursuing outside funds for those projects. If outside funds are not forthcoming on those projects, it is likely that those projects will slip into other years further out than 2005. The needs of the Anoka County traveling public and the continued development of the core cities in Anoka County, has caused us to look at ways to fund significant expansion projects in the near future as well as the preservation projects discussed above. The County Board sold bonds in 1999 to assist in this effort. The Highway Department has requested that the County Board sell an additional $4.5 million in bonds in 2001. In addition, several projects have received Federal STP and HES funds over the past two solicitations. The plan includes the following funding assumptions: Affirmative Action / Equal Opportunity Employer -2- County State Aid and Levy $37,465,000 • County SA Bonds $ 4,500,000 Federal funds obtained $ 8,791,416 State funds committed (turnback) $15,144,560 State funds (HES) $ 2,680,000 Federal Funds Park and Ride $ 1,500,000 City /other County funds $ 4,011,264 Federal funds requested $ 9,100,000 State funds requested $ 5,000,000 TOTAL $88,192,240 The third part of this plan is called "Other Projects ". These projects are broken down into two lists. The first list has a year indication of 2010. These projects are projects which have been requested by various units of government or individuals, but for which funding is not available in the Five -Year Planning time frame. The second list of projects has the year OTHER, which indicates other and again, projects, which could not be funded in the current Five -Year Plan. These projects are projects that have been identified, as being needed improvements for safety and/or capacity reasons. This list conforms to the current Anoka County 2015 Comprehensive Transportation Plan. The Five -Year Plan focuses on continued improvements on Radisson Road and its interchange with I -35W, Lexington Avenue from the south county line to 149th Avenue, interchange improvements at Lake Drive and County Road "J" at I -35W, and the preservation of County Road 10 (Old TH 10) in part. The county funding shown includes some proposed bonding funds to assist in moving some projects forward. It needs to be stated clearly that the repayment of these bonds is scheduled to come from the Anoka County State Aid Funds which are dispersed annually by the Minnesota Department of Transportation, Division of State Aid. Also, the County Board will have to approve sale of these bonds at some future date. The sale of these bonds and the repayment from future State Aid allotments, will have a considerable impact on the ability of Anoka County to respond to other needs. Again, it is with pleasure that I submit this Five -Year Highway Improvement Plan for your consideration and encourage the County Board to continue to support preserving the backbone of the Anoka County System over the next 5 -year period. - 3 - ANOKA COUNTY FIVE -YEAR PLAN Explanation of Columns Column 1 - Type of Project C.W. - County Wide - used for projects not yet identified as to location such as overlays or signals. C.R. - County Road Projects C.S.A.H. - County State Aid Highway Project Column 2 - Road Number Column 3 - Project Number if Assigned Column 4 - Description of Project Column 5 - Year project is currently scheduled for "Other" indicates after five years Column 6 - Estimated Construction Costs (County $ only) Column 7 - City Costs This column is a very preliminary estimate of what costs the city listed might expect to pay toward the project. It is only an estimate and may not reflect the actual city cost which will be determined during project development and design. - 4 - PART 1 REHABILITATION PROJECTS - 5 - Introduction to Part 1 Rehabilitation Projects Part 1 includes projects, which are scheduled for rehabilitation in 2000, and 2001 along with a listing of road segments, which we feel, are appropriate for the rehabilitation category. Segments of roadway which are in the rehabilitation category have been assigned a "year" of 2049. Over the next 20 years, it is expected that these routes will not be reconstructed but will be maintained with essentially their current cross section. There are two types of projects included in this list; the first type is roadways that have been reconstructed in the past 20-25 years and which have a cross - section that currently meets state standards. Noting a "0" as the "Cost Estimate" under the column entitled "Engineer's Estimate" identifies these projects. The second type of road segments are road segments that are deficient in cross - section, but that have lower traffic volumes and, probably cannot be funded for reconstruction in the foreseeable future. These road segments can be identified because there is a number other than zero under the "Engineer's Estimate ". The annual funding identified for preservation of these routes is $1,905,000. It should be noted that the $1,905,000 must be shared with projects needing maintenance work in all other categories, In addition, on Page 16 you can see that there is a total of $141,435,268 estimated as the cost for reconstruction of those segments of roadway that are deficient in cross - section on this list. - 7 - 1 . ■ 0 CO la e z \ 0 r. 4 I co ¢ a \ w 1- ® A 2 \ a / M k CO a) - c • 2 < / A £ o » R 7 E R < } / 2 § $ f > ƒ _t . < t e § 2 q a = * S. 2 V 1 7 G I 0 Q 0 0 1 a n # - 8- I Is m a S- .. A co It N Q o. r 0 5 .. V W 2 3 0 o = I'Zf = N co 01 � y N U e E E o g ^ 4 L 4 "' � O n C P1 2 w g TA o m a. r V Y S r T t4� n co U U U e- N M - 9 - . 2 v t 6 ■ I t s • 2 § .:g. ƒ \ 0 ' a & 2 0. 2 8 • • N E ■ 2 E 2 - 1. . w - / f 1. 3 o i th $ < j • I > R ■ r § 2 f \ $ R 2 \ a CO co . § b § v co E ^ E § \ E 13 ® Q E f / 2 2 2 / t C 2 _ o § > / ■ / 7 § \ \ 7 Cr) 6 ? b c m § 10 I I I I ; 0 0 0 0 0 0 _ 01 n « U) CD , - 1 0 - Anoka County Highway Department Five Year Plan Project Description Year Engineers City Number Estimate Costs CSAH 1 S CR CITY LMTS TO 93RD LN 2049 0 CSAH 1 .05 S OF RICE CK WAY TO CRAIG WAY 2049 0 CSAH 1 FAI 694 TO 0.05 S OF RICE CK. WAY 2049 0 CSAH 1 84TH AVE TO RICKARD RD 2049 CSAH 1 S CTY LINE TO FAI 694 2049 0 CSAH 1 RIESLING TO CSAH 7 2049 2,212,123 CSAH 2 C.R 102 TO TH 47 2049 0 CSAH 2 TH 47 TO TH 65 2049 0 CSAH 2 TH 65 TO E CTY LINE 2049 0 CSAH 2 CSAH I TO CR IO2 (MAIN ST) 2049 0 C.R. 3 CSAH 1 TO TH 47 2049 0 - CSAH 3 TH 10 TO TH 47 2049 0 CSAH 4 TH 65 TO CSAH 2 2049 0 CSAH 4 TH 47 TO TH 65 2049 0 CSAH 5 N JCT CR 63 TO CSAH 22 2049 0 CSAH 5 CSAH 22 TO CSAH 24 2049 0 CSAH 5 TH 47 TO N JCT CR 63 2049 0 CSAH 6 5th ST NE TO TH 65 2049 0 CSAH 6 CSAH 1 TO 0.37 MI EAST 2049 0 CSAH 6 0.37 MI EAST OF CSAH 1 TO 5th ST 2049 0 CSAH 6 TH 65 TO CSAH 35 2049 0 CSAH 6 CSAH 35 TO EAST COUNTY LINE 2049 0 CSAH 7 CR 27 TO CSAH 22 2049 0 CSAH 7 CR 58 TO CR 27 2049 0 CSAH 7 GRANT ST TO 141ST 2049 0 CSAH 7 02- 607 -16 S. TH 10 RAMP TO GRANT (TH 288) 2049 0 CSAH 7 CSAH 14 TO S. TH 10 RAMP 2049 1,310,999 CSAH 8 MAIN ST TO TH 47 2049 655,499 CSAH 8 TH 47 TO TH 65 2049 0 Tuesday, ApriI 18, 2000 Page 1 of 6 - 11 - Protect Description Year Engineers City - Number Estimate Costs CSAH 8 CSAH 1 TO MAIN 2049 0 CSAH 8 TH 65 TO CSAH 35 2049 400,000 CSAH 8 CSAH 35 TO EAST CTY LINE 2049 631,843 CSAH 9 CSAH 116 TO .39 MI. NORTH 2049 0 CSAH 9 CSAH 14 TO CSAH 116 2049 0 CSAH 9 N JCT 20 TO N. ANDOVER CITY LIMITS 2049 2,560,577 CSAH 9 S. OAK GROVE LIMITS TO 1.5 M NORTH 2049 1,600,361 CSAH 9 1.5 M N. OF ANDOVER TO 3.5 M N. 2049 2,133,814 CSAH 9 3.5 M N. TO 4.6 M N. OF ANDOVER 2049 1,173,598 CSAH 9 4.6 M N. OF ANDOVER TO CSAH 24 2049 1,813,742 CSAH 10 CSAH 49 TO CSAH 21 2049 0 C.R. 10 CR 53 TO .2M SO. OF CSAH 23 2049 0 CSAH 11 RAVEN ST TO CSAH 18 2049 1,152,814 - CSAH 11 TH IO TO CSAH 12 (NORTHDALE) 2049 0 CSAH 11 CSAH 1 TO TH 10 2049 0 CSAH 12 950'E OF TH 65 TO CR 52 RADISSON 2049 0 CSAH 12 CSAH/CR 52 TO CSAH 17 2049 0 CSAH 12 832' W OF TH 65 TO 950'E OF TH 65 2049 0 CSAH 12 FOLEY TO CSAH 51 (UNIVERSITY) 2049 CSAH 12 CSAH 51 TO TH 65 2049 CSAH 12 CR 53 TO CSAH 153 LILAC DR 2049 0 CSAH 13 CR 103 TO CSAH 24 2049 1,699,542 CSAH 13 CSAH 22 TO CR 103 2049 3,823,970 CSAH 14 10th ST TO CSAH 9 2049 0 CSAH 14 CSAH 23 TO I-35W 2049 0 CSAH 14 CSAH 17 TO CSAH 23 2049 0 CSAH 14 CSAH 1 TO 10 ST 2049 1,966,498 CSAH 14 TH 65 TO CSAH 17 2049 0 C.R. 15 217th AVE TO 229th AVE 2049 1,274,657 C.R. 15 CSAH 22 TO 213th AVE 2049 2,379,359 CSAH 16 CSAH #78 TO T.H. 65 2049 3,144,153 CSAH 17 NORTH ROAD TO I -35W 2049 Tuesday, April 18, 2000 Page 2 of 6 - 12 - Project Description Year Engineers City Number Estimate Costs CSAH 18 CSAH 19 TO EAST CTY LINE 2049 2,549,313 CSAH 18 S JCT CSAH 17 TO N JCT CSAH 17 2049 0 C.R. 18 HANSON BLVD TO CSAH 20 2049 1,444,611 CSAH 18 N JCT CSAH 17 TO CSAH 19 2049 0 CSAH 18 CSAH 1 TO CSAH 11 NORTHDALE 2049 0 CSAH 18 TH 242 TO CSAH 116 (BUNKER) 2049 0 C.R. 18 CSAH 116 TO ANDOVER BLVD 2049 0 CSAH 18 CSAH 20 TO TH 65 2049 0 CSAH 18 TH 65 TO CSAH 17 2049 0 CSAH 19 CSAH 18 TO CSAH 23 2049 2,549,313 CSAH 20 CSAH 9 TO CSAH CSAH 18 2049 0 CSAH 20 CSAH 7 TO CSAH 9 2049 0 CSAH 21 C.R. 140 TO CSAH 23 2049 3,229,130 CSAH 21 CSAH 14 TO CR 140 (80th AVE) 2049 1,954,473 CSAH 22 WEST LIMITS LINWOOD TO OLD CSAH 2049 0 26 CSAH 22 TH 65 TO EAST LIMITS OF EAST 2049 0 BETHEL CSAH 22 OLD CSAH 26 TO EAST COUNTY LINE 2049 0 CSAH 22 CSAH 5 TO TH 47 2049 0 CSAH 22 TH 47 TO CSAH 9 2049 0 CSAH 22 CSAH 9 TO CR 67 2049 0 CSAH 22 E JCT CR 67 TO TH 65 2049 0 CSAH 24 TH 47 TO WEST COUNTY LINE 2049 6,203,328 CSAH 24 CSAH 28 TO TH 65 2049 6,203,328 CSAH 24 TH 65 TO CR 76 2049 2,719,267 CSAH 26 CR 15 TO CSAH/CR 85 2049 2,719,267 CSAH 26 . CSAH 24 TO CR 15 2049 2,974,199 C.R. 27 CR 7 TO TH 47 2049 0 CSAH 28 CSAH 24 TO TH 47 2049 0 CSAH 28 TH 47 TO NORTH COUNTY LINE 2049 3,993,924 CSHA 31 MAIN ST TO GRANT ST 2049 0 CSAH 32 BALTIMORE ST TO W FRTGE RD I -35W 2049 0 Tuesday, April 18, 2000 Page 3 of 6 - 13 - Protect Description Year Engineers City Number Estimate Costs - CSAH 32 CSAH 23 TO .3 M E OF W LMT CIR.PINE 2049 0 CSAH 35 N LEG CSAH 6 TO N LEG CSAH 8 2049 2,161,527 CSAH 35 02- 635 -07 N LEG CSAH 6 TO TH 65 2049 2,949,497 CSAH 51 92nd AVE TO 97th AVE 2049 0 CSAH 51 97th AVE TO 110th LN N 2049 0 CSAH 52 HAMLINE TO CSAH 17 2049 0 C.R. 53 CR 10 TO CSAH 12 2049 0 C.R. 53 CSAH 12 TO CSAH 14 2049 2,066,434 C.R. 54 S. CTY LINE TO CSAH 14 2049 2,464,336 C.R. 56 TH 10 TO CSAH 5 2049 0 C.R. 57 CSAH 116 TO CSAH 5 2049 0 C.R. 59 CSAH 20 TO CR 58 2049 2,039,450 C.R. 60 TH 65 TO CSAH 17 2049 0 C.R. 60 87 -06 -60 TH 65 TO CSAH 20 2049 1,699,542 C.R. 61 TH 65 TO CR 52 2049 849,771 - C.R. 61 CR 52 TO CR 60 2049 1,529,588 C.R. 62 CSAH 23 TO CSAH 18 2049 2,974,199 C.R. 62 CSAH 18 TO EAST CO LINE 2049 1,274,657 C.R. 63 CSAH 5 TO CSAH 83 2049 2,549,313 C.R. 63 CSAH 5 TO TH 47 2049 934,748 C.R. 65 CSAH 22 TO CSAH 5 2049 1,529,588 C.R. 66 CSAH 24 TO TH 47 2049 3,823,970 C.R. 67 CR 58 TO CSAH 22 2049 1,274,657 C.R. 68 CSAH 18 TO CSAH 22 2049 2,379,359 C.R. 69 CR 70 TO CSAH 24 2049 934,748 C.R. 70 CSAH 24 TO CSAH 28 2049 4,588,763 C.R. 71 NORTH CO LINE TO CSAH 24 2049 1,954,473 C.R. 72 CSAH 24 TO CSAH 24 2049 3,059,176 _ C.R. 73 NORTH CO LINE TO CSAH 24 2049 3,277,497 C.R. 74 65 TO 217th AVE 2049 4,163,878 - C.R. 74 DURANT ST TO CSAH 22 2049 1,954,473 C.R. 74 CSAH 13 TO TH 65 2049 2,039,450 Tuesday, April 18. 2000 Page 4 of 6 - 14 - Project Description Year Engineers City Number Estimate Costs C.R. 75 CSAH 22 TO CR 77 2049 2,379,359 C.R. 76 CSAH 24 TO CSAH 36 2049 5,948,397 C.R. 77 CR 75 TO CSAH 36 2049 1,699,542 CSAH 78 CSAH 20 TO CR 58 2049 0 CSAH 78 CSAH 116 TO CSAH 20 2049 0 C.R. 79 CSAH 9 TO 1900 FT SOUTHWEST 2049 0 C.R. 81 CSAH 28 TO TH 47 2049 1,019,725 C.R. 82 WEST CO LINE TO CR 65 2049 764,794 CSAH 83 THIOTO161stAVE 2049 0 CSAH 83 161st TO 173rd (CR 63) 2049 0 C.R. 84 SOUTH CO LINE TO CSAH 14 2049 2,549,313 C.R. 85 CSAH 26 TO CR 76 2049 0 CSAH 85 CSAH 22 TO CSAH 26 2049 0 C.R. 86 CSAH 13 TO TH 65 2049 0 C.R. 87 TH 65 TO CSAH 52 2049 0 C.R. 102 MAIN ST. TO .1 MILES WEST 2049 0 C.R. 102 1 -694 TO 57th AVE 2049 344,406 C.R. 102 44th AVE TO 1_694 2049 0 C.R. 103 CSAH 24 TO CSAH 13 2049 1,274,657 C.R. 104 CR 102 TO TH 47 2049 0 C.R. 106 CSAH 35 TO EAST CO LINE 2049 0 C.R. 108 CSAH 35 TO EAST CO LINE 2049 0 C.R. 110 99 -07 -110 CSAH 17 TO 0.3 EAST 2049 344,406 C.R. 116 CR 56 TO CSAH 83 2049 CSAH 116 CSAH 9 TO CSAH 78 2049 CSAH 116 CSAH 7 TO CSAH 9 2049 0 CSAH 116 CSAH 9 TO .15 M EAST OF CSAH 9 2049 0 CSAH 116 0.11 MW OF TH 47 TO CSAH 7 2049 0 C.R. 153 CR 53 TO CSAH 153 2049 849,771 o C.R. 154 CSAH 21 TO CR 54 2049 679,817 C.R. 158 CSAH 7 TO CR 58 2049 509,863 C.R. 163 CSAH 22 TO CSAH 5 2049 2,124,428 Tuesday, April 18, 2000 Page 5 of 6 - 15 - ist .. . . III a_1111 Mall I I _IttaThalaii 1 , gic;111.• "IS !IL-Ni A al mii: x 2 l ois,_ iraa ok.--rtiri t •i-§ fj• CO g Ld 15 0 Ili CC di i CC CI CI- - ,..... .., ‘ , . ■--, t - . W . fl \j' ■ -, 1 -. 1 ' 1 i \ I z +0 t • 1 „ ? I 1 1 1111111A I i; i • i ill_ • 1.\..-.. Id A 1 • 1 1 it ilt r 1 i ant WI a MIMI 1 11 =RE iii awl a I 1 MI 1 ; .. imam Hi --liisor,_•_ __-‘,..! _ • 1 MI IMPjjarai . 0 p uj . .-- • < LIJ > • 1 II en/ to E 1 0 7 CC [ j - --- -.---- -- --4 _.--- - . ' 17 PART 2 RECONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 2000 to 2006 - 19 - Introduction to Part 2 Part 2 consists of individual listings for the years 2000 -2006 and constitutes the Five Year Highway Improvement Plan. Year 2006 is included because some of the 2005 projects have components in 2006. You will note that in each of the years 2000 -2006, funds have been set aside for bridge maintenance, cold inplace recycling, crack filling and overlay projects. These funds essentially will be used to maintain the routes listed in Part 1 and Part 3 of this document. The projected spending for 2000 -2006 is essentially balanced but you will find that 2003 is over programmed significantly. The balance in years 1999 -2002 is achieved through issuing State Aid Bonds in the amount of 4.5 million dollars in 2001 and aggressive posture as it relates to obtaining outside funds. The issuance of these bonds allowed the construction of some major projects in 1999 and will allow additional projects to be built in 2001 if the County Board approves their sale. It will, however, result in lower amount of funds for the years 2000 -2011. Several major projects including interchange improvements, and rail grade separations are included in the last years of the Plan. Without additional outside funding, many of these projects will slide to later years of the program. Anoka County Highway Department - Five Year Plan Year Engineers City Project Description Estimate Costs Number 2000 30,000 C W 0 00 -09 -00 SIGNAL PAINTING FOR 2000 0 2000 C W 0 00 -04-00 2000 COLD INPLACR RECYCLING 130 2000 C.W. 0 02- 030 -02 FEDERAL LED REPLACEMENTS 60,000 02 -030 -03 FEDERAL BRIDGE GAURDRAIL AND 2000 C.W. 0 JBAR 2000 1,000,000 C.W. 0 00 -01 -00 2000 OVERLAYS 2000 105,000 C.W. 0 00 -02 -00 2000 CRACK FILLING 2000 105,000 00 -03 -00 2000 BRIDGE MAINTENANCE C.W. 0 C.W. 0 2000 0 00 -05 -00 2000 SIGNALS UNASSIGNED (4) 75,553 Coon Rap ids CSAH 1 02- 601 -39 CHANNELIZE AT CSAH 78, $260,000 FED 250 2000 542,317 317 2000 - CSAH 5 02- 605 -06 INTERSECTION WITH TH 47 (96- 75 -05) g 640 Anoka 2000 120,000 CSAH 7 97 -56 -07 REVISE SIGNAL AT BOB EHLEN DR. 2 20, 895 Coon 2000 789,638 Rapids CSAH 11 02- 611 -27 SIGNAL AT XEON 317464 CSAH 12 98 -58 -153 CSAH 153 TO CSAH 23 APOLLO 3 2000 2,27,4640 2000 CSAH 14 02- 614 -19 CSAH 9 TO TH 10 2000 372,311 CSAH 22 02-622 -27 WEST CO LINE TO CSAH 83 22,680 Blair 2000 20,000 I NTERSECTION AT TH 47 34,56 8 0 Mn/ it CSAH 28 98 -60 -28 Coun CSAH 32 02- 632 -10 SIGNAL ATAIItPORTROAD 2000 208,00 116,965 Rams 3,020,270 103,305 Coon CSAH 78 02- 678 -11 CSAH 11 (S LEG) TO CSAH1 2.42 M FED 2000 Rap i 2000 0 CSAH 78 02- 678 -14 CSAH 1 TO 107TH AVE (02- 601 -39) 120,000 8, 640 Ano] 2000 96 -77 -79 Signal at TH 288 C.R. 79 2000 471,669 CSAH 83 02-683 -01 CR 63 (173rd)TO CR 64 (181st) 2000 678,348 ,669 96 -07 -84 CSAH 14 TO CEDAR STREET C.R. 84 2000 30,000 CSAH 116 99 -19 -116 COORIDOR STUDY TH 47 TO CSAH 56 CSAH 116 02- 716 -03 SIGNAL & CHANN. ® TH 65 SP 0208 -100 2000 554,000 Anoka County 2000 98 -60 -28 ^ CR 76 o C _ 6 CSAH 24 *^ CR 103 CSAH 28 Jr — ' S r ___ R 74 V tI C U / t i CR86 -K l w rn U ER ` bR6 y 0 o CR 63 z n CSAH 18 U x CSAH 18 R 60 x 2 r 0 x m 0 \ N N x f I OI 02- 622 -27 �� V 4 CSAH 116 r l02 683 -01 j 02-605-06 96.77.79 a CSAH 14 x 97 -56 -07 , c U 02 -61419 , (� CSAH 1 2 Ir 02- 611 -27 1 ` �� Aril( / � � , 02-678-14 / (� 02- 601 -39 -WAIN , ic- 02- 716-03 ' \ 98 -58- 153 96 -07 -84 02- 632 -10 - 694 /let' 4 n N r W E S - 23 - Project Description Year Engineers City Number Estimate Costs • • SubTotal • • 10,952,617 PREVIOUS BALANCE —$ 158,135 BOND PAYMENT $ ANTICIPATED BUDGET $ 5,965,000 FEDERAL FUNDS OBLIGATED $2,676,216 * FEDERAL FUNDS REQUESTED $ STATE FUNDS OBLIGATED $ 2,594,560 ** STATE FUNDS REQUESTED —$ CITY PARTICIPATION ANTICIPATED ---$ 439, 713 AJOINING COUNTY FUNDS 4 116,965 BOND SALE FUNDS S ANTICIPATED YEAR END BALANCE - ---- -$ 997,972 * 02- 601 -39 $ 260,000 02- 678 -11 $2,416,216 * Turnback T.H. 288 $ 210,000 Turnback T.H. 10 $2,350,000 02- 632 -10 $ 34,560 Misc. Adjustments $ 121,641 Year end Balance $ 876,331 Tuesday, April 18.2000 Page 2 of 18 - 25 - Protect Description Year Engineers City _ Number Estimate Costs C.W. 0 01 -03 -00 2001 BRIDGE MAINTENANCE 2001 50,000 C.W. 0 01 -02 -00 2001 CRACK FILLING 2001 105,000 C.W. 0 01 -04 -00 2001 SIGNALS UNASSIGNED (4) 2001 200,000 C.W. 0 01 -05 -00 2001 COLD INPLACE RECYCLING 2001 800,000 C.W. 0 01 -01 -00 2001 OVERLAYS 2001 1,000,000 CSAH 7 02- 607 -17 SIGNAL & CHANN AT 157th 291.2 K FE 2001 364,000 CSAH 9 02- 609 -11 SIGNAL & CHANN AT 161ST 136K FED 2001 170,000 CSAH 10 02- 610 -10 SIGNAL AT TH 49 200K TURNBACK 2001 250,000 CSAH 10 EAST COUNTY LINR TO TH 47 2001 2,281,250 CSAH 11 02- 611 -28 SIGNAL & CHANN AT EGRET 348K FED 2001 650,000 200,279 Blaine CSAH 17 02 617 - 05 CSAH #32 TO CSAH 23 (LAKE DR) 2001 2,391,488 84,976 CirclePin 56,897 Lexington CSAH 17 02 617 - 17 CSAH 23 (LAKE DR) TO CR 10 NORTH 2001 1,591,000 277,434 Ramsey RD $1,130,620 Fed County CSAH 18 02- 618 -24 BRIDGE NO 02549 APPROACH REPAIR 2001 385,000 CSAH 35 02- 635 -09 81st AVE TO TH 10 FT RD $400K FED 2001 500,000 CSAH 49 02- 649 -01 BRIDGE AT RICE CK $1.8M TURNBACK 2001 2,000,000 CSAH 52 02- 652 -01 CSAH 12 TO CSAH 14 (MAIN ST) 2001 5,500,000 1,500,000 Blaine CSAH 52 02- 652 -01 PARK AND RIDE LOT ($1.5M STATE) 2001 1,500,000 CSAH 78 02- 678 -13 INTERSECTION AT CR 18 400K FED 2001 800,000 30,000 Andover " Sub •' 20,537,738 PREVIOUS BALANCE $ 876,331 BOND PAYMENT $ ANTICIPATED BUDGET $ 6,000,000 FEDERAL FUNDS OBLIGATED $ 2,705,820 FEDERAL FUNDS REQUESTED $ 1, 500, 000 Park & Ride STATE FUNDS OBLIGATED $ 2,850, 000 Turnback T.H. 49 STATE FUNDS REQUESTED ---- -4 CITY PARTICIPATION ANTICIPATED ---- -- 2,149, 586 AJOINING COUNTY FUNDS -$ BOND SALE FUNDS —$ 4,500,000 ' ANTICIPATED Y ...—$ 43, 999 Tuesday. April 18. 2000 Page 3 of 18 -26- Anoka County 2001 /CV CR 76 ° ' - U� CSAH 24 111111. Q1 CR 103a CSAH 26 V 2 n = 'P CSA. C N Q 6 U T U 4 C 22 ism hR6 N t � CR 63 2 CSAH 18 CSAH 18 b _ U Q N U CR60 - GC' m , U x 2 co , - N � CSAH 116 M � � 02 -652 01 02- 607 -17 la le' a 02- 609-11 W C SA H 12 / 02-618-24 70 14..ara .. / CSAH 10 , 02-678-13 r • ��� /I l e 1 a. 02- 611 -28 • t 02- 617 -05 • 02- 617 -11 PARK AND RIDE LOT lu 02- 610 - 10/02- 649-01 EAST CNTY LINR TO TH 47 02- 635-09 1 6 9 4 l in 4 N IS W E x S - 27 - Project Description Year Engineers City Number Estimate Costs C.W. 0 02 -05 -00 2002 SIGNALS (4 UNASSIGNED) 2002 200,000 C.W. 0 02 -01 -00 2002 OVERLAYS 2002 1,000,000 C.W. 0 02 -02-00 2002 CRACK SEALING 2002 105,000 C.W. 0 02 -04-00 2002 BRIDGE MAINTENANCE 2002 50,000 C.W. 0 02 -03 -00 2002 COLD INPLACE RECYCLING 2002 800,000 CSAH 14 96 -68 -14 CORIDOR STUDY ACCESS CONTROL 2002 1,200,000 $960,000 Fed CSAH 17 02 617 - 13 CSAH 14 TO 1000 FT N. OF CSAH 12 2002 2,000,000 50,000 Blaine $1,600,000 Fed CSAH 17 02 617 - 12 PHEASENT RIDGE TO 1000'N OF CSAH 2002 1,474,748 25,000 Blaine 12 $849,380 Fed CSAH 49 S CO. LINE TO CSAH 23 $5.4M TURNBK 2002 5,400,000 CSAH 52 02- 652 -03 INTERCHANGE AT 35W 95TH to 2002 5,350,000 350,000 Blaine HAMLINE CSAH 52 02- 652 -02 CSAH 12 TO 0.28 MLS EAST OF 101st 2002 2,750,000 570,000 Blaine CSAH 52 02- 652 -04 .28 M E OF 101st TO 95TH AVE 2002 900,000 80,000 Blaine * * SubTotal * * 21,229,748 PREVIOUS BALANCE —$ 43,999 BOND PAYMENT $ ANTICIPATED BUDGET $ 6,000,000 FEDERAL FUNDS OBLIGATED $ 3,409, 380 FEDERAL FUNDS REQUESTED ----$ STATE FUNDS OBLIGATED 5,400,000 Turnback T.H. 49 STATE FUNDS REQUESTED - $ 5,000,000 I @ 95th CITY PARTICIPATION ANTICIPATED - - ---$ 1,075,000 AJOINING COUNTY FUNDS $ BOND SALE FUNDS - ---$ ANTICIPATED YEAR END BALANCE - ----$ - 301,369 Tuesday, April 18.2000 Page 4 of 18 - 28 - Anoka County 2002 CR 78 0 ' :. 28 c, CSAH 24 Q- CR 103 CSAH 28 . lit la It - ; S CR 86 ' N. o U U F 85 K .: g % O • 1 CSAH 18 CR 63 V CSAH 18 1 v F p , ,._ i s „:. v .d `� r_ N , 1 CSAH 118 1 • Caf7 1s.. 7H CSAH14 n A 1 y N 22 ,, CS r ti ® 1 ` I :y AH 10 J 96-68 -14 w ry Ilk 121 ` 1 A !I 8 CO. LINE TO CSAH 23 02 -617- 13/02 - 617 -12 i � f 894 N 4 ' "' 02- 652 -04/ i 02- 652 -02/ W H r 02- 652 -03 s Z9 - Anoka County 2003 • _ 28 U CSAH 24 d... ::. CR 103 jill CSAH 28 .. C 'A CSAH 4 • 'CR86 C•SN/� CR 63 CSAH 18 CSAH 18 ; _,_ r 1 Ifra v. :,, ; r p 1 . Q S s U N C U `11111114 wP i 'Mee . i 02- 609-12 - 611111k • TM re . �� t I I W INTERSECTION © THURSTON {, { CSA 10 _ INTERSECTION @ 157TH .I� � ,' INTERSECTION REPL EGRET / l Tab INTERSECTION al JEFFERSON \ 97 -74 -16 02- 617 -15 _ AII INTERSECTION CD CR 105 = REPL SIGNAL CSAH 3/51/10 ® 1694 ", N w ' Ir W E S — 31 — Anoka County 2004 A CR 76 o CSH 8 CSAH 24 • CR 103 CSAH 26 y .11 aP CSAH 4 am V g t cR '4 CSA H22 • n rn bR 6' ti m U iv i i ipl CR 63 CSAH 18 71/4:18 i G ^ , o r U N M ■ '116 11.111.111111 ff l e CSAH 116 I mo. � CSA li H 12 r RR Ar . I! � !% 1 lit 4 N m 4- E S - 33 - Project Description Year Engineers City - Number Estimate Costs C.W. 0 05 -05 -00 2005 SIGNALS 2005 220,000 C.W. 0 04 -01 -00 2005 OVERLAYS 2005 1,000,000 C.W. 0 05 -04-00 2005 BRIDGE MAINTENANCE 2005 50,000 C.W. 0 05 -02 -00 2005 CRACK SEALING 2005 105,000 C.W. 0 05 -03 -00 2005 COLD IN PLACE RECYCLING 2005 800,000 CSAH 11 99 -76 -11 HANSON INTERCHANGE W TH 10 5.5M 2005 10,000,000 FED CSAH 23 CSAH 49 TO I -35W ($3.1M TURNBACK) 2005 3,100,000 CSAH 23 INTERCHANGE WITH I -35W DESIGN 2005 482,500 CSAH 32 02- 632 -11 INTERCHANGE WITH I -35W DESIGN 2005 1,060,000 CSAH 78 RAIL GRADE SEPERATION NEED 3.6M F 2005 4,500,000 " SubTotal " 21,317,500 - PREVIOUS BALANCE $ - 2,186,695 - BOND PAYMENT ` ANTICIPATED BUDGET - ---$ 6,500,000 FEDERAL FUNDS OBLIGATED —$ FEDERAL FUNDS REQUESTED g 9,100, 000 STATE FUNDS OBLIGATED — —$ 3,100, 000 Turnback STATE FUNDS REQUESTED - --$ CITY PARTICIPATION ANTICIPATED -- • - - ---$ AJOINING COUNTY FUNDS -- -$ BOND SALE FUNDS -- -- •- - - - - -- — —$ ANTICIPATED YEAR END BALANCE • Tuesday, April 18, 2000 Page 7 of 18 L_ - Zd Anoka County 1 2005 ^ry CR 76 At) 1_ CSAH 8 CSAH 24 CR 103 CSAH 26 h T " la °'P CSAH 24 CR 74 v L CR 86 _I 4 CSAN22 Q r r Of 1' co R 6 cc U CC y e 0 0 tP lip 11113 r CR 63 CSAH 18 CS AH 18 1111.-A CR 60 = C R 6ry .. N to • , / U N U A CS AH 116 T}7 242 CSAH 14 � .041111 CSAH 10 IT ill HANSON INTERCHANGE W TH 10 c lit RAIL GRADE SEPARATION NEED CSAH 49 TO I -35W g��94 r H4 N W E - 35 - Pr Description Year Engineers City Number Estimate Costs C.W. 0 06 -01 -00 2006 OVERLAYS 2006 1,000,000 C.W. 0 06 -02 -00 2006 CRACK SEALING 2006 105,000 C.W. 0 06 -03 -00 2006 COLD IN PLACE RECYCLING 2006 800,000 C.W. 0 06 -04-00 2006 BRIDGE MAINTENANCE 2006 50,000 C.W. 0 04 -05 -00 2006 SIGNALS 2006 220,000 CSAH 23 CSAH 49 TO I -35W CONST2,$1.1M 2006 1,100,000 TURNB CSAH 23 02- 623 -13 INTERCHANGE WITH I -35W 2006 6,517,500 1,000,000 Lino 5.5 m Fed Lakes CSAH 32 INTERCHANGE WITH I -35W TO CSAH 23 2006 5,940,000 500,000 Ramse: 5.5 in Fed Count; * * SubTotal * * 15,732,500 PREVIOUS BALANCE __$ - 4,804,195 BOND PAYMENT — --4 ANTICIPATED BUDGET ----- - - - - -$ 6,500,000 FEDERAL FUNDS OBLIGATED FEDERAL FUNDS REQUESTED - .... —$ 11, 000, 000 STATE FUNDS OBLIGATED ---------- ---- -$ 1,100, 000 Turnback STATE FUNDS REQUESTED — CITY PARTICIPATION ANTICIPATED — -- $ 1, 000, 000 AJOINING COUNTY FUNDS - $ 500, 000 BOND SALE FUNDS $ ANTICIPATED YEAR END BALANCE --$ -436 695 • Tuesday, April 18.2000 Page 8 of 18 - 36- Anoka County 2006 ^ CR 76 _ - . . 6 J CSAH 1 CR 103 CSAH 28 h . � & P,p CSA 4 1 ll ..: l (\ CR 86 4 CSA/,22 � z / bR 6' U y U CR 63 i CSAH 18 C SAH 18 J CR 60 x pf�°� U A Ira 1 U ,c1 ^ ii ik AblEgi p, 1 las . / ilurrir, ., i •111r =W N 110* U _ CSAH 12 , SAH 10 k ' 1 ! % . ni".1- CSAH 49 TO I -35W INTERCHANGE WITH I -35W TO CSAH iMil INTERCHANGE WITH I -35W 1w ri 4 N H W � E -37 - S PART 3 OTHER PROJECTS - 39 - Introduction to Part 3 Other Pro'e The category "Other Projects" includes two lists. The first list has a year of "2010" assigned to it. These projects have either been requested by the municipality in which the road segment is found, or was included in a previous letter of commitment to the Metropolitan Council for reconstruction prior to 2010. This list consists of $68,255,668 in Engineer's Estimate and cannot be funded prior to 2007 with current funding levels. The second part of Part 3 "Other Projects" is projects, which have been designated by the year "OTHR" and have been identified as projects needing reconstruction for capacity or safety reasons. These projects total $111,423,431. These routes will likely require preservation maintenance prior to the time when reconstruction dollars will be available for them. 1 - 41 - Project Description Year Engineers City Number Estimate Costs CSAH 1 IN FRIDLEY 2010 500,000 CSAH 1 REISLING TO CSAH 78 (HANSON) 2010 9,176,992 CSAH 1 HANSON TO 93RD LN (TH 610) 2010 6,882,744 C.R. 10 LEXINGTON TO CR 53 2010 1,441,018 CSAH 11 FROM HANSON TO SAND CREEK 2010 1,228,957 CSAH 14 02- 614 -13 I35W TOE COUNTY LINE 2010 6,772,785 CSAH 17 02- 617 -16 149TH AVE TO CSAH 18 2010 3,414, 102 CSAH 17 OLD CR 80 TO CSAH 22 2010 10,815,740 CSAH 32 CSAH 49 TO CSAH 21 (37.5 % RAMSEY 2010 3,627,484 CSAH 51 110th to TH 242 2010 4,424,245 CSAH 51 02 -651 -03 92ND AVE NW TO COON RPDS BLVD 2010 1,638,749 TH10 - CSAH 57 TH 10 TO CSAH 116 2010 1,638,749 • CSAH 78 INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT AT CR 2010 800,000 16 CSAH 78 85 -15 -78 C.R. 58 TO CSAH 22 2010 1,600,361 CSAH 116 0.11 M W OF TH 47 TO CR 57 2010 1,600,361 CSAH 116 CSAH 78 TO TH 65 2010 8,356,908 C.R. 116 C.R.56 TO CSAH /CR 57 2010 1,386,979 C.R. 132 CSAH 1 TO TH 47 2010 2,949,497 * • SubTotal • * 68,255,668 PREVIOUS BALANCE --- - -- --$ BOND PAYMENT $ ANTICIPATED BUDGET --$ -- FEDERAL FUNDS OBLIGATED - -- —$ FEDERAL FUNDS REQUESTED --$_ STATE FUNDS OBLIGATED -- $ STATE FUNDS REQUESTED - - - -$ ■ CITY PARTICIPATION ANTICIPATED - - - - -$ AJOINING COUNTY FUNDS ----- -$ • BOND SALE FUNDS --- .----- - - - - -$ ANTICIPATED YEAR END BALANCE - - - -$ Tuesday, April 18, 2000 Page 9 of 18 - 42 - Anoka County 2010 �' CR 76 «-� CSAH24 _ CR 103 CSAH ZB g ='A, ' GSA. 4 4 ■ _ rte 6 • -- S E MI ' - . n 0 7 058 O CS ' 22 $ w .., OLD CR 80 TO CS 22 b. m `' CSAH 18 CR 63 , 5 5 r - . — - :' U U x � \CSAH 1: a a R E I I' ROVE�TATCRI6:' ` J 14THAV E O O '' ' '''' SA H 18 `` CR56TO r 78TO1H6' CSAH /CR 57 1 ® \ - . 1 ,1242 ' �- TH 10 TO CSAH 116 Wil 1 !� 0.11 M W OF THE 47 TO CR 57 ," III CSAH 12 /_ d 2 lo FROM HANSON / r _ i REISLING HANSON TO 93RD LN (610) ; ' 4 1 -�� ni f LEXINGTON TO CR 53 110TH TO TH 242 I ' : CSAH 49 TO CSAH 21 * 92ND AVE NW TO COON RPDS BLVD TH 10 L �� I -35W TO E COUNTY LINE i 1� 4 - . mp ' CR 132 (TH47 TO CSAH 1) N IN FRIDLEY \) W , E —43 — S Project Description Year Engineers City _ Number Estimate Costs C.W. 0 CRACK FILLING ($105,000 PER YEAR) OTHR 1,575,000 C.W. 0 SIGNALS UNASSIGNED (4/ YEAR) OTHR 3,300,000 C.W. 0 OVERLAYS $1,000,000 /YEAR OTHR 15,000,000 C.W. 0 BRIDGE MAINTENANCE OTHR 750,000 C.W. 0 99 -63 -00 RAMSEY/DAYTON RIVER CROSSING OTHR C.W. 0 COLD INPLACE RECYCLING $800000/YR OTHR 12,000,000 CSAH 1 CSAH 7 TO CSAH 14 (MAIN ST) OTHR 1,152,814 CSAH 5 CSAH 24 TO HILLENDALE OTHR 2,209,405 CSAH 6 INTERSECTION AT TH 65 OTHR 300,000 CSAH 7 CSAH 1 TO CSAH 14 OTHR 1,008,713 CSAH 7 141ST TO CR 58 OTHR 2,240,505 CSAH 9 149th AVE TO N LEG CSAH 20 OTHR 1,920,433 CSAH 11 CSAH 78 TO RAVEN ST OTHR 983,249 CSAH 11 CSAH 12 TO .5 MI. E OF CSAH 78 OTHR 2,161,527 CSAH 12 CSAH 17 TO CR 53 (SUNSET) OTHR 934,748 CSAH 12 SUNSET RD FROM CSAH 12 TO APOLO OTHR 144,102 DR CSAH 14 INTERCHANGE AT I-35W OTHR 4,500,000 CSAH 14 94 -10 -14 INTERCHANGE AT I -35W PLANNING OTHR 360,000 CSAH 17 CSAH 18 TO OLD CR 80 OTHR 1,274,657 C.R. 18 91 -09 -18 ANDOVER BLVD. TO CSAH 78 OTHR 1,104,702 CSAH 21 SO.COUNTY LINE TO CSAH 14 OTHR 2,464,336 CSAH 22 CR 65 TO CSAH 5 OTHR 1,274,657 CSAH 22 CR 64 TO CR 65 OTHR 1,699,542 CSAH 23 CSAH 14 TO CSAH 19 OTHR 2,719,267 CSAH 23 CR 105 TO CSAH 17 (LEXINGTON) OTHR 3,195,288 - CSAH 23 #17 TO CSAH 49 OTHR 3,686,871 CSAH 23 CSAH 19 TO 1 -35 OTHR 2,719,267 Tuesday, April 18, 2000 Page 16 of 18 -44 - Project Description Year Engineers City Number Estimate Costs CSAH 23 S COUNTY LINE TO LAKE DRIVE OTHR 432,305 CSAH 23 I-35W TO CSAH 14 OTHR 1,280,288 CSAH 24 TH 47 TO CSAH 28 OTHR 864,611 CSAH 30 TH 47 TH CSAH 7 OTHR 864,611 CSAH 36 CR 77 TO NORTH COUNTY LINE OTHR 1,869,496 C.R. 52 CSAH 116 TO CR 61 OTHR 1,699,542 CSAH 52 MAIN ST TO CSAH 116 OTHR 1,722,029 C.R. 58 CSAH 9 TO CSAH 18 OTHR 4,248,855 C.R. 58 CSAH 7 TO CSAH 9 OTHR 3,399,084 C.R. 64 CSAH 83 TO CSAH 5 OTHR 2,294,382 C.R. 65 WEST COUNTY LINE TO CSAH 22 OTHR 424,886 C.R. 71 INTERSECTION WITH CSAH 28 OTHR 400,000 • CSAH 78 02- 678 -07 TH 242 TO 1000' N OF BUNKER LK BLVD OTHR 4,178,454 CSAH 78 N JCT CSAH 11 TO TH 242 OTHR 2,457,914 C.R. 79 1900 FT SW OF CSAH 9 TO TH 288 OTHR 918,415 C.R. 103 CSAH 13 TO CSAH 26 OTHR 2,549,313 C.R. 105 LAKE DR VE TO CSAH 52 (95 TH AVE) OTHR 1,441,018 CSAH 116 TH 65 TO CSAH 17 OTHR 3,144,153 C.R. 140 CSAH 14 TO CSAH 21 OTHR 6,554,994 * • SubTotal * * 111,423,431 PREVIOUS BALANCE -- ---- -$ BOND PAYMENT $ ANTICIPATED BUDGET ---- ---- -$ FEDERAL FUNDS OBLIGATED --- - ----$ FEDERAL FUNDS REQUESTED --- --- - -$ STATE FUNDS OBLIGATED -- $ STATE FUNDS REQUESTED $ CITY PARTICIPATION ANTICIPATED -- ---- -$ AJOINING COUNTY FUNDS -$ BOND SALE FUNDS — $ ANTICIPATED YEAR END BALANCE 'I'ues pril 18, 2000 Page 17 of 18 - 45 - MULTI MODAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM TRANSPORTATION IN * COMMUTER RAIL ANOKA COUNTY * ANOKA COUNTY TRAVELER YOUR * TRAILS AND WALKWAYS HIGHWAY FOR THE * METRO TRANSIT FUTURE * AIRPORT • HIGHWAY Y, �+e' >s � i irtgr .{; Thvn ► FUNCTIONAL CLASS - J 1 t/ � - • PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL 9.09 miles ll real s�ng a ve •r 1 • MINOR ARTERIAL "A" 119.27 miles y � ° • MINOR ARTERIAL "B" 115.94 miles �Fldill • COLLECTORS 147.72 miles �` R a "" 11,i, ca �� ��� �Hr.� [ LOCAL ROADS 28.50 miles 11= ►` \l`7 A�� 1� I - 1.i FUNCTIONAL CLASS MAP MNDOT TURNBACKS DELETIONS FROM COUNTY SYSTEM • TH 49 LINO LAKES • CSAH 11 COON RAPIDS • TH 10 COON RAPIDS ABOUT 2000 • CR 10 BLAINE • TH 288 IN ANOKA 1 _47.. ADDITIONAL DELETIONS HIGHWAYS AND STREETS BEING PURSUED • CR 110 LEXINGTON AND CIRCLE • INTERSTATES 23.23 M 2.54 % PINES • US HIGHWAYS 19.44 M 0.60 % • CR 81 ST FRANCIS • MN T.H 58.83 M 0.75 % • CSAH'S 27539 M 0.91 % • MSAS 227.43 M 9.07 % • CTY ROADS 140.71 M 0.93 % • TOWNSHIP 1041.88 M 2.01 % • MUNICIPAL 1911.43 M 12.88 % INDICATORS AVERAGE ADT • CO AVERAGE CSAH ADT 5921 "1) • ANOKA CO AVERAGE C.R. ADT 1538 3003 ( ■STATE • PERCENT OF ALL VMT ON CSAH 26.9 6000 /� ? ■ M ETRO - • PERCENT OF ALL VMT ON C.R. 3.9 3000 O • ONLY 70 % OF THE STATE AVERAGE. 3000 STATE FUNDED MILES ,-or 1 • ONLY 50.5% OF VMT ON STATE ROADS ADT CSAH ADT CR VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED MOTOR VEHICLE REGISTRATION °vedayyd AND POPULATION on CONSTRUCTION DOLLARS ova! O° STATE AID $I.. COO .COO tOOO.am $7.D MOW M:.000.000 . ..am.l a000 mo. j NPm.[W i aw„ 1 umomo iaoo.000� a 1 p aa� S¢ { 14E00.000 { MAO 000 [flJ[ I R i uOW aKW e 3 aoa000 �6WAM 0 S4c w.. _—vat. Mw i..wI - .... wmrV— I. Oy .PMS�VM.•d• 2 —48— Philosophy Types of Roadways • Preserve • FULL SECTION - PRESERVE • Manage • DEFICIENT SECTION - PRESERVE • Improve • DEFICIENT SECTION - 5 YEAR PLAN • Expand • DEFICIENT SECTION - 20 YEAR PLAN I STRATEGIES FOR PRESERVATION ROUTES Current Preservation Funding • OVERLAY - $3120 /ft/mile • Cold inplace Recycling - $800,000 per year • Overlays Including Milling - $1,000,000 per • COLD IN PLACE RECYCLING - $ 2900 year /ft/mile • Crack Sealing - $105,000 per year • CRACK SEALING - $150 / ft/mile • Bridge Maintenance - $50,000 per year plus special projects Full Section Preserve Rebuilt in the last 20 years Deficient Section - 20 Year Plan • • Sufficient for projected traffic • 162 miles - 39 %of system • High Volume -High Priority • Maintain until Reconstructed Deficient Section Preserve • Deficient Cross Section •No improvement since paved • Expansion Type Projects Comparatively low volume • 111 miles - 29% of the system • $ million in deficiencies • 148 miles - 35 % of system 14 $ 14 million n per year a •$142 million dollars in deficiencies 3 -49 - The Plan Deficient Section - 5 Year Plan • Strong Preservation Component • Bonding to Help Move some major Projects • Highest Priorities - Highest Volume forward • Maintain Until Reconstructed • Strong Commitment to Lexington Avenue • Deficient Cross Section and Radisson road Corridors • Expansion • Aggressive funding strategies. • $82 million in Est. Project Costs • Interchange Improvements at: • $16.4 million per Year — Main Street and TH 10 under construction • $ 61 million identified —95th Avenue at I -35W being designed — Lake Drive and I -35W • $ 21 million unmet at this time — Hanson Blvd and TH 10 Anoka County - - _ __ . 2000 • Maka County 2001 -2006 a. arrsa Highway Improvement Plan - �Eiltl rr. - tea �.'�+� ifi lralla i llitai r IratilhMiutllac. b ier • Anoka County Anoka County 2001 2002 l loot ag ; •ait rig —a � V i / fit Ip ° �, �'` � rea:O ILOI 1.I .'" wm a 1PI. MUM 70 ,O • 4 . F, cr. fOa �• 1� 4 - 50- I • Anoka County Anoka County 2003 2000 !Iltilthlrbmpomerr gibs -.7.....ii — 4 wie!i I M a SSE M.. a .... / t) ■ k*tr�0,i I \� ±Ste/ .,. �..... 'ice ...M..a ... 1i1.: •'e..: " .....�....— � aI .....,.._. flee 4. li r 4. Anoka County Anoka County . 2008 2010 ����/ j uu i Ij'o�q Eft -r,,,.2.1.0, � j. *�ra64'� .•. �..A..... >.. ..... «.._....... i t ....s.... p....p ....... .... tR,: ..... . ......,. a ..,... 1 1e► ...... . II ......«. MAJOR CHALLENGES 12 • MAJOR STAFFING ISSUES 10 • PROVIDING OVERSITE FOR A , __ _ GREATLY EXPANDED PROGRAM I • INCREASED DEMAND FOR a 6 - TRANSPORTATION • IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMUTER - .- - RAIL W/ TH 10 IMPROVEMENTS AND S - ADDITIONAL RIVER CROSSINGS - 0• - • STABLE AND ADDITIONAL FUNDING 1991 1992 1903 1904 1995 1996 1997 1996 1999 • FOR HIGHWAYS — Assessed V0bn•lior. - - 1- 6ynMw. .. ACNO State Aid n MYOns ...... TOW Stab Ald 11 n.tlre0 Mart 5 - 51 - Flyore 2. AR Seaq Median Gas Taax per Celina. FUNDING LEVEL TRENDS ... r- sw «...... ANOKA COUNTY HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT 1987 . 2000 Mears Par Year Per Person (Adjusted In 19_ Dolan) so sa opt ,EA P ,SID .f t � d' . f f l �d� . . -.- Local E8. Por MpbrVMLY - - Tot., Mr Pm Motor Vtlwb - - - - Ta Effort Pm Capita —lace MitPer CMOS Source. Minnesota Taxpayen Association Fiscal Focus, Aug 1999 Figure 3. Minnesota's Gas Tax per Vehicle Mile a.rwr�.n Contacts: Highways Jon Olson 763- 8624213 Linden Robjent 763 - 862 -4237 Commuter Rail Tim Pantos 763- 323 -5700 Anoka County Traveler Tim Kirchoff 763 -422 -7088 Recreational Trails Source: Minnesota Taxpayers Association John VonDeLinde 763- 767 -2860 Fiscal Focus, Aug 1999 i e 4 MEMO • DATE : May 19, 2000 TO : Honorable Mayor and Council FROM : Jim March RE : Park and Ride Site Request/Livable Communities Act Demonstration Grant Included in your packet is a copy of a new grant program that has been established by the Metropolitan Council. They are currently soliciting applications in a two -phase process. They have $6.9 million dollars available with an additional $3 million available for projects that enhance transit opportunities. I have had discussions with two representatives from the Met Council in regards to a potential project. They have indicated that they thought the project would meet the established guidelines and encouraged a grant submittal. The applications will be ranked competitively. The best part of this new program is that there is NO Iocal match required. The project that I am proposing is as follows : 1) Demolish the existing two public works buildings 2) Acquire the remaining four residential parcels on the block 3) Relocate or demolish the existing residential parcels 4) Cap all wells on the block 5) Perform needed soil corrections on the block and bring the site to grade 6) Extend watermain along Centerville Road 7) Complete the streetscape enhancements 8) Pave a municipal parking lot/park and ride on a portion of the block 9) Take RFP's on the entire block and offer a financial incentive from the grant proceeds in exchange for the best developer proposal for a mixed use building that would be similar to the Design Team concept sketch 10) Connect a trail linkage from the project site to the trail corridor in LaMotte Park The grant is designed to encourage mixed -use compact development. Projects that enhance transit are awarded bonus points. Joanne Baron (Met Council Rep.) told me that they are encouraging brick and mortar projects. This project seems to meet all of the criteria that are included in the grant application. By completing the above ten - mentioned project items, this will make the RFP process for the site much more financially feasible for an outside developer. I would expect that we would have numerous proposals to develop the site with a desirable mixed -use building. The existing residential property owners would be paid full market value for their properties. In addition, the property owners would receive relocation allowances. I am anticipating that our grant request would be slightly over a million dollars. I am not anticipating any significant resistance by the property owners to relocate from their current locations. I am already aware that two of the property owners are anxious to sell. I also met with John Harper (Senior Project Coordinator for the Transportation and Transit Department) on Thursday, May 18. I took Mr. Harper to our public works site. Mr. Harper indicated to me that it was very important for the Met Council to maintain a park and ride location in the City of Centerville. The Tom Thumb Corporate Office has announced that they want the park and ride to leave their parking lot by June 1, 2000. I explained to Mr. Harper that we might be applying for a LCA Demonstration Grant. Mr. Harper said he would talk to Joanne Baron and would support our grant request. I told Mr. Harper that I would request the City Council to allow the park and ride to be temporarily located at the public works site. I have talked with Paul Palzer in regards to clearing an area where 12 -15 vehicles could park on a daily basis. I met with the transportation executive from Lorenz Bus Service. He indicated that the site would be perfect for them because they travel north on Centerville Road to make their scheduled pick -up. The grant pre - application has to be submitted by June 2, 2000. If the application is chosen to continue through the final phase, then the final application is due on August 31, 2000. Grant awards will be announced in December of 2000. If this project were awarded, it would change the appearance, vitality and livability in the downtown area immensely. I believe that the grant would also instantly change investment opportunities in the downtown area. There would be no risk to the City in making application for this program Programs like this are rare opportunities. I am working on a draft application in anticipation of the Council's authorization for submittal of the phase one application. I hope the Council share's my enthusiasm for this potential project. I will more fully explain this program at the Council meeting. MAY 1 8 2000 Working Draft - 2/15/00 Metropolitan Council Principles of Smart Growth .. . • Sustains economic growth and competitiveness of the region in the world economy. • Promotes wise stewardship of the natural and built environment, to preserve, protect and optimize existing resources and investments. • Meets the needs of growth and change - to accommodate projected growth in jobs and households - in ways that maintain or enhance community livability and quality of life for the region's citizens. • Balances diverse interests and objectives; engages and informs citizens in decisions affecting the future of their communities and the region. V: \LIBRARY\COMMUNDVySman Growth \051600 Principla.doc Livable Communities bemonstration Account of the Metropolitan Livable Communities Fund administered by the Metropolitan Council 2000 Building Models for Compact, Lifecycle Communities CONTENTS 2000 Schedule Phase I Application Form Program Guidelines and Criteria Introduction Building Models for Compact, Lifecycle Communities Part I. Program Guidelines, Categories, Funding Goals Part II. Program Criteria and Selection Process Attachment Land Use and Design Guidelines For Livable Communities V. LIBRARV\COMMUNOW.CA2000\031600 -2000 cnlena packet cover page 00c Livable Communities bemonstration Account of the Livable Communities Fund administered by the Metropolitan Council 2000 Funding Cycle Schedule REVISED --Note Extended Application Dates Available Funding: $6.9 million and Supplemental $1.5 million to enhance transit use in one two -phase funding cycle DoexitAto e of vitY ` ,' r `a s March 15 Issue Request for Proposals May 2 Additional application workshop at Crystal City Hall (see notice enclosed) June 2 Phase I applications (short form) due June MC staff reviews applications to determine eligibility on threshold criteria; Livable Communities Advisory Committee reviews proposals and decides which proposals will advance to the second phase; gives feedback to applicants of remaining group of proposals August 31 Phase 11 applications due Sept. — Oct. MC staff reviews proposals, Advisory Committee reviews and evaluates proposals, hears presentations from applicants (dates to be announced), makes funding recommendations Nov. 20, Dec. 4 Council's Livable Communities Committee reviews and recommends projects to receive awards Dec. 13 Metropolitan Council awards grants LIVABLE COMMUNITIES DEMONSTRATION ACCOUNT 2000 PHASE I APPLICATION FORMAT Page 1 Cover Sheet • Project Name • Applicant, City • Contact Person ❑ Address ❑ Phone, Fax Page 2 Briefly Describe the Project • Check Funding Category ❑ Compact, mixed - use transit oriented (A) ❑ Compact, mixed -use to build capacity for future transit (B) ❑ Mixed residential (C) ❑ Cluster housing in urban reserve (D) ❑ Planning /predevelopment (E) • Concept, goals, scope • Process to date / status • Next steps Page 3 Project Components / Threshold Criteria • Proposed Densities • Mix of Uses • Housing Mix and Integration • Employment Proximity Page 4 Project Features Describe the project in more detail, including: • How you will (as applicable) integrate transportation, housing, commercial, employment, other uses; or mix residential types • Linkages within the site and to adjacent sites /neighborhoods • How the area will serve /improve /provide access to employment, transportation, housing, services, recreation, community or public spaces Page 5 Funding • What are you proposing to fund with a Demonstration Account award? • Describe the benefits or value to the project that a grant award would provide - what would you not be able to do or provide, but for these funds? • Amount of funding requested Attach Site Map Include area map with site and transportation /transit identified, and site plan if available. 4 SUBMIT FIVE PAGES ONLY, INCLUDING COVER SHEET, PLUS ONE OR MORE MAPS /DIAGRAMS. PLEASE SEND THREE COPIES OF THE COMPLETE APPLICATION AND 20 COPIES OF ALL MAPS AND DIAGRAMS. DEADLINE: 5 p.m. Ma; 2000. ' Lc nit ' \ LIBRARY∎ COMMUNDVCA2000�2000Phu wm c1APPIFm.doc �2, LL INTRODUCTION BUILDING MODELS FOR COMPACT, LIFECYCLE COMMUNITIES The Livable Communities Demonstration Account is designed to fund models for "Smart Growth" in all parts of the region. The funding is an incentive to demonstrate new forms of development in the region that make better use of land and services already in place and forge a stronger relationship between land use and transportation. Program objectives include: • Interrelate development or redevelopment with transit, • Intensify land use through appropriate densities and mixing of uses, including housing, to support transit use, walking, biking and community interaction. • Connect housing and areas of employment growth, and • Provide an integrated mix of housing types and price or rent ranges within a development. Demonstration models will help implement goals of the Council's Regional Blueprint and Regional Growth Strategy to increase densities, job creation and economic development in the Urban Area, especially along transit routes; use regional transportation investments to increase transit use and mixed -use development; improve links among jobs, transportation and housing; and enhance existing neighborhoods and activity centers. Different types of models are appropriate in different parts of the region. In the region's core and other older areas, smart growth means redevelopment, rehabilitation or infill that preserves or intensifies urban fabric to support transit use that provides convenient access to jobs and services. In developing areas currently without transit service, it means more compact residential and mixed -use development or inf ill, at appropriate densities for these locations, that can support future transit use and in the meantime enable more trips by walking or biking. Whether served by transit or not, compact and mixed -use development forms can create or enhance town centers and other gathering places and destinations for community residents. V: LLIBRARY , COMMUNDV LCA2000\030300Icda ciitcn" 8- 20- 99.doc Smart development also means mixing housing types rather than placing them in separated P 9 9tYP p 9 P areas, and providing a range of housing from low and moderate -cost levels to higher - priced housing. This creates lifecycle communities, allowing people to stay in their community as their family needs change. In rural towns and older outlying cities, smart growth means clustering housing to save open space and use land more efficiently. It also means compact, mixed development that improves the capability of these towns to function more self - sufficiently with a balance of jobs, shopping, services and life -cycle housing options, so people can stay in their community as their needs change. V. LLIBRARY \COMMUNDVLLCA2000 \0303001cda criteria 830- 99.doc 2 PART I. PROGRAM GUIDELINES, CATEGORIES, FUNDING GOALS GUIDING PRINCIPLES The guiding principles for smart growth models that accomplish the program objectives are: Principle 1: Make Development Compact • Connect rather than separate uses, to allow for functional relationships between them. • Build mid- to high- densities appropriate to the location, with attention to the design and relationships of structures to each other. • Provide infill or retrofit land uses that result in more compact development. Principle 2: Mix Uses • include u variety of uSe9 and destinutions -- shopping, work, resi'uurun7 entertainment, civic uses, cultural activities, parks and other public spaces, and a variety of housing types and costs. • Connect uses to transit, providing people with a way to get to jobs, services or recreation other than driving. Principe 3: Design for Peop /e • Locate shops and other uses within walking distance of each other, and within walking distance of transit, where available. • Design streets for pedestrians and for cars. Orient businesses and other structures to the street for pedestrian accessibility, and provide convenient parking to the side or rear of buildings. This creates safe, pleasant walking environments. V U. IBRARYCOMMUNDW .CA2000∎0303o01cda nitena 8.20- 99.doc 3 • Provide places for people to gather- -parks and other public open spaces, a central place or neighborhood center that provides a focus for activities. • Use design to make places safer, create amenities and improve livability. FUNDING GOALS AND CATEGORIES The Metropolitan Council encourages development patterns that are appropriate in different parts of the region, including mixed -use development within walking distance of transit, where available, and in other locations; mixed residential development in the urban area, and cluster housing in the urban reserve. These development patterns, and the locations where they are appropriate, are reflected in the funding categories described below. Funding proposals may be in these categories: (Different locations are identified within each category; some of the criteria vary by location. Categories and locations are also listed on a separate attachment with a reference map). Category A: Compact transit- oriented development, redevelopment or infill that has a mix of uses, including housing: a Compact, mixed -use transit- oriented development, redevelopment or infill proposals located within i mile of regular route transit stops, or within an area that will be served by regular route transit service within two to three years. (Regular route service operates on fixed routes and a predetermined schedule). Locations: Area 1: Minneapolis, St. Paul and first -ring suburbs, Area 2: Developing Urban Communities. Category B: Compact development, redevelopment or infill that has a mix of uses, including housing: ❑ Compact, mixed -use development, redevelopment or infill development that is not served by regular route transit service, and will not be served by regular route transit service within two to three years. Locations: Area 1: Minneapolis, St. Paul and first -ring suburbs, Area 2: Developing Urban Communities, Area 3: Rural Growth Centers. V:\ LIBRARYCOMMUNDVLLCA2000 \0303001cda c,itena B- 20- 99.doc 4 Category C: Compact mixed residential development, redevelopment or infill: ❑ Residential development that includes a mix'of housing types at different sales and /or rent levels. Locations: Area 1: Minneapolis, St. Paul, and first -ring suburbs; Area 2: Developing Urban Communities; Area 3: Rural Growth Centers. Category b: Cluster Housing in the Urban Reserve: ❑ Cluster housing as interim uses until full urbanization occurs around them. Category E: Planning and Predevelopment Proposals ❑ Proposals for conducting planning and other predevelopment activities to shape projects fitting Categories A, B, C or D. Proposals will be grouped for evaluation against the selection criteria (Part II) in these categories (and locations within categories), so that proposals will be evaluated against others that are similar in type and location. It is the prerogative of the Livable Communities Advisory Committee to recommend, and the Metropolitan Council to determine the number and amount of awards. The Council may award less than the total available amount of $6.9 million, and in addition, up to $1.5 million in supplemental funding to support and enhance transit use in mixed -use transit- oriented proposals (Category A, described above). The Metropolitan Council may make grants or loans in all of the categories, or to one or more projects in some of the categories. BONUS POINTS Bonus points will be awarded to encourage municipalities or counties to work together on issues of mutual concern: 10 points Multicommunity efforts: Proposals for a project involving two or more jurisdictions (municipalities or counties) in a coordinated effort to jointly plan land use implementation projects in a transportation corridor. Applies to proposals in all categories. V .I ',MARY COMMUNDVA.CA2000 030300Icda cntc, a 8- 20.99.doc 5 Bonus points will also be given to encourage a broader distribution of models in the region (the majority of awards in the first four years of the program have been located in central city or older suburban areas): 10 points Proposals in any of these categories: for transit- oriented mixed -use development (Category A), mixed -use non- transit- oriented development (Category B), OR residential development with integrated mix of housing types and costs (Category C) in Developing Urban Cities. USES OF GRANT AND LOAN FUNDS Funding Objectives and Limitations: 1. Funded project components should directly contribute to completion of a built or finished project. 2. Funded project components should reflect the goals and principles of the demonstration program. 3. Minimum and maximum awards: There are no minimum or maximum award levels established for individual proposals, except for Planning /Predevelopment Proposals (Category E). Funded proposals in Category E are limited to $150,000 per proposal. 4. No specific number of awards or dollar amounts is allocated to any of the funding categories. 5. Local match: No local match is required, except for Category E, Planning / Predevelopment proposals. A match of 1:1 is required for Category E proposals. Eligible and Ineligible Uses - Categories A, B, C & D: Demonstration Account funds ($6.9 million) may be used for project and site planning costs, design and construction costs. Grant funds are intended to be used for "hard costs" rather than "soft costs." Ineligible uses include administrative overhead; activities prior to the start of the grant project; travel expenses; legal fees; permits, licenses or authorization fees; costs associated with preparing other grant proposals; operating expenses; comprehensive planning costs; and prorated lease and salary costs. V \ LIBRARY \COMMUNDVLCA2000 \OJOJOOIcda cntena 8- 20.99.dac 6 Supplemental transit funds ($1.5 million) may be used for selected mixed -use, transit- oriented proposals (Category A) for project components that enhance and support transit use. Examples of eligible components include pedestrian walkway connections or crossings to transit within or adjacent to a funded proposal, passenger waiting shelters or benches, park and ride locations, or other facilities or features determined by the Livable Communities Advisory Committee and the Metropolitan Council to be appropriate to support transit use. Ongoing transit costs are not eligible. Eligible and Ineligible Uses - Category E (Planning and Predevelopment): Funds may be used to pay for the services of consultants to create master plan or development and implementation plans, development of implementation tools, market studies, feasibility studies or other related studies, and costs for holding community design events or charrettes (except for food and beverage costs). Travel expenses that are legitimate and necessary to accomplish project results (such as travel for a national consultant with expertise valuable to the success of a project) are permitted. MULTI -YEAR FUNDING Projects funded through the Livable Communities Demonstration Account in previous years are encouraged to submit proposals again this year. The Council wants to help worthy projects that exemplify the goals of the program receive the level of assistance they need to succeed. For example, a previously- funded project may be ready to proceed with a next phase which could be the subject of an application. Such a proposal will be evaluated in part on progress made since the earlier grant. Similarly, projects for which a funding proposal is made for the first time in 2000 may view this year's application as the first of a longer -term funding proposal package that is submitted on a year -by -year basis. Again, as above, funding proposals beyond 2000 will be evaluated in part on progress since the initial grant. If you anticipate applying for funding in 2000 andin future years for the same project, please state this in your application. V. LIBRARY \COMMONDVLLCA2000 \0]0)OOIcda unc 8- 2D- 99.doc 7 PART II PROGRAM CRITERIA AND SELECTION PROCESS ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA To be eligible for funding consideration, the following must be met: • Applicant cities must be participating in the Local Housing Incentives Program of the Livable Communities Act, an behalf of proposals in their communities; or be metropolitan counties on behalf of projects located in eligible communities. • Proposals must be consistent with the policies of the Metropolitan Council's Regional Blueprint and Regional Growth Strategy, and be provided with central sewer and water and roads (Urban Core, Urban Area and Rural Growth Centers). • Proposals must be consistent with the comprehensive plan of the city in which the project is located. • Proposals must help achieve one or more of the affordable and life -cycle housing goals adopted by the applicant city (or the city in which the project is located if the applicant is a county) under the Local Housing Incentive program of the Livable Communities Act. • Proposals must include an endorsement from the applicant city; or from the city in which the project is located, if the applicant is a county. PHASE I EVALUATION AND SELECTION PROCESS 1. Applicants must submit a five -page proposal, following the outline in this packet, by 5 p.m. on May 5, 2000 at the Metropolitan Council central office. Please send three copies of the complete application and 20 copies of all maps and /or drawings. V' 1IRRARY'COMMUNDVLLCAIOWA0303Micda mtcda 11- 20- 99.dac 8 Council staff will determine points to be awarded on threshold criteria (refer to next section) for proposals in Categories A through D. (Threshold criteria do not apply to proposals in Category E). Proposals in Categories A, B, C or D must be awarded points on the threshold criteria, as outlined for each category, to be eligible for funding consideration. 2. The Livable Communities Advisory Committee will evaluate proposals, considering the threshold point scores (where applicable) and using the selection criteria in this section. The advisory committee will select a group of proposals, by June 15, that will be invited to submit a Phase II application, and may give applicants of these proposals guidance on preparing their applications. For the remaining proposals, the advisory committee will give written feedback designed to help applicants improve their proposals. PHASE II EVALUATION AND SELECTION PROCESS 1. Applicants invited to submit a Phase II application must submit Phase II proposals to the Metropolitan Council offices by 5 PM on August 15. 2. For Categories A through D (not applicable to Category E): Council staff will verify the number of points awarded to each proposal under the Threshold Criteria. Threshold point totals will be weighted so that all proposals will be evaluated on an equal basis. For example, a project that has received the maximum point score of 30 in Category C, Mixed Residential, will be multiplied by the appropriate numerical factor to bring its score to 50, the maximum possible point total in any category. 3. The Livable Communities Advisory Committee will hear presentations from applicants, evaluate proposals and score applications on the Selection Criteria. 4. Categories A through D: Points received on Threshold Criteria and Selection Criteria will be totaled to determine each project's total score. A proposal's total score is the total of its score on the evaluation criteria (50 points after weighting plus 20 possible bonus points for Categories A, B, or C), plus its score on the selection criteria (maximum 100 points). Total: 150 possible points plus applicable bonus points. V 1 .; iIkARY. COMMUNDVLL, CA2000‘0303001cda & - 20 - 99.doc 9 Category E: A proposal's total score is its score on the selection criteria for Category E proposals. Maximum points: 100 plus 10 possible bonus points. 5. Based on the evaluation and scoring process, the Livable Communities Advisory Committee will make its selections for funding from the Demonstration Account. Funded proposals in all categories must score a minimum of 70 points on the Selection Criteria. 6. The Advisory Committee will make selections for awards from the supplemental funding for proposals in the Transit- Oriented Mixed -use Development category (Category A). To be considered for this funding, proposals must score a minimum of 70 points on the Selection Criteria. 7. The Livable Communities Advisory Committee will make funding recommendations by the first week of November and present them to the Metropolitan Council's Livable Communities Committee. 8. The Metropolitan Council will make awards by December 13. V LIBRARYCOMMUNDV \LCA2000\0303001cda =tens B- 20- 99.doc 10 THRESHOLD CRITERIA FOR PROPOSALS IN CATEGORIES A, B C & D (THRESHOLD CRITERIA DO NOT APPLY TO CATEGORY E PROPOSALS) The applicant must show how the project relates to the threshold criteria to be scored on these criteria. Category A - Mixed -Use Transit - Oriented Development, Redevelopment or Inf iII 50 possible points - minimum of 20 points on criteria 1 through 4 is required for further fundinq consideration 1. Housing Densities 0 -10 points Area 1 (Minneapolis, St. Paul, first -ring suburbs): 10 points Development, redevelopment or infill mixed -use development with residential densities of more than 30 units per acre. 8 points Development, redevelopment or infill mixed -use development with residential densities of 21 -30 units per acre. 5 points Development, redevelopment or infill mixed -use development with • residential densities of 7 -20 units per acre. 0 points Development, redevelopment or infill mixed -use development with residential densities of less than 7 units per acre. Area 2 (Developing Cities within the Urban Area): 10 points Development, redevelopment or infill mixed -use development with residential densities of more than 20 units per acre. 8 points Development, redevelopment or infill mixed -use development with residential densities of 13 -20 units per acre. V.\ LIBRARY ..COMMUNDVLLCA2000\u)03001cda cnkna 8- 20- 99.doc 11 5 points Development, redevelopment or inf ill mixed -use development with residential densities of 7 -12 units per acre. 0 points Development, redevelopment or infill mixed -use development with residential densities of less than 7 units per acre. 2. Mix of Uses 0 -10 points Area 1 (Minneapolis, St. Paul, first -ring suburbs) and Area 2 (developing urban cities) 10 points Proposals for redevelopment/redevelopment/inf ill that include a mix of residential and four or more other uses from among the following: office, retail, restaurant, entertainment, government /civic, arts /cultural, multipurpose /conference center, open space, public space. 8 points Proposals for redevelopment /redevelopment /infill that include a mix of residential and two or three other uses from among the following: office, retail, restaurant, entertainment, government /civic, arts /cultural, multipurpose /conference center, open space, public space. 5 points Proposals for redevelopment /redevelopment /infill that include two uses from among the following: residential, office, retail, restaurant, entertainment, government /civic, arts /cultural, multipurpose /conference center, open space, public space. 0 points Proposals for redevelopment /redevelopment /infill that propose one use only. V.'; LIBRARYCOMMUNDW .CA2000 \0303001cda Miens 8- 20- 99.dac 12 - I Housing Mix and Economic Integration 0 -10 points Area 1 (Minneapolis, St. Paul, first -ring suburbs) and Area 2 (developing urban cities) 5 points Housing proposals that include three or more different housing types or tenure combinations - attached, detached, different physical configurations of attached or detached, ownership, rental. 3 points Housing proposals that include two different housing types, or a combination of ownership and rental housing types. 0 points Housing proposals that include one type or tenure option. Area 1 (Minneapolis, St. Paul, first -ring suburbs) and Area 2 (developing urban cities) In this category, priority will be given to proposals that serve the lowest income households or the greatest mix of households at up to 50 percent of median income for rental housing and up to 80 percent of median income for ownership housing. 5 points A mix of new housing opportunities within the proposed project area, including 20 percent of units at prices or rents affordable to families at up to 50 percent of median income for rental housing and up to 80 percent of median income for ownership housing. 3 points New market -rate housing that includes 15 -20 percent of units at prices or rents affordable at up to 50 percent of median income for rental housing and up to 80 percent of median income for ownership housing. 2 points New market -rate housing that includes up to 15 percent of units at prices or rents affordable to families at up to 50 percent of median income for rental housing and up to 80 percent of median income for ownership housing. 0 points New market -rate housing that does not include units affordable at prices or rents affordable to families at up to 50 percent of median income for rental housing and up to 80 percent of median income for ownership housing. V LIBR>RY\COMMUNDV LCA2000 \030300Icda criteria 8- 20- 99.doc 13 4. Employment Proximity -- Jobs, Housing, Transportation Connections 0 -10 points Area 1 (Minneapolis, St. Paul, first -ring suburbs) and Area 2 (developing urban cities) 10 points More than 5,000 jobs (estimated) within one mile of the proposed project, including jobs in the proposed project. 8 points 3,000 - 5,000 jobs within one mile (estimated) of the proposed project, including jobs in the proposed project. 5 points 1,000 - 3,000 jobs within one mile (estimated) of the proposed project, including jobs in the proposed project. 0 points Less than 1,000 jobs within one mile (estimated) of the proposed project, including jobs in the proposed project. 5. Transit Improvements 0 -10 points Area 1 (Minneapolis, St. Paul, first -ring suburbs) and Area 2 (developing urban cities) 10 points One or more of the following: existing transit hub or station, or proposed transit hub /station consistent with regional plans; existing park and ride facility, or proposed park and ride facility consistent with regional plans; or proposed improvements to existing transit passenger facilities. 0 points None of the following: existing or proposed transit hub or station, existing or proposed park and ride, or proposed improvements to existing transit passenger facilities. V:\ LIBRARY \COMMUNOW.CA2000 \O30300Jcde criteria 8- 20.99.doc 14 Category B - Compact Non - Transit- Oriented Development, Redevelopment or Inf ill 40 possible points. A minimum of 20 points is required for further funding consideration. 1. Housing Densities 0 -10 points Area 1 (Minneapolis, St. Paul, first -ring suburbs) and Area 3 (rural growth centers): 10 points Proposals for development, redevelopment or infill that include densities of more than 20 units per acre. 8 points Proposals for development, redevelopment or infill that include densities of 10 -20 units per acre. 5 points Proposals for development, redevelopment or infill that include densities of 5 -9 units per acre. 0 points Proposals for development, redevelopment or infill that include densities of less than 5 units per acre. Area 2 (Developing Urban Cities): 10 points Proposals for development, redevelopment or infill that include densities of more than 16 units per acre. 8 points Proposals for development, redevelopment or infill that include densities of 7 -15 units per acre. 5 points Proposals for development, redevelopment or infill that include densities of 3 -6 units per acre. 0 points Proposals for development, redevelopment or infill that include densities of less than 3 units per acre. V ` IIBRARYfOMMUNDVLLG3000t0303001cda criteria 830- 99.doc 15 2. Mix of Uses 0 -10 points Area 1 (Minneapolis, St. Paul, first -ring suburbs, Area 2 (Developing Urban Cities), and Area 3 (rural growth centers): 10 points Proposals for redevelopment /redevelopment /infill that include a mix of residential and three or more other uses such as retail, restaurant, open space, public space. 5 points Proposals for redevelopment /redevelopment /infill that include a mix of two or three uses such as residential, retail, restaurant, open space, public space. 3. Housing Mix and Economic Integration 0 -10 points Area 1 (Minneapolis, St. Paul, first -ring suburbs), Area 2 (Developing urban cities), and Area 3 (rural growth centers): 5 points Housing proposals that include three or more different housing types or tenure combinations - attached, detached, different physical configurations of attached or detached, ownership, rental, 3 points Housing proposals that include two different housing types, or a combination of ownership and rental housing types. 0 points Proposals that include only one housing type. Area 1 (Minneapolis, St. Paul, first -ring suburbs) Area 2 (developing urban cities), and Area 3 (rural growth centers): In this category, priority will be given to proposals that serve the lowest income households or the greatest mix of households at up to 50 percent of median income for rental housing and up to 80 percent of median income for ownership housing. 5 points A mix of new housing opportunities within the proposed project area, including 20 percent of units at prices or rents affordable to families at up to 50 percent of median income for rental housing and up to 80 percent of median income for ownership housing. V AIBRARYCOMMIINDVVLA2000 \090JOOIcda cdmna 9- 20- 99.doc 16 3 points A mix of new housing opportunities within the proposed project area, including 15 -20 percent of units at prices or rents affordable to families at up to 50 percent of median income for rental housing and up to 80 percent of median income for ownership housing. 2 points A mix of new housing opportunities within the proposed project area, including up to 15 percent of units at prices or rents affordable to families at up to 50 percent of median income for rental housing and up to 80 percent of median income for ownership housing. 0 points Housing that does not include new housing opportunities within the proposed project area affordable at up to 50 percent of median income for rental housing and up to 80 percent of median income for ownership housing. 4. Employment Proximity - Jobs and Housing Connections 0 -10 points Area 1 (Minneapolis, St. Paul, first -ring suburbs and Area 2 (developing urban cities) 10 points More than 3,000 jobs within one mile of the proposed project, including jobs in the proposed project. 8 points 1,000 - 3,000 jobs within one mile of the proposed project, including jobs in the proposed project. 5 points 500 - 1,000 jobs within one mile of the proposed project, including jobs in the proposed project. 0 points less than 500 jobs within one mile of the proposed project, including jobs in the proposed project. V:IjBRARYCOMM1NDVtCA 000w3o30oIw,aan;,840.99as 17 Category C - Compact, Mixed Residential Development, Redevelopment or Tnf ill 30 possible points. A minimum of 15 points is required for further funding consideration. 1. Housing Densities 0 -10 points Area 1 (Minneapolis, St. Paul, first -ring suburbs), and Area 3 (rural growth centers): 10 points Proposals for development, redevelopment or infill that include densities of more than 20 units per acre. 8 points Proposals for development, redevelopment or infill that include densities of 10 -20 units per acre. 5 points Proposals for development, redevelopment or infill that include densities of 5 -9 units per acre. 0 points Proposals for development, redevelopment or infill that include densities of Tess than 5 units per acre. Area 2 (Developing Urban Cities) 10 points Proposals for development, redevelopment or infill that include densities of more than 16 units per acre. 8 points Proposals for development, redevelopment or infill that include densities of 7 -15 units per acre. 5 points Proposals for development, redevelopment or infill that include densities of 3 -6 units per acre. 0 points Proposals for development, redevelopment or infill that include densities of Tess than 3 units per acre. Y: LLIBRAMCOMMUNDW .fA2000\0303001cda milcria 8.20 -99.doc 18 - 2. Housing Mix and Economic Integration 10 ossible points P P Area 1 (Minneapolis, St. Paul, first -ring suburbs), Area 2 (beveloping urban cities), and Area 3 (rural growth centers): 5 points Housing proposals that include three or more different housing types or tenure combinations - attached, detached, different physical configurations of attached or detached, ownership, rental. 3 points Housing proposals that include two different housing types, or a combination of ownership and rental housing types. 0 points Proposals that include one housing type. Area 1 (Minneapolis, .St. Paul, first -ring suburbs) and Area 2 (developing urban cities) In this category, priority will be given to proposals that serve the lowest income households or the greatest mix of households at up to 50 percent of median income for rental housing and up to 80 percent of median income for ownership housing. 5 points A mix of new housing opportunities within the proposed project area, including 20 percent of units at prices or rents affordable to families at up to 50 percent of median income for rental housing and up to 80 percent of median income for ownership housing. 3 points New market -rate housing that includes 15 -20 percent of units at prices or rents affordable to families at up to 50 percent of median income for rental housing and up to 80 percent of median income for ownership housing. 2 points New market -rate housing that includes up to 15 percent of units at prices or rents affordable to families at up to 50 percent of median income for rental housing and up to 80 percent of median income for ownership housing. 0 points New market -rate housing that does not include units affordable at prices or rents affordable to families at up to 50 percent of median income for rental housing and up to 80 percent of median income for • ownership housing. V. LL. O]RARYCOMMONDV&CA20000303001cda arilcria 8-2049 dot 19 3. Employment Proximity - Jobs and Housing Connections 10 possible points Area 1 (Minneapolis, St. Paul and first -ring suburbs and Area 2 (developing urban cities) 10 points More than 3,000 jobs within one mile of the proposed project 8 points 1,000 - 3,000 jobs within one mile of the proposed project 5 points 500 - 1,000 jobs within one mile of the proposed project 0 points Less than 500 jobs within one mile of the proposed project CATEGORY D: Cluster Housing in the Urban Reserve 15 points. Proposals that meet this criterion are eligible for funding consideration. 15 points Proposals to group housing on smaller lots as an alternative to densities of one unit per 40 acres. Housing types in these clusters can include single - family and accessory apartments. Local plans and ordinances will need to require that the temporary clusters be connected to central sewer and other city services when they become available, and that the clusters be designed and laid out in accordance with local subdivision ordinances, including dedication of future utility and infrastructure easements. V: LLIBRARY ICOMMUNDVLLCA2000\0303001cda cncia 8- 2049.doc 20 SELECTION CRITERIA FOR PROPOSALS IN CATEGORIES A B C & D 100 possible points Funded projects must score a minimum of 70 points (in Phase 2 evaluation) on the selection criteria to be funded and to be eligible for supplemental funding to support transit use. A. Extent to Which the Proposal Represents a Model of Integrated Land Use 0 -50 points 0 -20 points Development pattern: Mixed -Use Development, Categories A and 9: The degree to which a proposal provides a connected development pattern with a mix of uses that creates a multipurpose destination (for living, working, daily needs, recreation), and provides short, direct routes that enable people to walk easily and safely to transit, if available, and other destinations. Mixed Residential development, Category C. The degree to which housing is physically and economically integrated, rather than separated into discrete areas of different housing types and costs; and provides for pedestrian access and circulation, and common spaces. Cluster Housing, Category 0: The degree to which housing is physically integrated and provides for pedestrian access and circulation, and access for residents to open space. 0 -20 points Integration with adjacent areas, mass and scale: Mixed -Use Development, Categories A and B: The degree to which the development is physically integrated with and compatible with adjacent land uses, and the degree to which it will, when added to the existing area, have sufficient population, jobs and activities to result in a walkable environment that is accessible by transit, if available. V.LLIRRARv COMMVNDVLLCA2000 \0303001cda aitaia 8- 20- 99.doc 21 Residential Development, Category C. The degree to which the development is physically integrated with and compatible with adjacent land uses. Cluster Housing, Category D: The degree to which the development is physically integrated with adjacent rural uses. 0 -10 points Design quality: Overall quality and appropriateness of building and project design, including compatibility of architectural style and building scale with the neighborhood, incorporation of historic preservation, incorporation of features with reference to historic significance or community identity, location of public spaces to create a sense of place, convenience of pedestrian features. B. Regulatory Reform, Implementation Solutions and Strategies 0 -15 points 12 - 15 points Two or more regulatory, policy and implementation change or tools in place -for example, zoning amendments or overlays; parking standards; street or block standards; site planning and development guidelines; developer agreement; overlay /ghost platting- -and degree to which the regulatory, policy or implementation component(s) are likely to contribute to success of the project. 8 - 11 points One regulatory, policy or implementation change or tool in place (from list above or other) and degree to which the regulatory, policy or implementation component(s) are likely to contribute to success of the project. 4 - 7 points One or more regulatory or policy solution(s) proposed to be implemented —for example, addressing zoning barriers, or other tools listed above, and degree to which the proposed tool(s) are likely to contribute to success of the project. 0 points No regulatory implementation solutions or tools in place or proposed. (Maximum 15 points if a proposal has components both in place and proposed). v: v. teanarcommu mvana000wsawmkaa criteria e- mas.doe 22 C. Other Innovation 0 -5 points Innovation not addressed elsewhere in these criteria. D. Replication 0 -10 points • Extent to which the proposal has key characteristics or components that can provide a model for replication in the same community or other communities in the region; and /or • Extent to which the proposal is located in a physical setting found commonly in the region and /or addresses circumstances found commonly in the region to enable wide replication (such as a location on a transit route with potential for compact, mixed -use development, or a location with a type of housing stock that is widely represented in the region). E. Partnerships, Community Participation 0 -10 points 0 -5 points The extent to which a proposal has involved /will involve a broad public - private partnership for project implementation. 0 -5 points The extent to which a proposal has involved a planning process that can ensure successful implementation of the project F. Leverage 0 -10 points 0 -7 points The extent to which the proposal will leverage private sources of funds. 0 -3 points The extent to which the proposal will leverage other public sources of funds. V. U. IBRARYCOMMVNDVtCA2000 \0303001cda atria B- 20.99.doc 23 SUPPLEMENTAL TRANSIT FUNDING EVALUATION Proposals in the transit- oriented, mixed -use category (Category A) that have received a score of 70 or higher on the selection criteria in Phase 2 will be evaluated against the following criteria for consideration of an award from the $1.5 million supplemental transit fund: • Estimated reduction in total number of daily single- occupant vehicle trips; • Estimated reduction in total number of vehicle miles traveled; • Description /estimate of how transit system operating efficiency will be improved; • Estimated reduction in transit system operating costs; • Improved transit security and safety; • Projected increase in public transit ridership; • Number of transit - dependent persons likely to be able to use transit in this location, such as persons in households without a car, persons below 200 percent of poverty level, persons age 65 and older or between ages 12 and 18, persons with mobility limitations. • Other transit funds leveraged. V: LIBRARY \COMMUNDVLLCA2000`03030Ulcde erileria 8- 20.99.doc 24 SELECTION CRITERIA FOR PROPOSALS IN CATEGORY E 100 possible points Funded projects must score a minimum of 70 points on the criteria (in Phase 2 evaluation) to be funded. 1. Potential to Result in A Demonstration Model 0 -50 points 0 -14 points Extent to which the proposal has potential, when added to the existing area, for total numbers of population, jobs and activities sufficient to result in a walkable environment accessible by transit and /or appropriate to the criteria for compact- non - transit- oriented development; or the potential to result in mixed residential development. 0 -12 points Extent to which the site and situation has potential to address program goals effectively and creatively. 0 -12 points Extent to which the proposal demonstrates intent to address program goals and an understanding of livable communities principles. 0 -12 points Extent to which the proposal has political and /or community support 2. Regulatory and Implementation Solutions and Strategies 0 -15 points • Regulatory or policy solution(s) proposed to be addressed - -for example, changing land use regulations, developing design standards or parking standards -- and degree to which the solutions(s) are likely to contribute to the success of the project. 3. Replication 0 -15 points • Extent to which the proposal has potential to include key characteristics or components that can provide a model for replication in the same community or other communities in the region; and /or V.LL IBRARV \CDMMDNDW.CA2000 \0303001cda ai,ena 8- 20- 99.doc 25 • Extent to which the proposal is located in a physical setting found commonly in the region and /or plans to address circumstances found commonly in the region that will enable wide replication (such as a location on a transit route with potential for mixed -use development, or a location with a type of housing stock that is widely represented in the region). • Extent to which the planning and design process is likely to provide a model that can be expected to have wide application in the region. 4. Partnerships, Community Participation 0 -20 points 0 -10 points The extent to which a proposal has involved the participation and commitment of an appropriate broad community partnership of public and private interests in a planning process that is likely to contribute to o successful outcome, and plans for continuing involvement. 0 - 10 points The extent to which a proposal plans to involve the participation and commitment of an appropriate broad community partnership of public and private interests in a planning process that can help ensure a successful outcome. V'. LLIBRARY ICOMMUNDVLLCA3000\030300Icda criteria 8.20- 99.doc 26 Attachment LAND USE AND DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR LIVABLE COMMUNITIES Livable communities are oriented toward a transit- and pedestrian - friendly environment in neighborhoods with a mix of uses essential to daily life of the residents including housing, workplaces, shops, parks and civic uses. In accomplishing these things, livable communities foster a sense of place and community, where interaction and participation in the community can occur. Livable communities provide a variety of housing types and costs to accommodate peoples' life -cycle changes and to suit their changing circumstances. They incorporate higher - density housing that pays attention to building form and scale. In a livable community, land uses are compact and connected, encouraging walking and transit use. Such areas accommodate both the car and the pedestrian; for example recognizing that people will drive to a destination, but once they are there, they can walk or take transit. + ++ The following three land use design principles will be used in the evaluation of development proposals under Selection Criteria A: "Extent to Which the Proposal Represents a Model of Integrated Land Use" (p. 19). Principle 1: Make Development Compact • Connect rather than separate uses, to allow for functional relationships between them. • Build mid- to high - density, with attention to the design and relationships of structures to each other. • Provide inf ill or retrofit land uses that result in more compact development. Projects should attempt to achieve overall housing densities of at least 7 units per acre to support transit use V. LLIRRARIACOMMUNDVLLCA2000 \030300Icda criuria 8- 2O- 99.doc 27 Principle 2: Mix Uses • Include shopping, workplaces, schools, civic facilities, parks and other public spaces, and a variety of housing types and costs. • Connect uses to transit, providing people with a way to get around other than driving alone. Projects should attempt to achieve a mix of different types of development clustered within mile walk or within 40 to 160 acre neighborhoods' housing and neighborhood- scale businesses that are oriented to transit and the pedestrian; four or more types of neighborhood-scale uses plus housing. Principle 3: Design for People • Locate shops and other uses within walking distance of each other, and within walking distance of transit. • Design streets for pedestrians, not just cars. Orient businesses and other structures to the street for pedestrian accessibility, and provide convenient parking. This creates safe, pleasant walking environments. • Provide places for people to gather - -parks and other public open spaces, a central place or neighborhood center that provides a focus for activities. • Use design to make places safer, create amenities and improve livability. Pedestrian infrastructure connecting all land uses, with short, direct walking routes that are well lit. In parking lots, consider pedestrian crossings Projects should consider including roadway infrastructure that emphasizes walking, transit and bicycle travel while accommodating cars. Desirable features include blocks scaled to pedestrian travel; streets that are easy to cross on foot, or, if streets are wide, pedestrian crossings are accommodated through safe, direct pedestrian routes to the transit stop and to major destinations, with center is /ands Projects shou /d attempt to achieve site and building design where building setbacks are short, favoring pedestrian use; and where shared parking is located beside or behind buildings V:\L IRRARYICOMMUNDVWCA20o0 09030O1cda cnlcna 8- 20- 99.doc 28 Projects should consider including several of the fo /lowing elements: Public gathering places, parks and open space, pedestrian -scale lighting, canopies with outdoor retail or cafes, transit benches or waiting areas, natural and historic features incorporated into the development. Guidelines for Planning Processes • Use an open process involving residents, property owners, developers, businesspersons, and others with an interest in the future of the subject area. • Employ visual models of planning proposals and alternatives. • Address design issues, and use design professionals in the process. • Develop specific zoning and planning tools, and mechanisms to ensure plan implementation. Examples That Apply the Land Use and Design Principles: • Intensification of land uses in nodes along transit corridors, combining workplaces, residences, retail and entertainment options: allowing people to live, work and shop in an area without a car, and enabling transit riders to conduct daily business at the beginning or end of their trip. • Application of design concepts (e.g. orientation of buildings to the street and to each other, attention to building form, placement of garages, etc.) that results in developments that use land more efficiently and make walking among uses easy. • Commercial /retail uses on lower levels of buildings with offices or apartments above. • Ways to successfully emphasize pedestrian circulation while also accommodating the car such as shared parking arrangements; structured parking; direct, convenient pedestrian walkways. • Redevelopment or inf ill projects that are linked to their surroundings through similar or compatible scale, architectural features, or other means. • A mix (rather than in separated areas) of single - family and, townhouses and other attached and multifamily housing, affordable to a wide range of families and individuals. • Developments that successfully incorporate or re- introduce public spaces (parks, public squares, plazas) and pedestrian access and circulation. V \ LIBRARY \COMMUNDVLLCA2000 O803OOIcda aimna 8- 20- 99.doc 29 Livable Communities Demonstration Account FUNDING CATEGORIES - 2000 The Metropolitan Council encourages development patterns that are appropriate in different locations in the region, consistent with regional growth strategy objectives, as reflected in the following categories: Category A: Compact transit- oriented development, redevelopment or infill that has a mix of uses, including housing: ❑ Compact, mixed -use transit- oriented development, redevelopment or infill proposals located within a mile of regular route transit stops, or within an area that will be served by regular route transit service within two to three years. (Regular route service operates on fixed routes and a predetermined schedule. Includes Metro Transit or opt -out service). Locations: Area 1: Minneapolis, St. Paul and first -ring suburbs, Area 2: Developing Urban Communities (See attached map). Category B: Compact development, redevelopment or infill that has a mix of uses, including housing: ❑ Compact, mixed -use development, redevelopment or infill development that is not served by regular route transit service, and will not be served by regular route transit service within two to three years. Locations: Area 1: Minneapolis, 5t. Paul and first -ring suburbs, Area 2: Developing Urban Communities, Area 3: Rural Growth Centers. (See map) Category C: Compact mixed residential development, redevelopment or infill: ❑ Residential development that includes a mix of housing types at different sales and /or rent levels. Locations: Area 1: Minneapolis, 5t. Paul and first -ring suburbs, Area 2: Developing Urban Communities, Area 3: Rural Growth Centers. (See map) Category 13: Cluster Housing in the Urban Reserve: ❑ Cluster housing as interim uses until full urbanization occurs around them. Category E: Planning and Predevelopment Proposals ❑ Proposals for conducting planning and other predevelopment activities to shape projects in any of the above categories. V: LLIBRARNCOMMUNDVLLCA20001030300Calegowes- 20o0ICAe alteria.dx Livable Communities Demonstration Account 2000 FUNDING GOALS AND CATEGORIES (Appropriate Locations indicated by "X ") Development Developed Developing Rural Town Urban Reserve Patterns Cities Cities Center (refer to Regional (Area 1 on map) Area 2 on map) (Area 3 on map) Growth Strategy map) Category A: Compact X X Mixed -Use Transit- Oriented Category B: Compact, X X X Mixed -Use Category C: Compact, Mixed Residential X X X Category D: Cluster Housing X Category E: Planning & Predevelopment X X X X V:\ LIBRARYICOMMUNDVU.CDA 2000\2000 funding lalegary table.doc • 1 Livable Communities Demonstration Account rl Category 1 Communities Eu�kl Bw i, [M Cmnc aftry .04 Category 2 Communities AN u KA Category 3 Communities ' `_ n- 4 II-1. c aeu l-4 T.y acv SUnli. ivy iii:1 r.. NC r r .. . tit ', ..„ ,.. a I NGTON ' - i ,t 1 Pir,31 o ‘6,.. p i �a.r� ^ ^' `l`'' V Pv I , V a ' UUUwww��� I. Er ,�, RAMSEY ppyy N i ( r t - i ' t I }T • j .,y t -nkn ny x.s r -v y. T y = k f T -Ili cl. x ". CARVER y , � � l s tiS. IMm 5 e �' ' 1 � ; stns &si ` 'Pie. - .,xa �T mAba Ia""lk '-a ' k� � + � .t s s . . " m v . r x • R T « >w� -al T. �nx�... r.y v^s+ r.mn r -v ...... r, \I^M laa fvy vmnll■.y WnAn n v . ' +` SC n TT , , KOTA 'ale 1 R t`y Ikkx TVy 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Miles I 11111 _ _ % Metro 2040 Regional Growth Strategy 0 :04111. 0 " 111.111.. . , c10.7%fir..-4 wieftect IHODP policy Areas Urban Core ,tsozym., ta.t.-:Z.S.'1:4- 11111 ::-/- ."-•(-• ' -tirt.,.;"----raz="- ntialx.t. 111116aWNS. S Urban Area e.. ar >r,,b.4t...- 1, ..7r.:' 1 , - ,f, c'J.„1"ala EMI Illustrative 2020 MUSA* '?-cs..7-'1.?7-7,-, w:',7 Urban Reserve - "s Centers Rural Grow .;itlipB.4-,,t-,..4P14'.'V'C'Ci 0 . ti th kur ''', "CriPle:::-'1;:lt-11,44-,:47-2473ft :7, 4.z..._. 7''' 4-at.*-S'fr- IN p ent Agricuittral Are'a KIIT:Y,..1111r14-1.41H4:1•1 41"14.: 'Yell iLtetN%ratOt:r4 114-SC1 t ' lA li % W 5- ‘ tri f', SV:i.."01..tivrii k if4i - r zi .:44;11-_,Z1414, J 7 ? L a fei ..*ef Permanent Rural Area -• a‘ 1.*VAltt -1:N k .1t.'9ksWilt t: 1 'ca.'s." I's r dliv 'qedirmre:It 2000 MUSA Bow20827 (as af 1995) Ntaa,-....,:a.,..%41.ft,s- ' tetfir'igkr?Vr‘f" a CeltAwnsmati-i3sEir-eb',.-4A . ChoigE, c U2040 rban Reserve Bolutdazy ,.iiljeli.t. - is.4444(AW ' ' e j N County BoundasY :?g7 ... ..4 ' • '•-• v t'ir i. "/ Municipal Boundary Ai - hhato tritft, 4%% . J-: ii C iCA4-4 4\ L as\CI 4 AS41.44 07:: in n". a ne.A... ■ t :id:sm.._ 1; r. .lititra ..4 - -0 - , — - • , S\ 1/4.A ii::::7,'s;',. paw- i,.--,tii7314-40NrAWa*MI • ,.C•ce.tit* I` / Major IlighwaYs r ' ' -- ",:4 1 ---- A . Ls id.::"--- t 'i 4k cti bit : r `cktigg-frve:vttio N -%kr:11 157 . Y:C."4 - k l ‘q : .1 tifWVAI./ - --sigi ,. -- Et im i-tivo — -a-rpavyi iki-PN gut • The officia12020 MUSA tior e ttirtark fit id.. i aity ,:e A,4ftik.Titt. ILA lf re's; Will he determined by local L L it h rid tc. f. 1 /71 arieFf:*:" fra deft ,TIV.I,Lts.%.- /ns.vgrez,01.4.tredr...2.st, Airc.„, govaramosms end the Cowed ;pi, IIVIV1/4_ \ Vit .e 'M 1;7 .. „..,,,_,1,, -%_Aelinitr ea penal the 19 ht IN ' tre".4:arloternj, T :.: 11,47: A 1744-ip, t cozonherdn'Planm '14 74raitir tcrtil.fi.-i t. l• - ' ;7 4mir2,11:1, 1 g.. Ai -1)*.,:-.4-,Av proc.... ,Irvraav,av: .,,,.ft„,........„,„,„ ;,„ Css....., ' ngd4.44-i. v.;.: • V.E---scin‘ t 5 ,r-ii,t74,44:1:;!::: ,;.' 71'irrit O_ :;•11,ta ePtt9g • A/447nrs-'1..1f;lefaa p, n . Vrig ,,,.4 -%. 1 - .-q-an. xrpa v.r.v.1.,1%;;•av,,ric i.e.:.1 i tsgitAtii,'''sktioLaNik-, firp szk. -Naas. 'N'''" c---r-k ", r ' at ;, -.31.'9 %to-, ' V s ir , -,‘„,.1/4;;CI, 4111 , • I' NVINIKSZOLN , L, ' NI "zff r ?a-0,44:i. t:je-n,',Ild,, .51%;$-'aCiil.V%V.0.-4c\S"'S% . , ...• -t ' ‘. " - ‘ce 4 ' ' l ' rffri)r • •■■ . le4 t ,i4b)b .e itint `,\IA - - fr k tr . - `,1 * - '' ' .,,N\ t' i i ■Ar451.4.7411 '` -'' I. -ItYA`.\‘ka‘'. ; ' t.1 ,) SS.. 4. *-‘Za ' Vi'',. ,41. .1-1.0•11,9e:41 , • ?I lat. , ,,‘", c j , 1 1. Irn ‘..-4 4' - : /V a,AWa•E.,s. 4 ei R Zt`.:'*!74:;;&21:.f2:aclit' W- gig F:S ' 1444.1iH- . ;•Thsn ''' . ' ,- ', el 1,-Frftels:i.;:e2t,Ns,‘„, 4 w' 4 - litillit •Zke.__ air. ' 1=, :r. -44,4'47)::":151:::ThVnilli — 4- ' ..:;" i 1 %,,,- •• • ;,--,••5" ; ti 41$-;"' ,, i . 7 1 171 el 1.100111 +1^.4... ■ #/fi'' 4 •••}3 1 4 ki -c, 'NILS c '4 te .LL•.-elsiQ - -4.: -1 t: ')r-kti7,2:-,,,,r--t., k. 6 „ t ....1 e 4 M V' ‘,. •:. .: ...1.7r li Ir. t ' ..,,,■ AV:). i: ti.::`,' '':... , ..q c j 1.: 1 I ':. c a, :.. ,, , L.- ;;; •1 ,r 1s ,.: 4 , d " „ ,,"'' ., i • L' .- ZS' - ..: •":- ,i,_, '',- pyyS"„tli tit, 4.... ri 1 1",144.tkr4tIker1. ° S - DM g4 ..:‘,.. _ •—•-•'-' 77: -43 + • 15 Wee It Metropolitan Council 6 10 o a Geo hic Information Systems I 1 December 19, 1996 MEMO • DATE : May 18, 2000 TO : Honorable Mayor and Council FROM : Jim March RE : Cable Operator and Receptionist Job Announcements Included in your packet is a copy of the resignation that was submitted by Michele Wroblewski in regards to the cable operator position. An ad has been placed in regards to the vacancy for this position. Michele's last meeting will be on May 24, 2000. Also included in your packet is a copy of the job announcement for a proposed full -time entry-level receptionist position. These two ads were placed as soon as possible to aid the City in finding individuals to fill the void in the organization. I am expecting Council to pass a motion to authorize the continuance of the selection process for filling these vacancies. May 10, 2000 MAY 1 6 2000 City of Centerville Jim March, Mayor and Council 1880 Main Street Centerville, MN 55038 RE: CABLE OPERATOR RESIGNATION Dear Mr. March, Honorable Mayor and Council: Although I have enjoyed the cable operator position within the City of Centerville, I am submitting my resignation with a two -week notice. I have accepted additional hours with my primary employer, which would conflict with with my position with the City of Centerville. My last council meeting will be May 24, 2000. Thank ou, - _ r " i 7i 2�.richLe6461 Michele Wroblewski Cable Operator The City of Centerville is accepting applications for a cable operator. This position requires attendance at every Council meeting. The meetings are held twice a month and are on the second and fourth Wednesdays of each month. The meetings usually last between 2 -3 hours. Compensation is $30 /meeting. If the meeting lasts beyond three hours, then an additional $10/hour is provided. Letters of interest will be accepted for this position. Training will be provided. Deadline for receiving letters of interest is June 9, 2000 at 4:00 PM. Receptionist The City of Centerville is currently accepting applications for a full -time receptionist. Starting wage is $9.94/hour with full benefits. Minimum qualifications include a high school diploma or equivalent. Office experience is desirable. Responsibilities include answering phone calls, filing, and some typing. The desirable candidate will be a friendly, enthusiastic individual that will serve the City as the first point of contact with our residents. Completed City application required. Deadline for receiving applications is June 9, 2000 at 4:00 PM. Call City Hall for an application. Resumes, e-mail or faxed applications will not be accepted. MEMO DATE : May 19, 2000 TO : Honorable Mayor and Council FROM : Jim March RE : Ordinance #4 The Planning and Zoning Commission is meeting on Monday, May 22 to further discuss revisions of Ordinance #4. It is expected that the Committee will have a revised version of Ordinance #4 to present to Council. MEMO DATE : May 19, 2000 TO : Honorable Mayor and Council FROM : Jim March RE : City Administrator Evaluation I completed four years of service with the City of Centerville on May 20, 2000. It has been a great four years and I have enjoyed my job immensely. Mayor Wilharber asked me to provide the normal list of accomplishments from the last year and to place this item on the agenda. I do not feel that I can take credit for any accomplishment of the organization. It takes everyone working together as a team to make continual progress toward our goals. I have included the list of goals and objectives that were created during the beginning of 1999. I believe that we have accomplished more significant projects and community goals in this last year than in any other previous year. I give credit to a committed staff and dedicated Council for the accomplishments of the last year. I have also seen how much more productive a Council can be when the Council exists to work towards the betterment of the community and stays away from the in- fighting and politics that can often exist. Some of the notable events from the last year are as follows: • Water Interconnect is built and operational • A purchase agreement was accepted for a new public works facility • Center -Villa approved • Trail paved and connected to the Rice Creek Chain of Lakes Regional Park • Tri-City Police Department has been formed • Preliminary approval for Hunter's Crossing • $45,000 grant received for new equipment at Acorn Creek Park • Royal Oaks Industrial Park subdivision approved • Deer Pass approved • Apple Tree Center opened with the following new businesses : Jumpin' Java, Why USA, Centerville Dental, Laurie's Dance Studio, Hair Update and Tanning and Apple Academy • Sager's Liquor and Wise Guys Pizza opened • New signs were made for three parks • New public works employee was hired • Computers were networked • County Bank purchased land in the City for future building • Goetz Landscape built a new building • LaMotte Store purchased for rehabilitation • R +K Cafe and Insurance Agency opened downtown • Cooperative Trail Linkage Grant awarded in the amount of $7900 • Buechler Estates developed • Fete des Lacs revitalized, raised over $10,000 in private donations so far • Ballfields and soccer fields ready at LaMotte Park • Survived Y2K • Created first Community Skating Night • Created first Community Wide Bon -fire • Ordinance #4 nearly complete MEMO DATE : January 22, 1999 TO : Honorable Mayor and Council FROM : Jim March RE : Goals and Objectives Compilation *********************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** City Water/Interconnect = 44 Economic Development = 33 Public Works Facility = 29 Park Development = 22 Police Stability = 21 City and Resident Communication = 20 Council, Staff, Committee Communication = 19 Grant Submittals = 17 Computer Networking = 13 Youth = 10 New Water = 9 2 I st Avenue = 8 Ordinance Review = 8 Downtown Revitalization/Design Team = 7 Y2K = 5 Contracts = 3 Environment = 3 Cedar Street Park = 3 * Note - On Theresa Brenner's goals list, communication had two components, so I split the points equally between the two communication categories (City- Resident, C ity- Staff - Committees). ** Cedar Street Park and Park Development (maybe could be combined?) * ** Design Team Vision, Downtown Revitalization were grouped together May 5, 2000 To: Mayor Wilharber and Council Members From: Paul Palzer, Public Works Director /Building Official e Re: Tedd Peterson Probationary Review am pleased to report to the Council that Tedd Peterson has demonstrated outstanding performance in his position during his six month training period. Tedd has always been willing to put forth extra effort in his position with the city and also with his volunteer efforts for the city. Tedd has fit well into the organization and will surely represent the city positively in the future. I would recommend to the Council that Tedd be appointed to a permanent regular employee status as of May 10, 2000. Bonestroo. Rosene. Anderlik and Associates. Inc, is an Affirmative Action E / qual Opportunity B onestroo Employer and Employee Owned Rosene Principals: Otto G. Bonestroo. PE • Marvin L Scrvala, PE • Glenn R. Cook. PE • .. - Robert G. Schunrcht. PE. • Jerry A. Bourdon. PE A nderlik & Senior Consultants: Robert W Rosene. PE. • Joseph C. Anderlik. PE. • Richard E. Turner, P.E. • Susan M. Eberly), C A ssociates Associate Principals: Howard A Sanford. PE • Keith A Gordon, PE • Robert R. Preterit P.E. • Richard W. Foster. PE. • David 0 Loskota. PE. • Robert C Ruscek, A. LA • Mark A. Hanson, PE. • Engineers & Architects Michael T Raulminn, PE. • Ted K.ne!o. P.E • Kenneth P Anderson. PE • Mark R. Rees. PE. • David A. Bonestroo. M A • Sidney P 'J/dliamson. PE., L . • Agnes M. Ring MBA. • Auan Rick Scnm!dt. PE Offices: St Paul. St Cloud. Rocnesre• and Wi:imar. MN • Milwaukee. WI Website: www bonectrco. coy) May 18, 2000 Prepared By Dan Schluender BRA Reviewed By Tom Petersen BRA RE: Project Update 2000 Centerville Minnesota File No. 616 -GEN PROJECTS (From HRG) STATUS 1. Lakeland Hills Developer to replace 20 broken sidewalk panels. After recommend finalizing project. • • 2. Eagle Pass Replace broken sidewalk and fill in tree holes. After recommend finalizing project. 3. Woods of Clearwater Developer needs to pave trail and place rip rap on cmp culvert. After recommend finalizing project. 4. 20' Avenue Contractor will not sign final pay request, They believe they have more monies due them for the retainers on the water main. Talked with HR Green they said that the retainers were part of the specification. That is why they did not pay for it. CURRENT PROJECTS BRA 5. Buechler Estates Utility construction was completed last fall. Street work to be completed this summer on Mound Trail. 6. Water Interconnect Minor adjustments need to be made. Will process final pay request by the end of June. 7. Deer Pass Contractor has several punch list items to complete. Anticipate paving wear course this summer. Will finalize project at that time. 8. Gateway Circle Minor punch list items remain. Anticipate paving wear course this summer. Will process final pay request at that time. 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul, MN 55113 • 657 -636 -4600 • Fax: 651-636-1311 9. Fairview Street Utilities are 98% complete. Street construction is on hold pending the condemnation of the Carpenters property. 10. Center Villa Utility construction is complete. Street work on phase two is anticipated to start the week of May 22, or when the site is dry. FUTURE PROJECTS 11. Hunters Crossing Developing plans /specs. Approve June 14. Open bids July 11. Award July 12. Start utility construction August 1. 12. 21' Avenue 13. Phase 1 Redevelopment 14. Heritage & Lamotte Proposal submitted. 15. Pavement Management 16. County Bank 17. Trail & Utility Maps 18. Other